Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this dissertation, I propose an analytical approach cover song analysis. Although song repurposing is a pervasive and an important practice in contemporary Euro-American popular music, it is the object of little scholarly literature. What scholarship there is, tends to be analyses of discreet original-cover pairs, leaving unaddressed the broader process of what it means to cover. “Cover song” has thus remained an undefined term that conceals many different interpretive subject positions. I therefore propose to analyze the practice of covering as a series of decisions, made by the cover artist, to be similar to or different from a base song. Drawing from Michel de Certeau’s theories of creativity, I describe the base song as a “strategy,” an organizing force to which the cover artist responds with “tactics,” changes they make to repurpose the song for their particular expressive intentions. Depending on their number and extent, tactics either pull the new interpretation away from the original, or emulate it. These tendencies can be conceived of as continuum, stretching toward isomorphism (likeness) on one end, or metamorphism (dissimilarity). A third category arises when a song is repurposed by setting entirely new lyrics to an earlier song’s music. This is no longer a cover but a “derivative,” a new song that does not depend on the original for its meanings. Using the above framework, I bring multiple analytical lenses from music theory, and related disciplines to bear on several case studies. I draw these from the family of songs related to Frank Sinatra’s hit “My Way,” including its French source, Claude François’s “Comme d’habitude,” Sid Vicious’s violent metamorphic cover, and Canadian lounge act, Johnny Vegas, isomorphic homage to both Sinatra and Elvis Presley to help both broaden and focus the scholarly conversation on this important musical practice. This dissertation is the first of two, the second being my symphony for chamber orchestra, “The Quietest of Whispers.” In this work, I explore my own recovery from childhood sexual abuse in the hopes that it comforts other survivors of all walks, and initiates a broader conversation about sexual abuse recovery, particularly for boys.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".