Dido and AeneasThis month we feature the School of Music’s production of Henry Purcell’s Dido and Aeneas, which will premiere on Friday August 27th. Our research editor Alex O’Sullivan discusses the history of the work.

Page 5

ReviewsJulian Hunt reviews Robert Schmidli’s latest Wesley Lunchtime Live concert, while Alex O’Sullivan reviews a couple of recent additions to the School of Mu-sic Library shelves.

Pages 2 - 4

ResearchAmy Turnbull makes an analysis of Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro, dis-cussing the work in terms of its wider social, political, and economic context.

Page 8

Inside:Reviews 2Feature 5Research 8Events Guide 10SoM Ball photos 12

Irrelevant Music...or why we might still want to compose.

Issue 1 - July 2010www.somtimes.info

Marguerite Boland

In the preview edition of SOM Times, Liz Collier, Alex O’Sullivan and John Yoon

have an amusing discussion about ‘the interface between composer, work, performer and audience’. In their snappy and lively exchange of about twelve sentences each, they touch on almost every perspective that has made its way into think-ing about ‘new music’ across the best part of the last century, from the death of the author, notions of ‘authenticity’ and the autonomous art work, to questions of music’s social function, its cultural con-text and the debilitating dead-end of extreme subjectivity. It’s a witty snippet of dialogue that gives in-sight into the burden many young (and not so young) composers and performers of new music are saddled with today: how to navi-gate through the myriad of argu-ments surrounding the relevance and legitimacy of ‘new music’ and to find a sense of purpose in the writing and performing of music of our time. As Alex O’Sullivan puts is: “So what is the purpose of composition? Why do people compose? Surely there is enough music to last the next thousand years?” The simplest of ques-tions are often the most relevant but can require the most com-plex of answers. Maybe the best way to contemplate these ques-

tions is to consider some illustra-tions rather than explanations. American experimental composer Kenneth Gaburo cel-ebrated “The Beauty of Irrelevant Music” in his 1970 essay of that title (reproduced in Writings on Dance [issue 18/19, winter 1999] available in the ANU Music Li-brary). For Gaburo, the more ir-relevant the music, the greater the freedom of its creators to establish its context, its purpose, its mean-ing. I find the concept of ‘Irrele-vant Music’ to be a liberating one, in the way that ideas like the ‘slow food movement’ or home water recycling are. It suggests a degree of independence from globalis-ing, commercialising mechanisms where profit and economies of scale provide the sole definition of ‘purpose’ and ‘relevance’. In a town like Canberra, irrelevance is cer-tainly not the most difficult feel-ing to conjure up, particularly if you’re a relative new-comer to the place and are used to the artistic hussle and bussle of our bigger cit-ies. Turning that freedom of irrele-vance into a creative act may seem like a challenge, but if you were keeping an eye on the music cal-endar in June this year you might have easily thought otherwise.

...continued page 6

Julian Hunt

On Wednesday 28 July local pia-nist and endocrinologist Rob-ert Schmidli gave a programme

of Mozart and Beethoven as part of the Wesley Lunchtime Live series. Robert Schmidli belongs to a se-lect group of people today, often in the medical profession, who have realised the old ideal of the doctor; liberally educated, culturally refined, cosmopolitan, and in-deed, somewhat eccentric. He has accu-mulated an impressive amount of musi-cal experience, both in New Zealand and Australia and has been a strong supporter of the Wesley Music Foundation, donat-ing his concert proceeds to various caus-es. The Foundation recently made Robert a Fellow in recognition of his significant contributions. However, to say that this lunchtime performance was good for someone who earns a living in another industry would serve a grave injustice. No, although it may not have been flaw-less, this was a fine performance without qualification. Dr. Schmidli knows his audi-ence well - alas! I was the youngest by

