Songs of the 1848 Revolution

这个项目将建立在每个申请人以前的工作和他们之间现有的合作基础上。它侧重于对1848年革命歌曲的历史接受，目的是制作总共30首歌曲的“第一部批评选集”（其中9首将由罗伯在资助期开始时完成）。“注释版”将包括对歌曲的一般“学术评论”，每首歌曲的“所有版本”的版本，对来源的调查，“文学记录”和对每首歌曲的“详细学术评论”。根据申请人的说法，“这项研究的新颖之处在于将历史批评版和历史评论结合起来，这将展示各自歌曲的起源，用法和意义”。将关注诗歌和音乐文本的转变，以及不断变化的历史和社会背景。这项研究将作为“历史评论辞典”的一部分呈现，因此可以在互联网上访问。在许多方面，这都是一个模范提案。它清楚列明研究领域、研究领域的“最新技术”，以及申请人在研究领域的初步/正在进行的工作、目标和工作时间表、研究过程和重点领域，以及申请资助的用途。就预期的可交付成果而言，这些资金本身相对较少。考虑到所有这些要点，并考虑到相关成本，我倾向于给该提案分配A的总体评级，即。“优秀”，使用如下所示的评分标准。然而，我必须表示我相当失望的是，申请人没有为这项研究提出他们本可以而且确实应该具备的强有力的知识案例。尽管申请中的所有材料都已清楚地列出，但很少或根本没有紧迫感，部分原因是没有阐明研究问题/问题/后果。当然，在3.1节中有各种各样的例子，但这更多地与将要产生的有形产出有关，而不是围绕所讨论的材料的知识问题。仅仅说“鉴于政治歌曲在很大程度上曾经（现在也是）受制于……”是不够的。像这样的一个研究项目旨在阐明这种工具化，因此具有特殊的社会相关性。”关于这一点应该写得更多，就这项研究的假定的“社会相关性”以及它的一般知识意义展开适当的论证。虽然我不怀疑这项研究是有价值的，值得进行的，但这必须从已经写的东西中推断出来。因此，就其重要性和紧迫性而言，我对该提案的总体评级为a，定义如下。我曾被要求对合作的预期附加价值发表评论，我相信研究的合作基础是值得赞扬的，可能对申请人和有关研究都有好处。在这里描述的协作框架之外不可能轻易产生的预期产出将作为其益处的证据。下面我给出了每个相关标准的评分。评分标准A =优秀B =良好C =一般D =差E =不可接受项目质量/申请人资格前期工作的健全性：A出版物的质量：A

This project will build upon both the previous work of each applicant and the existing collaboration between them. It focuses on the historical reception of the songs of the 1848 revolution, with the aim of producing 'the first critical anthology' of thirty songs in total (nine of which will have been completed by Robb by the start of the funding period). The 'annotated edition' will consist of a general 'academic commentary' on the songs, an edition of 'all versions' of each one, a survey of sources, a 'literature register', and 'detailed scholarly commentary' on each song. According to the applicants, 'the novelty of the research lies in the integration of historical critical edition and historical commentary, which will demonstrate origins, usages and significance of the respective songs'. Attention will be paid to the transformation of both poetic and musical texts, as well as the constantly changing historical and social contexts'. This research will be presented as part of the 'Historisch-kritisches Liederlexikon' and therefore will be accessible on the internet. comments on proposal In many ways, this is an exemplary proposal. It clearly identifies the research area, the 'state of the art' in the field of research as well as the applicants' preliminary/on-going work therein, objectives and work schedule, research processes and areas of focus, and the uses to which the requested funding would be put. The funds themselves are relatively modest in terms of the intended deliverables. Bearing all of these points in mind, and in relation to the relevant costs, I am tempted to assign to the proposal an overall rating of A, I.e. 'Excellent', using the grading scale indicated below. I must however register my considerable disappointment that the applicants do not develop the strong intellectual case for this research that they could and indeed should have. Although all of the material within the application has been clearly set out, little or no sense of urgency emerges from it, partly because no research problems/issues/questions of consequence have been articulated. A case of sorts is of course made under section 3.1, but this has more to do with the tangible outputs that are to be produced than the Intellectual issues surrounding the material in question. It is not enough simply to say that 'in view of the various appropriations which political song have been (and are) to a high degree subject to ... a research project such as this one aims to throw light on such instrumentalisation and has for this reason a particular social relevance'. A good deal more should have been written about this, developing a proper argument in respect of the putative 'social relevance' of this research as well as for its intellectual significance in general. Although I do not doubt that the research would be valuable and worth undertaking, this must be inferred from what has been written. Thus, my overall rating of this proposal In terms of its Importance and urgency is A-as defined below. I have been asked to comment on the anticipated added value of the cooperation, and it is my belief that the collaborative basis of the research is commendable and likely to be of benefit both to the applicants and to the research in question. The intended outputs - which could not readily be produced outside the collaborative framework described here - will serve as evidence of the benefits thereof. Below I have provided a grade for each of the relevant criteria. Grading scale A = Excellent B = Good C = Fair D = Poor E = Unacceptable 1. Quality of the Project / Qualification of the Applicant Soundness of the preliminary work: A Quality of publications: A