romikgosai/squad_modified_2 huggingface dataset:
With his mazurkas and polonaises, Chopin has been credited with introducing to music a new sense of nationalism. Schumann, in his 1836 review of the piano concertos, highlighted the composer's strong feelings for his native Poland, writing that "Now that the Poles are in deep mourning [after the failure of the November 1830 rising], their appeal to us artists is even stronger ... If the mighty autocrat in the north [i.e. Nicholas I of Russia] could know that in Chopin's works, in the simple strains of his mazurkas, there lurks a dangerous enemy, he would place a ban on his music. Chopin's works are cannon buried in flowers!" The biography of Chopin published in 1863 under the name of Franz Liszt (but probably written by Carolyne zu Sayn-Wittgenstein) claims that Chopin "must be ranked first among the first musicians ... individualizing in themselves the poetic sense of an entire nation."

Q1: Chopin was noted as introducing music to what?
A1: sense of nationalism
Q2: What year did Schumann review Chopin's piano concertos?
A2: 1836
Q3: In his review Schumann made note of Chopin's emotions for what?
A3: Poland
Q4: Why did Schumann say the Poles were in mourning?
A4: the failure of the November 1830
Q5: A biography on Chopin released under Franz Liszt's name was likely written by who?
A5: Carolyne zu Sayn-Wittgenstein
Q6: Chopin was able to bring about a new sense of nationalism with his music because of his mazurkas and what?
A6: polonaises
Q7: Who wrote a glowing review of Chopin's love for his country through his music in 1836?
A7: Schumann
Q8: Schumann described Chopin's music as cannons buried in what?
A8: flowers
Q9: Though Franz Liszt is credited with Chopin's 1863 biography, who probably actually wrote it?
A9: Carolyne zu Sayn-Wittgenstein
Some modern commentators have argued against exaggerating Chopin's primacy as a "nationalist" or "patriotic" composer. George Golos refers to earlier "nationalist" composers in Central Europe, including Poland's Michał Kleofas Ogiński and Franciszek Lessel, who utilised polonaise and mazurka forms. Barbara Milewski suggests that Chopin's experience of Polish music came more from "urbanised" Warsaw versions than from folk music, and that attempts (by Jachimecki and others) to demonstrate genuine folk music in his works are without basis. Richard Taruskin impugns Schumann's attitude toward Chopin's works as patronizing and comments that Chopin "felt his Polish patriotism deeply and sincerely" but consciously modelled his works on the tradition of Bach, Beethoven, Schubert and Field.

Q1: Who said that Chopin's familiarity with Polish music was more "urbanised"  than true folk music?
A1: Barbara Milewski
Q2: George Golos references what two musicians when claiming Chopin's nationalism was overrated?
A2: Michał Kleofas Ogiński and Franciszek Lessel
Q3: Who said Chopin's works were modeled after Bach, Beethoven, Schubert and Field?
A3: Richard Taruskin
A reconciliation of these views is suggested by William Atwood: "Undoubtedly [Chopin's] use of traditional musical forms like the polonaise and mazurka roused nationalistic sentiments and a sense of cohesiveness amongst those Poles scattered across Europe and the New World ... While some sought solace in [them], others found them a source of strength in their continuing struggle for freedom. Although Chopin's music undoubtedly came to him intuitively rather than through any conscious patriotic design, it served all the same to symbolize the will of the Polish people ..."

Q1: William Atwood suggested that Chopin's music wasn't purposely patriotic but what?
A1: intuitive
Q2: A modern commentator, William Atwood, feels Poles not only sought solace in Chopin's music but also found them a source of strength as they continued to fight for what?
A2: freedom
Q3: Where were Poles scattered to?
A3: Europe and the New World
Jones comments that "Chopin's unique position as a composer, despite the fact that virtually everything he wrote was for the piano, has rarely been questioned." He also notes that Chopin was fortunate to arrive in Paris in 1831—"the artistic environment, the publishers who were willing to print his music, the wealthy and aristocratic who paid what Chopin asked for their lessons"—and these factors, as well as his musical genius, also fuelled his contemporary and later reputation. While his illness and his love-affairs conform to some of the stereotypes of romanticism, the rarity of his public recitals (as opposed to performances at fashionable Paris soirées) led Arthur Hutchings to suggest that "his lack of Byronic flamboyance [and] his aristocratic reclusiveness make him exceptional" among his romantic contemporaries, such as Liszt and Henri Herz.