decades - performing Mozart’s popular Sonata in A Major (KV 331) followed by the somewhat more unusual ‘Les Adieux’ sonata no. 26 (Op. 81a) by Beethoven. It’s an effective way to programme: an old fa-vourite followed by something more in-novative (although of course, one usually has in mind the latest Sitsky or Carl Vine rather than Beethoven. It was nonetheless a similar underlying concept). ‘Popular music’ is all the more apt a term, particularly for the Mozart, considering Robert’s familiarity with what most Australians know as popular music ceases with the Beatles. Happily, where he is oblivious to the music played on most hit radio stations, Robert pos-sesses a solid knowledge of and active en-gagement in art music, particularly of the Classical and Romantic periods. The first thing I noticed as Rob-ert embarked on the Mozart was the clar-ity and precision of his playing. His ex-perience was attested to by his expertly restrained use of the pedal, so often over-used to produce a muddy and frankly nauseating wash of sound by lesser play-ers. The result was a pleasing crispness

which left both the performer’s technical proficiency and the composition’s intrica-cies exposed; in this case to the merit of both. Although I must admit my appre-ciation of the rondo alla Turca has taken a significant beating over the years of over-performance in under-prepared recitals, the rest of the audience was visibly excit-ed to hear the third movement begin, and clearly thoroughly enjoyed it.

Next, after some introductory words from the performer, was the Beethoven. This, for me at least, was the highlight of the day, particularly the first movement which created an immediate intensity and was delicately executed. The power of the initial shallow chord progressions suggested the piece con-tained romanticism deeper than Rob-ert gave it credit for in his introductory statements. Still, it was no great surprise to learn after the concert that the good doctor himself favoured the first move-ment. Yet it appeared a lonely opinion as we discussed the Beethoven in the foyer afterwards; the majority of the passing compliments were for the old favourite, the rondo alla Turca.

Dr. Robert Schmidli in concert, Wesley Lunchtime Live, 28 July

Doctor Robert proves old pops still strong

Reviews2

Executive Editor: Julian Hunteditor@somtimes.info

Research Editor: Alexander O’Sullivanresearch@somtimes.info

Vacant positions: • Reviews Editor• Website administrator/designer• Columnists & essayistsOpen to all ANU students, pro bono.Enquiries to the executive editor.

3

Alexander O’Sullivan

The Musicology Seminar is taken by all Musicology majors, as well as approved students from

across the College of Arts and Social Sciences. The Seminar investigates music in many forms, often the form of one or several individual research projects on a specific topic. Previous semesters topics have included Indig-enous practitioners of Popular Music, Popular Music in general, Musical Analysis, and Music and War. This se-mester will see the students dive into the recently established field of cultural geography. Cultural Geography is the study of the many cultural aspects found throughout the world and how they relate to the spaces and places where they originate and then travel as people continually move across vari-ous areas. Cultural geography seeks to explain and identify human cultural patterns and how those patterns vary across the landscapes of the world. The seminar of thirteen stu-dents will investigate music making in Canberra, in a quest to produce a musical map, upon which all the mu-sic in the city can be described. Each student has selected a specific scene or location, for instance: choral music, the Canberra Symphony Orchestra, street musicians, church music and the live music scene. The aim of the exercise is to reveal how Canberra as a place is intertwined with the music of its in-habitants, and in turn how its inhabit-ants define their sense of place through music. The research will be hands-on, consisting primarily of many inter-views with ordinary music makers in the community. Even the course co-ordinator, Dr Ruth Lee Martin, will be conducting her own research into the production of folk music in Canberra.

Leonard Bernstein: West Side Story, Ni-gel Simeone, Ashgate Publishing, 2009

Alexander O’Sullivan

In the preface to this modest vol-ume, Nigel Simeone (of Sheffield University in the United Kingdom)

explains that the title is misleading, as West Side Story is perhaps the most col-laborative musical-theatrical work ever produced. Throughout his description of its genesis, production and reception, we see that composer Leonard Bern-stein, writer Arthur Laurents, choreog-rapher Jerome Robbins and lyricist Ste-phen Sondheim acted fairly equally in producing what is now considered one of Broadway’s masterworks. The book assumes a non-threat-ening tone from the beginning. There is no discussion of value, and little in the way of analysis and synthesis of ideas. It was rather frustrating wading through the documentary evidence, without Simeone providing original ideas to tie the information together. However, the evidence itself is first rate, comprising documents from the archives of Bern-stein and Sondheim, and many first time interviews with the minor players in the production. The survey begins with a short discussion of Bernstein’s musi-cal career before West Side Story, with special emphasis on the vastly different On the Town and Candide. Both these works are due for some sort of rethink, with Candide in particular perhaps be-ing the candidate for the Great Ameri-can Operetta. The creative process of the team is then discussed. West Side Story had an unusually long gestation process, with the initial idea floated by Robbins in 1949 (the first production premiered in 1957). Simeone is forced to rely on Bernstein’s production diary for this chapter, which he freely admits may be completely fictitious; simply dreamed up for the Playbill. There are compari-sons between early drafts, presented in the form of tables. Simeone spends a chapter dis-cussing the various musical manuscripts still extant, trying to trace their evolu-tion. Early versions of songs are dis-cussed, but offer little insight into Bern-stein’s creative process. The synopsis

