Six French composers’ homage to Haydn : an analytical comparison enlightening their conception of tombeau
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1909, the Revue musicale mensuelle de la Societe lnternationale de Musique (RSIM) asked six French composers (Debussy, Dukas, Hahn, d’Indy, Ravel and Wid or) to commemorate Haydn’s centennial anniversary of death by each creating a piano piece that incorporated a theme built with a letter-note correspondence on the word “Haydn”. In the context of the French fin-de-siecle search for musical identity, this collective tombeau represents a unique opportunity to discover what characteristics were important to them. My analysis of the pieces reveals five common elements: enharmonic reinterpretation as a means of exploration of foreign keys, large scale registral connections, dissonant chords for colour, ingenious means of creating unity, and use of past genres and form. The influence of Italian and German culture, as well as French music history and politics are also evaluated. The tom beaux reveal how central the concept of the music of the past was to French composers at the tum of the century and how it pointed the way to post-war neoclassicism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".