Q1: Arthur Hutchings stated that Chopin's lack of what made him special?
A1: Byronic flamboyance
Q2: Who were two of Chopin's contemporaries?
A2: Liszt and Henri Herz
Q3: What place was considered lucky for Chopin to have arrived at considering how much he charged for piano lessons?
A3: Paris
Q4: Who said Chopin was unlike his romantic contemporaries Liszt and Henri Herz?
A4: Arthur Hutchings
Chopin's qualities as a pianist and composer were recognized by many of his fellow musicians. Schumann named a piece for him in his suite Carnaval, and Chopin later dedicated his Ballade No. 2 in F major to Schumann. Elements of Chopin's music can be traced in many of Liszt's later works. Liszt later transcribed for piano six of Chopin's Polish songs. A less fraught friendship was with Alkan, with whom he discussed elements of folk music, and who was deeply affected by Chopin's death.

Q1: In what suite did Schumann name a work for Chopin?
A1: Carnaval
Q2: What piece of Chopin's work was dedicated to Schumann?
A2: Ballade No. 2 in F major
Q3: How many of Chopin's Polish songs did Liszt transliterate for piano?
A3: six
Q4: With who did Chopin feel comfortable speaking of folk music with?
A4: Alkan
Q5: What was recognized about Chopin from his musical peers?
A5: qualities as a pianist and composer
Q6: What Schumann suite contained the name of a piece Schumann named for Chopin?
A6: Carnaval
Q7: What piece did Chopin dedicate to Schumann?
A7: Ballade No. 2 in F major
Q8: What other musician shows to have elements of Chopin in his work?
A8: Liszt
Two of Chopin's long-standing pupils, Karol Mikuli (1821–1897) and Georges Mathias, were themselves piano teachers and passed on details of his playing to their own students, some of whom (such as Raoul Koczalski) were to make recordings of his music. Other pianists and composers influenced by Chopin's style include Louis Moreau Gottschalk, Édouard Wolff (1816–1880) and Pierre Zimmermann. Debussy dedicated his own 1915 piano Études to the memory of Chopin; he frequently played Chopin's music during his studies at the Paris Conservatoire, and undertook the editing of Chopin's piano music for the publisher Jacques Durand.

Q1: Who dedicated his 1915 piano Études to Chopin?
A1: Debussy
Q2: For what publisher to Debussy edit Chopin's music for?
A2: Jacques Durand
Q3: Who was a student of Chopin's former students and actually recorded some Chopin music?
A3: Raoul Koczalski
Q4: What music did Debussy play a lot at the Paris Conservatoire?
A4: Chopin's
The exact nature of relations between Tibet and the Ming dynasty of China (1368–1644) is unclear. Analysis of the relationship is further complicated by modern political conflicts and the application of Westphalian sovereignty to a time when the concept did not exist. Some Mainland Chinese scholars, such as Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, assert that the Ming dynasty had unquestioned sovereignty over Tibet, pointing to the Ming court's issuing of various titles to Tibetan leaders, Tibetans' full acceptance of these titles, and a renewal process for successors of these titles that involved traveling to the Ming capital. Scholars within China also argue that Tibet has been an integral part of China since the 13th century and that it was thus a part of the Ming Empire. But most scholars outside China, such as Turrell V. Wylie, Melvin C. Goldstein, and Helmut Hoffman, say that the relationship was one of suzerainty, that Ming titles were only nominal, that Tibet remained an independent region outside Ming control, and that it simply paid tribute until the Jiajing Emperor (1521–1566), who ceased relations with Tibet.

Q1: Who were Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain?
A1: Mainland Chinese scholars
Some scholars note that Tibetan leaders during the Ming frequently engaged in civil war and conducted their own foreign diplomacy with neighboring states such as Nepal. Some scholars underscore the commercial aspect of the Ming-Tibetan relationship, noting the Ming dynasty's shortage of horses for warfare and thus the importance of the horse trade with Tibet. Others argue that the significant religious nature of the relationship of the Ming court with Tibetan lamas is underrepresented in modern scholarship. In hopes of reviving the unique relationship of the earlier Mongol leader Kublai Khan (r. 1260–1294) and his spiritual superior Drogön Chögyal Phagpa (1235–1280) of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism, the Yongle Emperor (r. 1402–1424) made a concerted effort to build a secular and religious alliance with Deshin Shekpa (1384–1415), the Karmapa of the Karma Kagyu school. However, the Yongle Emperor's attempts were unsuccessful.

