Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the production of recorded popular music is often as important as its materials, studio arrangement and timbral processing are essential components in popular music analysis. A semiotic approach to popular music can therefore reveal aspects of its structure that may be overlooked by more traditional methodologies. Recent studies of popular music have implicitly drawn on semiotic concepts to varying degrees. On the other hand, the more explicitly semiotic work of scholars such as Agawu, Hatten, Nattiez, and Tarasti has concentrated on art-music repertoire. My semiotic interpretation of “Superstar,” considering versions by the Carpenters and Sonic Youth, draws upon Peirce’s conception of semiosis. The arrangements are analyzed using Nattiez’s tripartite conception of the musical work and Tagg’s taxonomy of musical gestures; mixing is also discussed, drawing upon the anthropomorphic and psychological implications of actoriality, after Tarasti. By comparing the two recordings, it will be shown that the listener’s interpretation of a song can be profoundly affected by timbre, sound processing, and mixing techniques. Author’s Note : Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the American Musicological Society, South Central chapter, Louisville, Kentucky, April 5, 2002; at the Experience Music Project “Crafting Sounds, Creating Meaning” conference, Seattle, Washington, April 13, 2002; and at the Music and Media workshop of the International Semiotics Institute annual symposium, Imatra, Finland, June 10, 2002. I would like to thank those who offered helpful suggestions at each of these conferences. I also wish to convey my deepest gratitude to Richard Littlefield (Central Michigan University), Candace Brower (Northwestern University), Daniel Levitin (McGill University), and the anonymous reviewers for Music Theory Online , all of whom helped immeasurably in shaping the final version.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".