gives descriptions of aspects of reminis-cence and thematic transformation in the score. Theoretical analysis is clearly not Simeone’s forte, as he attempts to discuss concepts of melodic unity in the work. It is well known that much of the music is derived from either the tritone or the combination between major and minor (the best example being the prel-ude), but Simeone’s discussion beyond these ideas borders on perfunctory. Lit-tle discussion is given to the work’s flaws (which have been noted by commenta-tors for decades). Personally, I felt num-bers such as “I Feel Pretty” and “Gee, Officer Krupke” jar with the audience, coming as they do after moments of great violence and drama. I also felt that the non-musical setting of Maria’s final monologue always falls flat in the thea-tre (this scene was originally set to mu-sic, now lost). It would have also been nice for Simeone to discuss the deriva-tion of the dance forms, which refer-ence specific Latin styles little known on Broadway at the time. Indeed, per-haps the contribution of a dance scholar would have increased the interest level significantly. The chapter Reception only references contemporary Broadway journalists. While reviews were gener-ally favourable, there were some who found the visual and musical language too challenging for Musical Theatre. Perhaps a look at the continuing influ-ence of the work would have been ap-propriate, instead of a long discussion of the differences between the show, cast recording and film. Overall, one hundred pages (not including the discography and an extensive bibliography) is far too little to assess the gestation, production and impact of West Side Story. Simeone has tried to please all audiences, and only succeeds in his generality. Those seek-ing a fresh look at an old favourite will have to wait for another study that fully integrates analysis of the work’s theatri-cal, musical and choreographic aspects.

Reviewing some of the SoM Library’s latest additions

News in Musicology

After the Golden Age: Romantic Pianism and Modern Perfor-mance, Kenneth Hamilton, Oxford University Press, 2008.

Alexander O’Sullivan

Kenneth Hamilton is a British pianist and scholar, who is famed

for his performances of 19th century music. In this de-lightful survey, he discusses aspects of 19th century piano performance, highlighting the practical and aesthetic differ-ences between that age and our own. His primary thesis is that the ritualistic aspects of the 21st century piano recital are not representative of the ‘great tradition’ of playing from the ‘Golden Age’ of performers, but that they rather developed out of several factors irrelevant to music, such as the advent of recording and the increas-ing wealth of the middle class. The book draws on contempo-rary accounts, treatises, early recordings and piano rolls in describing the primary con-cepts of difference. The first chapters set the scene, introducing the main players (primarily Liszt, Busoni, Paderewski and Thal-berg) and describing the typi-cal Romantic Era piano recital. Today, we are far more recep-tive to recital programmes of long, difficult works such as sonatas and concerti than the average 19th century audi-ence, who demanded fireworks in the forms of virtuosic transcriptions and elaborate, extemporised fantasies. In addition, most recitals also contained chamber music and other diversions (Liszt’s early solo recitals only consisted of two to five solo works). Con-temporary accounts relate Liszt asking the audience to suggest themes for his improvisations, which he would then combine contrapuntally. Performers usually saved the more difficult works for a private audience of connoisseurs. It was unknown for a complete performance of a sonata or concerto to be given; indeed Clara Wieck was chastised by critics for pro-gramming the Appassionata in its entirety. Even performances

