Songs of the 1848 Revolution

该项目将建立在每个申请人以前的工作和他们之间的现有合作。它侧重于1848年革命歌曲的历史接受，目的是制作总共30首歌曲的“第一部评论选集”（其中9首将由罗布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，来源调查，“文学登记册”以及对每首歌曲的“详细学术评论”。据申请人说，“这项研究的新奇在于将历史批判版本和历史评论相结合，这将证明各自歌曲的起源，用途和意义”。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“历史批评Liederlexikon”的一部分，因此将在互联网上访问。在许多方面，这是一项堪称典范的建议。申请书清楚列明研究范畴、研究范畴的“最新发展水平”、申请人在该范畴内的初步/持续工作、目标及工作时间表、研究程序及重点范畴，以及申请拨款的用途。这些基金本身的预期成果相对较少。考虑到上述各点，并就有关费用而言，我拟按下述评分表，将建议的整体评分定为A，即“顺从”。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可以而且确实应该拥有的强有力的知识案例。尽管申请书中的所有材料都已明确列出，但其中很少或根本没有紧迫感，部分原因是没有阐明任何研究问题/问题/后果问题。3.1节中当然有一个类似的例子，但这更多的是与将要产生的有形输出有关，而不是与围绕所讨论的材料的知识问题有关。简单地说：“鉴于政治歌曲过去（现在）在很大程度上受到各种各样的支配......像这样的研究项目旨在揭示这种工具化，因此具有特殊的社会意义。关于这一点，应该写更多的东西，就这项研究的假定的“社会相关性”以及它的一般知识意义提出一个适当的论点。虽然我不怀疑这项研究是有价值的，值得进行，但这必须从所写的内容中推断出来。因此，就其重要性和紧迫性而言，我对本提案的总体评级为A-，如下所述。我被要求对合作的预期附加值发表评论，我认为研究的合作基础是值得称赞的，可能对申请人和有关研究都有好处。预期的产出-在此处所述的合作框架之外不可能轻易产生-将作为其效益的证据。下面我为每个相关标准提供了一个等级。等级量表A =优秀B =良好C =一般D =差E =不可接受1.项目质量/申请人资格前期工作的合理性：A出版物质量：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