Bruits « entonnés » et sons « convenables » : Russolo et Schaeffer ou la domestication des bruits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toute culture musicale contient une part de bruit, au sens acoustique du terme, et l’exploite à un degré plus ou moins élevé. Cependant, seule la musique moderne l’a revendiquée en tant que telle. Ce n’est donc pas un hasard que les deux traités les plus célèbres sur le bruit et la musique datent du XXème siècle, le premier – L’art des bruits (1913) de Luigi Russolo – étant conçu comme un bref manifeste réclamant le droit musical au bruit, le second – le Traité des objets musicaux (1966) de Pierre Schaeffer – se posant comme une théorisation très élaborée des bruits en relation avec la musique. Le présent article tentera de montrer que, vu sous un angle particulier, le traité de Schaeffer se situe dans la continuité du manifeste de Russolo. En effet, nous soutiendrons que, loin de « libérer » le bruit, comme on a tendance parfois à le penser, ces deux écrits s’efforcent de le domestiquer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".