{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021346469622331693, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008210180623973728, 'mean_word_length': 4.946341463414634, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Composer’s Catalogue and the ‘Right to be Forgotten’: Hans Werner Henze’s Ein Werkverzeichnis, 1946–1996

installed in its place. However, the copying of the oeuvre at various stages during its development into replica manuscripts meant that post-première revision led to the simultaneous circulation of different versions of certain pieces. Machaut’s authorial pride overcame the proprieties of the patronage system. Although the work was officially finished, his sense of the importance of his achievement as a whole meant that further refinements could be entertained. Had he been more fully engaged with writing for real patrons, this might have posed a problem; indeed, it might never have occurred to him to do it. His desire for control over his work, aided no doubt by the amenable personal circumstances of his high standing in courtly circles, led him to absorb patronage into the work itself, as an allegory of its creation. He controlled the patronage and reserved the right to assert his judgment on the work even after its formal acceptance by the patron. During an era of increased interest in the modalities of writing within musical practice, Machaut made a stand for a culture of written music.38