Feigned translucency of wavering bodies, for mixed quintet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
feigned translucency of wavering bodies is an original composition scored for five instruments with the duration of 10 minutes.Volume I of this thesis consists of an analytical paper which presents a theoretical background for the network of conceptual references in the piece followed by the methods and tools explored during the composition process.The musical score is presented in Volume 2. The piece is composed having as structural foundation a system of Helmut Lachenmann mentions the "energetic aspects of sound" 3 as what he explores in musique concrte instrumentale 4 and what drives him to write acoustic music, since his creative focus is on the acoustic event itself.Therefore, it is possible to apply the analogy of "energy of sound" 5 from many different perspectives and elements of sound-production, including the spectral components of a given sound, pitch polarity, loudness, pressure, texture or rhythm, connected to the idea of physical effort in sound-production or simply the combination of musical elements.Furthermore, it was also essential to the specific sound-world, performance reality and artistic research of feigned translucency of wavering bodies to work closely with the ensemble in order to achieve a precise writing of extended modes of playing.The focus on extended techniques is connected to the exploration of noise and sonic by-products or side-effects, exposed by the clarity of sonic context in chamber music. PoeticsThe title, feigned translucency of wavering bodies, is a sentence which represents a condensed structure mirroring the network of references that animates the composition.The process of "composing a title" has become an important step in the initial stages in all my composition projects.In my approach, the tittle serves the purpose of a "refuge", a place to revisit and confront what was chosen as a collection of references, those that work as musical materials or not.It is a strategy to aid the creative process as well as an artistic statement which I choose to share with the audience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".