of single movements were very different: performers would often alter the figuration to suit their technique or instrument, and it was not unknown for elaborate codas, or even elabo-rate, improvised transitional episodes to be employed. It is well known that the majority of 19th century pianists were also reputable composers, and that the public expected to hear new music (or at least new transcriptions) far more frequently than they do today. Hamilton describes how over time, the popular success of certain works led to their immediate embalm-ment, thus reducing the space for new music. Eventually, the expectations of repertoire forced pianists to only devote time to this established canon, rather than ‘wasting’ time on difficult contemporary pieces. This divide is even apparent today, with pianists clearly separated into those who serve Early Music, those who serve the Common Practice Period and those who perform new music. Programming now falls into one of two models: the historical survey, and the complete edition. The histori-cal survey usually attempted to expose a historical progres-sion in the Common Practise Period (the Bach to Brahms approach). The complete edition recital presented an entire opus, or several, by the same composer. Perhaps the most amazing recital of this form was presented by Rubinstein, who programmed eight major Beethoven sonatas in one evening (Moonlight, Tempest, Waldstein, Appas-sionata, op.90, op.101, op.109 and op.111). In the 20th century, Friedman, Horowitz and others reduced the epic proportion of the Romantics, formalising today’s degustation style of programming. The book also ad-dresses issues of memorisation. We are told that Liszt, tradi-tionally seen as the founder of the modern piano recital, often played from scores; and it was not unknown for him to learn pieces during performances! The inherent scratchy nature

of the first run-throughs of these programmes was remarked upon in letters by his contemporaries. How-ever, by 1892, Pachmann was vilified by a London critic for using the score in a perfor-mance of Beethoven’s Third Concerto. Beethoven himself reasoned against memorisa-tion arguing that it destroyed a performer’s sight-reading ability and encouraged them to ignore dynamics and ar-ticulations. The critic Harold Bauer in 1870 commented on the growing practise: it “Lacked respect for audience and composer by indulging in theatrical display”. One of the more rigorously enforced aspects of concert performance today is applause. From an early age we are all taught to save our applause for the end of a (presumably) complete work, and not to applaud between movements. However, contemporary accounts as far back as Beethoven describe movements being applauded loudly and even being en-cored before the conclusion of the work. Whilst fantasising, Liszt invited his audience to applaud whenever they heard a thematic combination they enjoyed. Audiences would ap-plaud a dazzling turn or even the appearance of a well-loved composition. Contemporary practice seems to derive from Wagner’s specific instructions to the first audience of Parsifal, of whom he forbade applause of any form. We still seem to suffer from the delusion that applause somehow interrupts the spiritual connection one has with a performance. The most foreign of the discussed aspects is the nearly extinct art of prelud-ing. Hamilton explains how no performance would ever begin with the first piece, as the performer would have to test both his fingers and the piano in order to avoid unpleas-ant surprises. It is suggested that the tonal ambiguity in some of Liszt’s shorter pieces (which may have been used as preludes) is not utilised for any progressive reasons, but rather so they can be easily

adapted to launch into a piece in any key. Aspects of rubato and asynchronism are also discussed, with particular reference to early 20th century recordings (often of pianists who formulated their style in the mid-19th century). It is clear that performers who pre-ferred chords unspread in their theoretical writings were not adverse to indulging in fruity arpeggiation in their playing. Textual fidelity and issues of Authenticity are also considered. Apparently, it was common practise for compos-ers to alter pieces consider-ably from the printed score, and many extreme examples are cited. The most amazing perhaps, is a performance of Beethoven’s Third Concerto, upon which passages of the Fifth Symphony were layered. It is suggested that major changes often arrived through the desire for older music to conform to the aesthetic ex-pectations of the 19th century (Liszt and Busoni’s recomposi-tions are a case in point). Liszt himself is given a complete chapter, in which his technique and legacy are reassessed. Hamilton believes that his reputation has been some-what exaggerated by popular anecdotes, such as his famous flawless sight-reading skills or by reference to the impossible demands contained within his scores. His transcription of Er-lkönig is today considered one of the most demanding pieces in Romantic piano literature. However, documentary evi-dence suggests that Liszt did not perform it at a great speed, and it is clear that the pianos of his time had a far lighter action than those of today. Whilst still an incredibly difficult work, it is not the impossibility it may seem. Kenneth Hamilton does not advocate the return to 19th century practices. Rather, he encourages pianists to question received wisdom, to research documentary sources themselves, and to finally make their own decisions based on their own aesthetic desires rather than those of contempo-rary conservatory practice.

