Bibliographic record
Abstract
EDWARD ESTLIN CUMMINGS (1894-1962) was considered one of the preeminent twentieth century American poets. Born in Cambridge, Massachusetts to a Harvard University political science professor father, began writing poetry at the early age often.Cummings is best known for his poems and their unorthodox usage of capitalization, layout, punctuation, and syntax. When one contemplates his poetry, even the publishers' disavowal of the upper case for his name evokes syntactic associations. Frequently noted as examples of the aesthetic are gaps, line breaks, and expected punctuation marks that are omitted or misplaced, and Cummings's work is suffused with odd grammar and disconcertingly strange word ordering. His typographic style is ebullient, with words, letters, and punctuation merrily dripping and skipping along the page. This latter quality often means that his poems must be verbalized: the voicing of the text is vital, and without it, the emotional meaning of the poem cannot be understood.Perhaps it is this characteristic of E. E. Cummings's poetry, with its innate longing for the voice that draws composers to his oeuvre. This article explores the rich variety of Cummings's settings, with a special delight taken by offering samples of comparison settings of beloved poems such as i like my body, while juxtaposing a rich variety of stylistic approaches and compositional styles by an array of noted women composers, including Libby Larsen, Judith Cloud, Regina Harris Baiocchi, Christine Donkin, Lita Grier, and Jocelyn Hagen. (Composer Hilary Tann generously contributed a final set of settings dedicated to the Strempel/Beaudette duo and entitled Between Sunsets. This marvelous setting of three poems was premiered on March 29, 2012 at the Eastman School of Music Women and Music Festival, and although timing did not permit a study of this work for this article, it is an important addition to the canon.) As Norma Pollack notes, Cummings' poetry has inspired a diverse array of musical settings. At least 168 different poems have, in fact, been transformed into some 370 compositions by approximately 143 composers.1 Indeed, the works examined are welcome additions to an illustrious Cummings canon, which includes pieces by Dominick Argento, Luciano Berio, Lee Hoiby, Leonard Bernstein, Pierre Boulez, John Cage, Aaron Copland, Ned Rorem, and Peter Schickele (of PDQ Bach fame), among many others.The survey begins with Canadian composer Christine Donkin's cycle of three Cummings's poems, this is a beautiful way: three cummings poems. This cycle is newly composed, having had its premiere at the March 2010 Women in Music Festival at the Eastman School of Music. Donkin's music is distinctive for its clear text setting: only occasionally melismatic, the vocal lines are crafted embodiments of the text, alternating evocatively swinging triplets with straightforward duplets, but generally syllabic, unadorned, and clear. Her piano accompaniments tend to prove equally uncluttered, but this Spartan tendency assures her moments of pianistic flowering are unexpectedly lush and effective. Her harmonic language is distinctive, with a particular fondness for frequent alternations and juxtapositions between major and minor keys that subtly shift our understanding of the text.The centerpiece of the three-song set is entitled who are you, little i. This tender work contrasts the innocence of a youth with the passing of life into a November sunset. Typical of Cummings's poetry, the text is separated into two components: the nonparenthetical or spoken and the parenthetical comments that reveal inner, unspoken thoughts.who are you, little i(five or six years old)peering from some highwindow; at the goldof november sunset(and feeling: that if dayhas to become nightthis is a beautiful way)2How composers negotiate Cummings's nonparanthetical/parenthetical divide is an interesting compositional challenge. …
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".