Q1: What important trade did the Ming Dynasty have with Tibet?
A1: horse trade
Q2: During what years did the Mongol leader Kublai Khan rule?
A2: 1402–1424
Q3: Who did the Yongle Emperor try to build a religious alliance with?
A3: Deshin Shekpa
Q4: Deshin Shekpa was the head of what school?
A4: the Karma Kagyu school
Q5: The Tibetan leaders had a diplomacy with what neighboring state?
A5: Nepal
The Ming initiated sporadic armed intervention in Tibet during the 14th century, but did not garrison permanent troops there. At times the Tibetans also used armed resistance against Ming forays. The Wanli Emperor (r. 1572–1620) made attempts to reestablish Sino-Tibetan relations after the Mongol-Tibetan alliance initiated in 1578, which affected the foreign policy of the subsequent Qing dynasty (1644–1912) of China in their support for the Dalai Lama of the Gelug school. By the late 16th century, the Mongols were successful armed protectors of the Gelug Dalai Lama, after increasing their presence in the Amdo region. This culminated in Güshi Khan's (1582–1655) conquest of Tibet from 1637–1642 and the establishment of the Ganden Phodrang regime by the 5th Dalai Lama with his help.

Q1: What did the Tibetans use against Ming forays?
A1: armed resistance
Q2: Who were the armed protectors for the Gelug Dalai Lama?
A2: the Mongols
Q3: Which regime did Güshi Khan help establish?
A3: the Ganden Phodrang
Q4: When was the Mongol-Tibetan alliance started?
A4: 1578
Tibet was once a strong power contemporaneous with Tang China (618–907). Until the Tibetan Empire's collapse in the 9th century, it was the Tang's major rival in dominating Inner Asia. The Yarlung rulers of Tibet also signed various peace treaties with the Tang, culminating in a treaty in 821 that fixed the borders between Tibet and China.

Q1: In what century did the Tibetan Empire fall?
A1: the 9th century
Q2: Who signed multiple peace treaties with the Tang?
A2: The Yarlung rulers of Tibet
Q3: What did one of the treaties between the Tang and Tibet help fix?
A3: the borders between Tibet and China
Q4: Who was the Tangs biggest rival?
A4: Tibet
Q5: What year did Tang and Tibet sign a treaty to fix the borders?
A5: 821
During the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period of China (907–960), while the fractured political realm of China saw no threat in a Tibet which was in just as much political disarray, there was little in the way of Sino-Tibetan relations. Few documents involving Sino-Tibetan contacts survive from the Song dynasty (960–1279). The Song were far more concerned with countering northern enemy states of the Khitan-ruled Liao dynasty (907–1125) and Jurchen-ruled Jin dynasty (1115–1234).

Q1: When did the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period of China take place?
A1: 907–960
Q2: When did the Song dynasty take place?
A2: 960–1279
Q3: What dynasty was concerned with countering northern enemy states?
A3: Song dynasty
Q4: Who ruled the Liao dynasty?
A4: the Khitan
Q5: Who ruled the  Jin dynasty?
A5: Jurchen
In 1207, the Mongol ruler Genghis Khan (r. 1206–1227) conquered and subjugated the ethnic Tangut state of the Western Xia (1038–1227). In the same year, he established diplomatic relations with Tibet by sending envoys there. The conquest of the Western Xia alarmed Tibetan rulers, who decided to pay tribute to the Mongols. However, when they ceased to pay tribute after Genghis Khan's death, his successor Ögedei Khan (r. 1229–1241) launched an invasion into Tibet.

Q1: Which ruler took Western Xia under their control?
A1: Genghis Khan
Q2: Who was Genghis Khan's successor?
A2: Ögedei Khan
Q3: What years did Ögedei Khan rule?
A3: 1229–1241
Q4: Who invaded Tibet?
A4: Ögedei Khan
The Mongol prince Godan, a grandson of Genghis Khan, raided as far as Lhasa. During his attack in 1240, Prince Godan summoned Sakya Pandita (1182–1251), leader of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism, to his court in what is now Gansu in Western China. With Sakya Pandita's submission to Godan in 1247, Tibet was officially incorporated into the Mongol Empire during the regency of Töregene Khatun (1241–1246). Michael C. van Walt van Praag writes that Godan granted Sakya Pandita temporal authority over a still politically fragmented Tibet, stating that "this investiture had little real impact" but it was significant in that it established the unique "Priest-Patron" relationship between the Mongols and the Sakya lamas.