4

5

Alexander O’SullivanResearch Editor

Dido and Aeneas is rightly viewed as England’s only unquestioned operatic

masterpiece. The first known per-formance of the work was at board-ing school for girls in Chelsea, London, according to the earliest extant libretto. Dating the work and performance has been a peren-nial problem for scholars; all that can be said for certain is that the performance must have taken place before December 1689, when the spoken epilogue was published. The work is often considered in comparison with John Blow’s Venus and Adonis (April 1684) which was composed as a court entertainment, and later arranged for another girls’ school. In the New Grove Dictionary of Opera, Curtis Price conjectures that Dido and Aeneas was also a court entertainment first, with the Prologue (to which the music is lost) seemingly referencing the Glorious Revolution of 1688. However, it is clear that the libretto does not obey a single interpreta-tion, and the original purpose of the opera will forever remain unknown unless further sources are discovered. Interestingly, there is no contemporaneous comment on the opera until 1698, in which Dido’s first aria was printed. The libretto itself was writ-ten by Nathum Tate, and is broadly based on Virgil’s Aeneid. In this epic poem Aeneas is driven from Troy to seek refuge in Carthage, which is ruled by the widowed queen Dido. Aeneas’s mother Venus senses that Dido’s motives may not be pure, and plots her ruin by cursing her with a wild passion for Aeneas. Dido’s guard-ian, Juno, seeks to foil the plan by forcing Dido and Aeneas to shelter

from a storm in a cave, where they will consummate their love and form a new empire spawning from Carthage. Only the consummation takes place, for when Jupiter hears this news, he sends Mercury to summon Aeneas to found Rome. Aeneas barely thinks twice before leaving, and Dido throws herself on a funeral pyre. Tate refashioned the story into his play Brutus of Alba or the Enchanted Lovers, which he then adapted for Purcell. The most striking difference between his libretto and the classical poem is the transformation of Dido from a wild, exotic other to a tragic hero-ine. Dido is no longer the lovesick stepping stone for Aeneas; now Aeneas is portrayed as a cad from the very beginning of the work. The other major addition was that of the witches, which aside from obvi-ously referencing Macbeth (c.1603-1611) offer a simpler explanation for the storm and the appearance of Mercury – a kind of Demonio ex machina. The earliest surviving sources are the libretto used for the Chelsea performance, and another dated 1700 in which the work was interpolated as masque in a per-formance of Measure for Measure. The earliest extant score dates from after 1777, and is missing the prologue and the end of the sec-ond act. It is more than three times removed from Purcell’s original, and is certainly a mutilated form of Purcell’s original. However, this is the score that audiences have taken to, and has intrinsic worth on its own terms. The music of the opera is generally simpler than that of Purcell’s later work, with primarily monophonic choruses, and re-strained arias. Much of the work is delivered in a fairly dramatic arioso,

interspersed with solos, duets, and a great quantity of choral interrup-tions. The musical drama works on many levels: for example in the ships scene, the sailor’s chorus both sets the scene and ominously pre-dicts Aeneas’s departure. The work is noted for its complex word set-ting, pungent dissonances and reli-ance on dance meters and forms. The many problems a pro-duction of Dido and Aeneas faces are familiar to most students of opera. They were even published in an article in Early Music subti-tled An Investigation into Sixteen Problems. The most difficult are: the work’s short length, the lack of an adequate performing edition, the positioning of the chorus, the characterisation of the witches and Aeneas, Dido’s death and perhaps most challenging of all, the use of dance.A review of the School’s production will appear in the September issue of SOM Times.

References:•Price,Curtis,“DidoandAeneas”The new Grove dictionary of Op-era, ed. by Stanley Sadie (London: Macmillan; New York: Grove’s Dic-tionaries, 1992) vol. 1, 1169-1171.

•Savage,RogerandTilmouth,Michael. “Producing “Dido and Aeneas”: An Investigation into Sixteen Problems with a Sugges-tion to Conductors in the Form of a Newly-Composed Finale to the Grove Scene”, Early Music 4/4 (Oxford University Press, 1976) 393-406.

