Composing for the Intercultural Orchestra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary examines a collection of my orchestral works written for combinations of instruments from a variety of cultural origins and identities. The artistic aim of this endeavour is to create meaningful transcultural and cross-traditional work that reflects the fluidity of cultural-national identities stemming from 21st century realities of globalization, human migration, immigration, travel, and electronic communication. A new perspective will be explored by postulating a transnational musical identity that evolves without the loss of each component member’s cultural origins (including those of the West). The intention of this commentary is to reflect upon the creative process of composing a series of works that engage with large-scale intercultural performing forces. Chapter 1 provides a contextual rationale for this research by tracing the emergence of the intercultural orchestra from the turn of the current century, first in Vancouver, Canada, then around the world. Chapter 2 outlines my current compositional approach by surveying the structural choices in as the first spring blossoms awaken through the snow for intercultural ensemble. Chapter 3 is a comparative analysis of two works: Il Viaggio di Dante (for any Chinese instrument and Western chamber orchestra) and Fly Away Phoenix, Into the Sky (for any Chinese instrument and intercultural strings). Chapter 4 explores the emergence of the Chinese orchestra as an intercultural ensemble by studying the compositional choices in Hummingbird in Winter. Chapter 5 explores the application of the compositional strategies developed in the first three chapters by examining two concerti for intercultural instruments and symphony orchestra: Birds Calling… from the Canada in You (for sheng/suona, shō, and orchestra), and Bloom (for koto/bass koto/voice and orchestra). Chapter 6 concludes by contextualising the above works and projecting upon the future of the intercultural orchestra.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".