Q1: Who was the Mongol prince?
A1: Godan
Q2: Who was the leader of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism?
A2: Sakya Pandita
Q3: Who was the regent of the Mongol Empire?
A3: Töregene Khatun
Q4: In what years was Töregene Khatun the regent of the Mongol Empire?
A4: 1241–1246
Starting in 1236, the Mongol prince Kublai, who later ruled as Khagan from 1260–1294, was granted a large appanage in North China by his superior, Ögedei Khan. Karma Pakshi, 2nd Karmapa Lama (1203–1283)—the head lama of the Karma Kagyu lineage of Tibetan Buddhism—rejected Kublai's invitation, so instead Kublai invited Drogön Chögyal Phagpa (1235–1280), successor and nephew of Sakya Pandita, who came to his court in 1253. Kublai instituted a unique relationship with the Phagpa lama, which recognized Kublai as a superior sovereign in political affairs and the Phagpa lama as the senior instructor to Kublai in religious affairs. Kublai also made Drogön Chögyal Phagpa the director of the government agency known as the Bureau of Buddhist and Tibetan Affairs and the ruling priest-king of Tibet, which comprised thirteen different states ruled by myriarchies.

Q1: How many states were ruled by myriarchies?
A1: thirteen
Q2: What title did prince Kublai rule as from 1260 to 1294?
A2: Khagan
Q3: Who was the superior of prince Kublai?
A3: Ögedei Khan
Q4: Who became the second Karmapa Lama?
A4: Karma Pakshi
Q5: With whom did Kublai Khan have a unique relationship with?
A5: the Phagpa lama
Kublai Khan did not conquer the Song dynasty in South China until 1279, so Tibet was a component of the early Mongol Empire before it was combined into one of its descendant empires with the whole of China under the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368). Van Praag writes that this conquest "marked the end of independent China," which was then incorporated into the Yuan dynasty that ruled China, Tibet, Mongolia, Korea, parts of Siberia and Upper Burma. Morris Rossabi, a professor of Asian history at Queens College, City University of New York, writes that "Khubilai wished to be perceived both as the legitimate Khan of Khans of the Mongols and as the Emperor of China. Though he had, by the early 1260s, become closely identified with China, he still, for a time, claimed universal rule", and yet "despite his successes in China and Korea, Khubilai was unable to have himself accepted as the Great Khan". Thus, with such limited acceptance of his position as Great Khan, Kublai Khan increasingly became identified with China and sought support as Emperor of China.

Q1: When did Kublai Khan conquer the song dynasty?
A1: 1279
Q2: When did the Yuan dynasty rule?
A2: 1271–1368
Q3: Which dynasty ruled all of china?
A3: the Yuan dynasty
Q4: What did Khubilai claim for a while?
A4: universal rule
Q5: Where did Khubilai seek support as Emperor?
A5: China
In 1358, the Sakya viceregal regime installed by the Mongols in Tibet was overthrown in a rebellion by the Phagmodru myriarch Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen (1302–1364). The Mongol Yuan court was forced to accept him as the new viceroy, and Changchub Gyaltsen and his successors, the Phagmodrupa Dynasty, gained de facto rule over Tibet.

Q1: What year was the Sakya viceregal regime eradicated?
A1: 1358
Q2: Who placed the Sakya viceregal regime position of authority?
A2: the Mongols in Tibet
Q3: Who eradicated the Sakya viceregal regime?
A3: the Phagmodru myriarch Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen
Q4: Which dynasty became ruler of Tibet?
A4: the Phagmodrupa Dynasty
In 1368, a Han Chinese revolt known as the Red Turban Rebellion toppled the Mongol Yuan dynasty in China. Zhu Yuanzhang then established the Ming dynasty, ruling as the Hongwu Emperor (r. 1368–1398). It is not clear how much the early Ming court understood the civil war going on in Tibet between rival religious sects, but the first emperor was anxious to avoid the same trouble that Tibet had caused for the Tang dynasty. Instead of recognizing the Phagmodru ruler, the Hongwu Emperor sided with the Karmapa of the nearer Kham region and southeastern Tibet, sending envoys out in the winter of 1372–1373 to ask the Yuan officeholders to renew their titles for the new Ming court.

Q1: Who created the Ming Dynasty?
A1: Zhu Yuanzhang
Q2: Who caused the Yuan dynasty to fall?
A2: the Red Turban Rebellion
Q3: Who ruled as the the Hongwu Emperor?
A3: Zhu Yuanzhang
Q4: What years did Zhu Yuanzhang rule as the Hongwu Emperor?
A4: 1368–1398
Q5: Who did the Hongwu Emperor send convoys to?
A5: Yuan officeholders
As evident in his imperial edicts, the Hongwu Emperor was well aware of the Buddhist link between Tibet and China and wanted to foster it. Rolpe Dorje, 4th Karmapa Lama (1340–1383) rejected the Hongwu Emperor's invitation, although he did send some disciples as envoys to the court in Nanjing. The Hongwu Emperor also entrusted his guru Zongluo, one of many Buddhist monks at court, to head a religious mission into Tibet in 1378–1382 in order to obtain Buddhist texts.

