20th-century choral compositions by Québécois composers: an overview and analysis of selected works
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This dissertation examines how Québécois composers’ techniques and aesthetics fit in with the stylistic trends in choral composition in the second half of the 20th century. My thesis shows that though there was a delay in Québécois composers' adoption of modernist techniques, by the latter half of the century they fully demonstrated their knowledge of all the compositional schools and methods coming from Europe and the United States, and their ability to use them in innovative ways. After presenting a brief overview of the development of choral music and composition in Québec from 1600 to 2000, I outline four main categories of stylistic influence, beginning with more conservative styles such as neo-romanticism, then looking at two major centres of influence in Europe (Paris and Darmstadt), followed by serialist techniques, and finally avantgarde and experimental techniques. My analyses draw mostly upon primary sources, the musical scores themselves, in addition to some biographical information and a few essays specific to composers’ compositional aesthetics. Through my research and analyses, I have found that, while many common aesthetic trends, influential teachers and techniques can be traced, each Québécois composer has their own very unique style and approach to composition, which makes it impossible to fit them into any specific category. Show Less"@eng
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 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".