•Schmafeldt,Janet.“InSearchofDido”, Journal of Musicology 18/4 (University of California Press, 2001) 584-615.

Dido and Aeneas

6

Irrelevant MusicMarguerite Boland

...continued from title pageFour excellent musical experiences were to be had, all involving new music and all involving post-graduate or graduand performers and composers from the ANU’s School of Music. “The beauty of irrelevant music” Ga-buro writes “consists of its existence and its search for a context. The beauty of an inter-preter (performer) rests in a desire to realize a context for this discovered music which wants one.” The ‘context’ of each of these events made up an important part of the experience — the venue, the audience, the way the event was structured and presented — along with the music itself. The context for “Strike on Stage 1.0” was realised by percussionists and media artists Chi-Hsia (Lisa) Lai and Charles Martin, who were not only the interpreters but equally the creators of the sound art and the experimental technology that was presented here live for the first time (1.0 referencing the performance ‘version’). The new instrument they have created works by way of project-ing light onto a kind of projector screen and tracking the shadows cast by their body parts which they move in between the light source and the screen (remember ‘slide evenings’ as a kid, learning to make the rabbit and the fox with your fingers). Using computer vision technology, they have developed a processing system that triggers sound events based on the movement of these shadows. Lisa and Charles see “the video screen as a new instrument in their percussive vocabulary” and it’s true that percussionists are the ideal performers to in-teract with this technology: they have a wide range of movements they can carry out while striking a variety of percussion instruments, making not only sound but also shadow move-ments which trigger the computer-generated sounds. The electronic sounds have also been designed by Lisa and Charles and in version 1.0 they consisted of percussive and pitched sounds as well as ‘real’ sounds like thunder and rain. Shadows are not the only things projected onto the screen either; a range of images, from photographic collages to paint-like coloured blotches, were manipulated by the performers’ shadow movements, result-ing in a rich visual as well as sonic experience. The new instrument has been brilliantly con-ceived and the realisation of performance 1.0 was exciting, mesmerising at times, and brim-ming with imaginative delight. After the per-formance, the audience was invited to come up to make their own shadow movements, and play around with the sounds and images to get a feel for how the instrument worked. Hands and arms flashed in front of the screen for at least half an hour, the audience members fascinated by the interactivity of the screen and the sheer pleasure of being able to so eas-

ily ‘create’ something. A dancer (or maybe she was a actor) used her whole body, curving her back, stretching out a leg, suggesting the potential for dance/theatre/visual art collabo-rations. The venue for “Strike on Stage 1.0” was the Dance Studio of the new Belconnen Arts Centre and the fresh and modern feel of the Arts Centre itself suited the new, experi-mental nature of the performance. The open and slightly irregularly shaped foyer and the adjoining gallery, both with large windows out onto Ginninderra Lake, invited thinking about how the space could be used for other music events (the building is worth a visit in person or online just to check out the archi-tecture). It is exciting that Lisa and Charles are both off to different parts of Scandinavia to pursue further post-graduate study this year, although as a composer I’m mildly dis-appointed at not being able to collaborate with them and their new instrument — but that will be for another time ... version 5.1 maybe? An entirely different context was pro-vided by a group of mostly wind players who came together at Lyneham’s The Front Cafe, on a Sunday afternoon at the end of June, to present “Sound Bites”. From the outside this cosy gallery and cafe doesn’t appear to have the space for anything like a band, let alone a group of six performers, an audio system and large speakers. But the homey couches and chairs were huddled together to make room for a row of music stands and the musi-cians negotiated their way around leads, instrument cases and each other with practised grace. It was a ‘salon style’ event, with the noises of the coffee machine and dishwash-ing from the cafe’s kitchen mixing with the applause and filling in the silences during set-up changes. Tucked up on a sofa, nurs-ing my hot chocolate, I felt welcome and snug in the company of about 15 people, and open to listening to anything. The concert seemed to have come about because a number of the performers happened to be coming to Canberra at the same time, the group enjoys playing together and collaborat-ing on compositions and improvisations, and so decided to organise a gig. It also seemed to have been sparked by Nicole Canham’s new tarogato — originally a Hungarian folk instru-ment, it was reconstructed in a different guise at the end of the 19th century to share char-acteristics of both saxophone and clarinet. Nicole (an ANU graduate of some years ago) has been inviting new works for the tarogato from composers (see the call for scores on her website) and “Sound Bits” presented a few first performances of these pieces. ANU post-grad composer Ian Blake’s piece called “twmp” was for tarogato, soprano sax, tambourine and drone, performed by Nicole and Ian himself on sax. “A twmp” Ian tells us “is a small Welsh

