Art, Heart, and Soul Music: Spiritual Values and Implications of Relational Composition within Community Music
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper re-examines research on composers within community music who embody relational composition in which they reflect philosophical and values’ shifts, resulting in composition purposes that balance or prioritize well-being with musical products. The spiritual values that undergird the practices of certain community composers are examined through the lens of Sheldrake’s definition of spirituality as a vision for the full potential of the human spirit to live out deep and meaningful values. While not ruling out the potential for personal transcendental experience, the framework of engagement rather than escape centres a type of spirituality that is community-focused and reflects the ways in which relational composers use engagement for beneficial purposes as they seek to overcome music’s disconnections from its social contexts and extra-musical functions. This approach to composition could be viewed as a rediscovery and return to lost roles of composers in society, and it suggests that community music leaders realize the spiritual aspects of their roles in order to address healing, reconciliation, and local or global concerns and to facilitate the development of related repertoire and music-making.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".