"Copies without Originals": Manipulation, Mediation, and Mediatization in Performance and Recording Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines case studies and historical accounts taken from different periods of the history of recording technology, and addresses questions concerning the impact of mediatization, manipulation, and mediation on listeners' and performers' approaches to music. The project considers the development of the idea of "copies without originals," and of the ideological frameworks that have been used to describe and classify recorded sound. The first case study covers the early days of the phonograph and its development in Victorian society, then contrasts the values and motivations of those early years with modern-day rock performance and its own value systems. Moving into the mid-twentieth century, a chapter of this thesis is devoted to the work of Glenn Gould, and the possibilities for tape manipulation that the Canadian pianist explored during the period of his career that was focused on the recording studio. Lastly, this project examines the innovative, user-driven methods of music-making that are gaining momentum today, including Bjork's "Biophilia" app album, and the emergence of a new genre of popular music in Asia that uses vocal synthesizers in place of live performers. By exploring these case studies alongside the works of scholars in musicology, media studies, sound theory, film and television, and popular music studies, this thesis demonstrates how cultural need, individual innovation, and social involvement interact to direct the development and application of emerging media technologies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".