Q1: Who was the fourth Karmapa Lama?
A1: Rolpe Dorje
Q2: Who rejected an invitation by the Hongwu Emperor?
A2: Rolpe Dorje
Q3: What did the the Hongwu Emperor want to continue to promote?
A3: the Buddhist link between Tibet and China
Q4: Who did Rolpe Dorje send as envoys to court in Nanjing?
A4: disciples
However, the early Ming government enacted a law, later rescinded, which forbade Han Chinese to learn the tenets of Tibetan Buddhism. There is little detailed evidence of Chinese—especially lay Chinese—studying Tibetan Buddhism until the Republican era (1912–1949). Despite these missions on behalf of the Hongwu Emperor, Morris Rossabi writes that the Yongle Emperor (r. 1402–1424) "was the first Ming ruler actively to seek an extension of relations with Tibet."

Q1: Who created a law that did not allow Han Chinese to learn the beliefs of Tibetan Buddhism?
A1: Ming government
Q2: What years did the Yongle Emperor reign?
A2: 1402–1424
Q3: Who worked towards obtaining a extension of relations with Tibet?
A3: the Yongle Emperor
According to the official Twenty-Four Histories, the History of Ming compiled in 1739 by the subsequent Qing dynasty (1644–1912), the Ming dynasty established the "É-Lì-Sī Army-Civilian Marshal Office" (Chinese: 俄力思軍民元帥府) in western Tibet and installed the "Ü-Tsang Itinerant High Commandery" and "Amdo-Kham Itinerant High Commandery" to administer Kham. The Mingshi states that administrative offices were set up under these high commanderies, including one Itinerant Commandery, three Pacification Commissioner's Offices, six Expedition Commissioner's Offices, four Wanhu offices (myriarchies, in command of 10,000 households each) and seventeen Qianhu offices (chiliarchies, each in command of 1,000 households).

Q1: What years did the Qing dynasty rule?
A1: 1644–1912
Q2: what year was the history of Ming produced?
A2: 1739
Q3: What did the Ming dynasty create?
A3: É-Lì-Sī Army-Civilian Marshal Office
Q4: How many Qianhu offices were there?
A4: seventeen Qianhu offices
Q5: where was the É-Lì-Sī Army-Civilian Marshal Office established?
A5: western Tibet
The Ming court appointed three Princes of Dharma (法王) and five Princes (王), and granted many other titles, such as Grand State Tutors (大國師) and State Tutors (國師), to the important schools of Tibetan Buddhism, including the Karma Kagyu, Sakya, and Gelug. According to Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain, leading officials of these organs were all appointed by the central government and were subject to the rule of law. Yet Van Praag describes the distinct and long-lasting Tibetan law code established by the Phagmodru ruler Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen as one of many reforms to revive old Imperial Tibetan traditions.

Q1: How many princes of Dharma were assigned by the Ming court?
A1: three
Q2: Who established the Tibetan law code?
A2: Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen
Q3: Who was the Phagmodru ruler?
A3: Tai Situ Changchub Gyaltsen
The late Turrell V. Wylie, a former professor of the University of Washington, and Li Tieh-tseng argue that the reliability of the heavily censored History of Ming as a credible source on Sino-Tibetan relations is questionable, in the light of modern scholarship. Other historians also assert that these Ming titles were nominal and did not actually confer the authority that the earlier Yuan titles had. Van Praag writes that the "numerous economically motivated Tibetan missions to the Ming Court are referred to as 'tributary missions' in the Ming Shih." Van Praag writes that these "tributary missions" were simply prompted by China's need for horses from Tibet, since a viable horse market in Mongol lands was closed as a result of incessant conflict. Morris Rossabi also writes that "Tibet, which had extensive contacts with China during the Yuan, scarcely had diplomatic relations with the Ming."

Q1: who was a professor of the University of Washington?
A1: Turrell V. Wylie
Q2: Who had a large amount of contacts with china during Yuan?
A2: Tibet
Q3: Who believed that Tibet barely had any diplomatic relations with the Ming?
A3: Morris Rossabi
Historians disagree on what the relationship was between the Ming court and Tibet and whether or not Ming China had sovereignty over Tibet. Van Praag writes that Chinese court historians viewed Tibet as an independent foreign tributary and had little interest in Tibet besides a lama-patron relationship. The historian Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa supports van Praag's position. However, Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain state that these assertions by van Praag and Shakabpa are "fallacies".

Q1: Who supported van Praag's beliefs?
A1: historian Tsepon W. D. Shakabpa
Q2: Who did not agree with van Praag and Shakabpa?
A2: Wang Jiawei and Nyima Gyaincain