Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite her great popularity in her lifetime, nowadays Cecile Louise Stephanie Chaminade (1857 - 1944) is only a name in the relatively short list of successful women composers. While there is a trend in current musicology to focus on women composers and musicians, the existing literature on Chaminade is limited to a couple of biographies, and a few book chapters, the most significant resource to date being Marcia J. Citron's “Cecile Chaminade: A Bio-Bibliography”. In light of the scarcity of writings on Chaminade, this thesis will discuss her life and selected compositions with the purpose of uncovering the composer's most salient musical characteristics. Chapter one will begin with a biographical sketch and brief discussion of the cultural context of Chaminade's time. In chapter two, I provide analyses of three of Chaminade's songs (“Chanson slave”, “Rosemonde”, and “Tu me dirais”), as well as discussions of three songs by her contemporaries (Jules Massenet, Augusta Holmes, and Vincent d’Indy) in order to compare subject matter and musical techniques. To round off the chapter, I conclude with an overview of a few piano pieces by Chaminade (“Serenade, Op. 29” and “Sonata, Op. 21”, movements 2 and 3) and by her favourite composer, Camille Saint-Saëns (“Chanson Napolitaine”, from “Album pour piano, Op. 72”). Chapter three is devoted to an analysis of Chaminade's large-scale dramatic work, “Les Amazones, op. 26”, a composition that displays both operatic and symphonic characteristics. Finally, I conclude with a general summary of Chaminade's style, in light of the compositions discussed. Through this thesis, my hope is that more interest will be piqued in this most fascinating French woman composer, and by extension, in the many women composers yet to be discovered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".