Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Johannes Brahms’s two clarinet sonatas exemplify his late style. Composed in 1895, after he had previously announced his retirement in 1890, they are Brahms’s final works of instrumental chamber music and his final sonata forms. This chapter examines the Clarinet Sonata in F Minor, op. 120, no. 1, taking as a point of departure the mysterious, unharmonized, tonally ambiguous melody with which it opens. The German clarinetist Rudolf Mauz has proposed that this introduction might be heard as a veiled allusion to J. S. Bach’s Matthew Passion chorale, a chorale melody that Brahms quoted in other compositions. The present study examines Mauz’s theory from several angles. First, it examines the sonata’s introduction, which resembles aspects of the Bach chorale melody and provides motives that become a preoccupation in the first movement, with ripple effects throughout the complete, four-movement sonata. Second, it examines the ways the introduction is treated in connection with fugal rhetoric through stretto technique and as part of a subject-tonal answer pair. Such fugal treatment could be understood as invoking received Baroque traditions broadly and perhaps Bach’s music specifically. Finally, these apparent allusions to Bach and to the German tonal tradition are considered in relation to Brahms’s historical position at the twilight of that tradition, suggesting that these sonatas may be understood among a number of late compositions expressing Brahms’s Todesangst.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".