Early Music and the Choir of King's College, Cambridge, 1958 to 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation is the first in-depth exploration of the connections between the Choir of King's College, Cambridge ("King's") and the early music revival since the mid-twentieth century.It is also one of the first detailed considerations of the role of choirs in the revival.The central question I aim to answer is: How has the vocal style of King's influenced the development of the vocal style of the early music revival in Britain?I show how the choir's 109 albums featuring music written before 1750 have helped spread and popularize what I call the "King's sound."This sound is characterized by a high level of blend within choral sections, an even balancing of sections with one another, little vibrato, few changes in tempo and dynamics, and a light, bright, and breathy timbre.It is similar to a broader "English sound" found among other Oxbridge college choirs as well as British vocal ensembles specializing in early music.I My professors, mentors, colleagues, family, and friends supported me in many ways
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".