Changing Strings: How the Influence of the 19th Century Middle Class Changed the Guitar and Lute.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the 16th to the 18th century the lute dominated the attention of European musicians, who cared little for the early guitar. Composers and musicians of the time held the tone and versatility of the lute in the highest esteem, while largely ignoring the guitar due to the relative simplicity of the existing repertoire. By the 19th century, however, the guitar had become extremely popular while the lute had disappeared almost entirely. The socioeconomic background of Europe played a key role in the fate of these two instruments; in particular, the growing economic power of the newly emergent middle class was decisive in determining the rise and fall of the guitar and lute, respectively. This presentation will compare and analyze the cultural and aesthetic antecedents that led to the acceptance of the guitar and the retrospective difficulties the European middle class had with the lute. Drawing connections between the evolving musical aesthetic and the social and economic climate of a particular period is an important undertaking as it serves to not only broaden the understanding of music and its’ history, but also to provide a unique insight into society at that time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".