The First All-Tonal Cycles of Preludes and Fugues in the 20th Century: To the History of Creation and Opening-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Работа посвящена первым в ХХ веке сборникам «24 прелюдии и фуги» с разительно несходной и сложной судьбой, авторами которых явились В. П. Задерацкий и Д. Д. Шостакович. Первый из названных сборников создавался в течение нескольких лет в колымском исправительно-трудовом лагере; поводом к стремительному рождению второго послужили Баховские торжества в Лейпциге летом 1950 года. О существовании первого не было известно вплоть до последней четверти ХХ века, путь же к признанию второго оказался чрезвычайно непростым. Ныне оба сборника входят в исполнительский и педагогический репертуар, активно и разносторонне исследуются в научных трудах. В настоящей статье макроциклы обсуждаются и сопоставляются с «Хорошо темперированным клавиром» И. С. Баха в двух аспектах: тональный план целого и соотношение прелюдии и фуги в малых циклах. The article deals with the first in the 20th century collections of “24 Preludes and Fugues,” the authors of which were V. P. Zaderatsky and D. D. Shostakovich. The two cycles have strikingly different and complex fates. The first of them was created over several years in the Kolyma Forced Labor Camp; the occasion for the rapid birth of the second were the Bach Festivities in Leipzig in summer 1950. The existence of the first collection was not known until the last quarter of the 20th century, while the path to the recognition of the second turned out to be extremely difficult. Now both collections are included in the performing and pedagogical repertoire, actively and variously studied in scientific works. In this paper, macrocycles are discussed and compared with J. S. Bach’s “Well-Tempered Clavier” in two aspects: the tonal plan of the whole and the ratio of prelude and fugue in small cycles.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".