Harmonic Reveries: The Intercultural Signifiance of Lear Dreaming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lear Dreaming (2012) is an offspring of, and sequel to, the (in)famous multi-cultural pan-Asian collage Lear (1997), in which director and creator Ong Keng Sen employed a diversity of Asian performance traditions to reimagine and reconceive Shakespeare’s tragedy. The soundscape of Lear Dreaming reverberates with the (dis)harmonies and dissonance of electronic synth sounds, gamelan music, pipa songs and Korean jeongak ; it places modernity, tradition, contemporaneity and custom in auditory confrontation. With only one actor surrounded by eight musicians, this acoustic interplay is further interjected with the oral patterns of Noh speech, the musicality of Mandarin Chinese and sonorities of Bahasa Indonesia . As a piece of postdramatic “music theatre”, I demonstrate how Lear Dreaming advances intercultural theatrical practice as a sonic performative. In its interplay of Asian performance cultures in/as sonic space, the production posits an alternative performative mode where the intercultural is the acoustic. This paper critically examines the acoustic strategy employed by Ong and analyses the soundscape of Lear Dreaming – the harmonies, harmonics, distortions and discordance – to consider issues of signification, representation, signifiance and the sublime in the performance of Asian inter-culturalisms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".