Analytical Aspects of Howard Hanson: The First Movement of Symphony No. 2, "Romantic".
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Howard Hanson (1896-1981) is one of the most renowned neo-romantic American composers. With various musical activities including forty years as a director of the Eastman School of Music, he wrote many pieces in the neo-romantic style and made significant contributions to American music education as a prominent music teacher. He was awarded a variety of prizes and honors including the Pulitzer Prize and the first Prix de Rome ever awarded by the American Academy in Rome. His Second Symphony, “Romantic” is one of his most famous orchestral pieces and known as a representative work. The piece was composed on commission for the fiftieth anniversary of Boston Symphony Orchestra in 1930. He titled “Romantic” himself, and stated that the symphony gives a genuine expression of romanticism, and that he wanted to compose something warm and young, vigorous and youthful in his Second Symphony. The symphony made a remarkable impression on performers and audiences, and was performed widely by numerous orchestras including the NBC Symphony, the Detroit Symphony, the Toronto Symphony and various youth orchestras. This research paper is focused on the composer’s compositional ideas presented in the first movement of his Second Symphony. In particular, the analysis is emphasized on several musical elements that give identity to this work including themes, melodic intervals, harmony, formal structure, dynamics and timbre throughout the first movement of “Romantic ” Symphony. This research paper consists of four sections: 1) Biography, 2) Background of the Symphony, 3) Analysis, and 4) Summary.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".