“Brilliant Gathering at Bayreuth”: Early Wagnerism as told by Toronto’s Globe (1857-1876)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June of 1887, Torontonian were treated to the local premiere of Flying Dutchman, the first opera by Richard Wagner to be performed in full in the city. Yet while locals had had to wait decades for such an occasion, newspapers had started reporting on the composer as early as 1854. In this paper, I consider Wagner’s reception in Toronto from 1874 to 1876 by surveying mentions of Wagner in the newspaper the Globe, focusing on the years 1875 and 1876. In particular, I ask how the materiality of technology effects its transmission in the era prior to sound recording. Drawing from the work of Michel Serres, I propose the concept of the parasite as a way of unpacking how the material realities of opera unfold. Parasite refers to a third element—“a mediate, a middle, an intermediary”(Serres 2007, 63)—between sender and receiver which sets the stage for communication to take place. Importantly, the parasite is not a neutral entity: it is transformative by default. I relate the concept of the parasite to that of the paratext, materials which surround but are not officially part of a text. Precisely because of the difficulty of accessing live opera on demand, paratext hold the potential to transform how we understand Wagner. I explore the role of newspapers in Wagner reception but also widens to theorize how other pre-recording technologies such as sheet music and the telegraph facilitated Wagner’s migration over the Atlantic. Through these media, we can not only glimpse the prehistory of Wagner in the city but also how his music has been continually fragmented and reworked. I argue that when access to live opera is limited such paratexts are charged with the potential to not only supplement but to transform and overtake the original.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".