Contemporary Rock Formations: Rock Elements in Classical Music
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary classical pieces that bridge the divide between classical and rock can do so with the inclusion of various rock elements.Inclusion of these elements has been generally frowned upon, as modern classical composers are encouraged to write music that is abstract, bizarre, and different from anything heard before.When composers do include rock elements in their music, it is important to be able to recognize and categorize these elements for an informed interpretation.This study examines the inclusion of selected rock elements in two contemporary classical keyboard pieces: Steven Gellman's "Keyboard Triptych" for synthesizer and piano, 1 player, and Kris Becker's "Piano Sonata No. 1".The study serves as a guide for other performers exploring other rock-influenced works for a more complete picture of the music, discouraging blind focus solely on classical elements.Les œuvres classiques contemporaines qui comblent le fossé entre la musique classique et rock peuvent le faire en incluant des éléments rock.Ceci est généralement vu d'un mauvais œil, car les compositeurs de musique classique contemporaine sont encouragés à écrire des œuvres abstraites, sortant de la norme et opposée à tout ce qu'ils avaient entendu auparavant.Mais si les compositeurs incluent des éléments rock dans leurs œuvres, il devient important de pouvoir reconnaitre et catégoriser ceux-ci afin que l'interprétation puisse être juste et éclairée.Cette thèse propose d'étudier l'intégration de quelques éléments rock choisis dans deux œuvres contemporaines classiques pour clavier: « Keyboard Triptych » par Steven Gellman pour synthétiseur et piano, 1 joueur, et « Piano Sonata No. 1 » par Kris Becker.Les artistes désirant explorer ce sujet pourront utiliser cette thèse comme guide, qui les dissuadera de suivre, aveuglément, seulement la route des éléments classiques pour obtenir un portrait complet de la musique.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".