MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912711910 · doi:10.1017/9781787442528.008

Between Massenet and Wagner

2018· book-chapter· en· W2912711910 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Huebner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Do not have me say poison,” pleaded Charles Koechlin in 1926 as he reflected upon the influence of Massenet on the young Debussy. Massenet: the charmer, the composer attentive to his market. Debussy: the bold revolutionary who struggled to attain aesthetic autonomy. Even though these epithets are reductive, and have even become stereotypes, they are difficult to disentangle from any consideration of the relationship of these two figures. That relationship has to negotiate the large chasm that separates them in the usual way of tracing the history of music, a narrative where Debussy assumes the role of a colossal figure who had a major impact on the destiny of Western music, whereas Massenet has a negligible part to play. Koechlin strongly implies that many musicians in the 1920s thought that Massenet had the effect of poison on the young Claude-Achille. It is worth positioning Koechlin's remark in its original context: “Debussy took a long time to shake off the influence (do not have me say poison) of Massenet. It can happen that a lot of time elapses before an artist discovers himself.” In underlining the slow artistic development of Debussy, Koechlin implicitly touches upon a major issue in debates about his stylistic evolution, debates that have affected the way that critics have positioned Massenet in relation to his younger colleague. According to Maurice Emmanuel, Debussy discovered his own voice quite quickly. In anecdotes first published in a special edition of La revue musicale devoted to Debussy's youth—anecdotes that would become widely disseminated—Emmanuel tells of how Debussy entertained his fellow students at the Conservatoire with “a plethora of chords […], a rippling of weird arpeggios, a gargling of trills with three simultaneous pitches [and] series of unanalyzable harmonic progressions.” Emmanuel took up the same theme in a monograph about Pelléas et Mélisande dating from the same period. Responding to the “cascades of chords” applauded by Debussy's classmates, Émile Durand, the harmony teacher, snapped the piano cover shut on the fingers of his student and scolded him: “you would be better served by practicing harmonic progressions.” In short, Emmanuel tells of the coexistence of two Debussys at the Conservatoire: one, Claude-Achille, who followed the compositional regime of the school, and the other, the “authentic Debussy,” whose mature stylistic and syntactical orientation was already to a certain extent in place.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusicology and Musical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207