Bibliographic record
Abstract
Such Sweet Thunder, Duke Ellington's 1957 suite of twelve musical vignettes based on Shakespearean themes, is a landmark of adaptation of Shakespeare to contemporary popular styles. Written after Ellington played at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada, hard on the heels of his triumphant comeback at the Newport Jazz Festival in 1956, Such Sweet Thunder seeks to consolidate Ellington's status as a "popular classic" artist by suggesting affinities between his own art and Shakespeare's, as I have previously argued (see Lanier). It self-consciously pushes against the way Shakespeare had been used in nineteenth-century minstrel shows to ridicule the cultural aspirations of black performers and, by extension, black art. What is more, Such Sweet Thunder inaugurated a dominant concern in Ellington's late compositional career: showing points of contact between jazz and many other cultural idioms and subjects. Ellington sought to demonstrate the potential for jazz, a quintessentially African-American idiom, to be a cosmopolitan lingua franca that extends well beyond its humble and once-denigrated roots. This view of Such Sweet Thunder is decidedly not universally shared by Ellington scholars and fans. One widely-held perspective on Ellington's career remains that the high-water mark of his work was the early 1940s, when his band was filled with his most famous players, and Billy Strayhorn, Ellington's longtime collaborator, contributed some of his most memorable tunes and arrangements. Judged against this period in Ellington's output, many argue, most of his later suites seem collections of lesser quality music, long-winded, pretentious, unmemorable, or recycled exercises in Ellington's signature style. Indeed, some critics complain that the themes that unified the later suites sometimes ran no deeper than Ellington's witty song titles. Ellington's suites, then, raise two related issues that bear upon the cultural ambitions of his later career: how genuinely unified are the suites? And how profound is Ellington's engagement with the cultures his extended works purport to take up?
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".