MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392836000 · doi:10.30535/mto.10.2.2

Authenticity, Appropriation, Signification

2004· article· en· W4392836000 on OpenAlexaff
Lori Burns, Alyssa Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueMusic Theory Online · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusic History and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationNarrativeIntertextualityMusicalStyle (visual arts)Theme (computing)LiteratureArtLyricsStorytellingAestheticsLinguisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies alternative artist Tori Amos’s cover versions of two original performances by Billie Holiday and Eminem. The narrative perspectives and musical structures of the original songs offer great potential to explore questions of authenticity, appropriation, and intertextuality, and Amos’s distinctive revisions of the songs encourage reflection on her Signifyin(g) practices. The song “Strange Fruit” marked a shift in Billie Holiday’s musical style and social consciousness. Her recording (1939) of this emotionally powerful song about the lynching of a black man is upheld as the benchmark (“authentic”) version of that song. Over five decades later (1994), Tori Amos expresses a powerful commitment to the style and social message of Holiday’s original, yet her musical presentation is not merely historical tribute; rather, Amos Signifies on the older text to offer a contemporary statement on race and violence. Eminem’s song, “‘97 Bonnie and Clyde” (1999) exposes the problematic theme of violence against women. In her version (2001), Tori Amos appropriates Eminem’s lyrics, but casts a new perspective over the narrative by assuming the voice of the murdered woman. This paper analyzes the originals and covers using an interpretive framework that focuses on the voice as the site and vehicle of an artist’s Signifyin(g) expression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMusic Theory OnlineSame topicMusic History and CultureFrench-language works237,207