György Ligeti’s Chamber Concerto in the Light of the Article “. . . how time passes . . .” by Karlheinz Stockhausen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines György Ligeti's Chamber Concerto for 13 instruments, written in 1969-70, in light of Karlheinz Stockhausen's 1957 article ". . .how time passes . . ." In this famous article, Stockhausen establishes relationships between the components of musical writing: durations, tempi, rhythms, pitches, and registers.He describes the solutions he imagines for composing time against the backdrop of integral serialism and the advent of electronic music.By comparing this article with Ligeti's score, one recognizes a realization of the concepts introduced by Stockhausen, such as "field-sizes," "duration-formants," use of proportions, and tempo/pitch "mediations."This study sheds light on Ligeti's choices regarding the establishment of metronomic and senza tempo strata, the serial treatment of tempi in the second movement, and the freedoms granted to the performers.This comparative approach puts into perspective existing analyses of the Chamber Concerto that focus primarily on the organization of pitches and the realization of textures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".