Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article demonstrates the specific ways that Elizabeth Cotten's music-making relies on active negotiations between her physical capabilities afforded by her guitar technique and abstract musical concerns of rhythm, melody and phrasing.Cotten played a right-handed guitar upside down, picking with her left hand and fretting with her right.Cotten developed a unique style of playing based on the reversed relationship between her hands and the order of the strings on the guitar, which required her to reconfigure her chord fingerings, strumming, and picking patterns.I show that Cotten prioritizes ergonomic principles in her approach to fretting, reconfiguring chord voicings to allow her right wrist to maintain a more neutral wrist position, and transposing hand shapes around the fretboard to facilitate minimal movement for individual fingers.This prioritization of ergonomics directly shapes characteristic melodic figures that are recognizable throughout her work.I further identify examples of novel textural patterns in Cotten's work that result from her inverted picking technique.I conclude by analyzing how her fretting and picking techniques interact to create motives and textures in the song "Washington Blues."By focusing on the embodied experience of composing with an instrument, this project as a whole contributes to the growing corpus of analytic work that emphasizes music as a dynamic, embodied performance.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".