mound: the sort of place you could park some musicians who would play for dancing.” The bourrée feel of the piece, the accompanying tambourine (which Nicole tapped with her foot) and the background drone did indeed invite us to get up and dance ... alas for the lack of space. The players were also experimenting with arrangements of pieces (Bach, Piazzolla, Ross Edwards) for tarogato and combina-tions of bassoon and soprano sax. The sounds blended in unusual ways and highlighted the uniqueness of the tarogato compared to its other reedy cousins. Another piece by Ian Blake that really suited the setting was “The River Daughter” for soprano and bassoon with an accompanying multitrack of treated bassoon and soprano sounds. All live and recorded sounds were produced by bassoon-ist and soprano Zoey Pepper. The piece has a number of nice layers to it. The central text is taken from Ovid’s Metamorphosis poem about Daphne’s transformation into a lau-rel tree, and is book-ended by excerpts from Rainer Maria Rilke’s The Sonnets to Orpheus where he refers to Daphne’s transformed state. The wandering tonality of the Rilke sections contrasts with a drone and psalm-like treat-ment of the Ovid text (for a ‘sound bite’ see www.ianblake.net/music-27.html). The piece is structured so that the live singer, accompa-nied by recorded bassoon, transforms into the live bassoon player accompanied by recorded chanting, thus changing identity and merging

with the tree-like instru-ment that is the bassoon in a symbolic transformation that parallels Daphne’s own. In the closeness of the little cafe and engulfed by the recorded sound, Zoey’s singer-bassoonist transformation had an al-most magical quality to it. For the end of the even-ing, there was a change of direction. Nicole’s taro-

gato joined jazz performers Miroslav Buko-vsky (trumpet) and Col Hoorweg (electronic percussion) in a set of improvisations, open-ing up the last piece to anyone who has an instrument with them. An appropriate close to the friendly informality of the evening. And on to a very different setting — this time to what must be Canberra’s most inviting of formal recital halls, the Wesley Music Centre. Pianist Edward Neeman (ANU graduate, Manhattan School of Music gradu-ate and current Juilliard School post-gradu-ate) presented a solo recital that encompassed early Beethoven (Op.3, No.2), Schubert (the first of the three last sonatas, C minor D.958) and Chopin (Etudes, Op.25), as well as pieces by two ANU composers, Alistair Noble (ANU graduate) and myself. While a more ‘tradi-tional’ recital setting, the concert also had a nice touch of informality to it: there were no program notes, instead Edward spoke to the pieces once in each half; Terry Neeman

… do we need to be mindful of what we layer on top of the music and the mu-sical performance, what we force into its ‘context’?

7provided the tasty refreshments at interval; children from teenagers to young primary school kids were in the audience. One of the really enjoyable aspects of this concert for me — apart from the excitement of hear-ing my own piece, composed 17 years earlier, given its first full performance — was hav-ing had the opportunity to discuss and work with Edward on my piece beforehand. This is also something that Alistair and Edward himself expressed as being an enjoyable and valuable part of the pre-performance process. And possibly for the first time, I got a sense of how a piece can begin to have a life of its own in the hands of such an accomplished performer as Edward. Once the details have all been taken care of (dynamics, phrasing, minutia of accentuation and articulation, that are sometimes impossible to communicate in a system of notation), then there is something else ... a performer’s interpretation? But what is that? Maybe it’s an understanding of the music as music, of what it is wanting to be. Or maybe it’s a desire, as Gaburo claims: “...a desire to realize a context for this discovered music which wants one.” The musical con-text of the program had certainly been care-fully conceived. One of themes threading its way through the more than two centuries of music, Edward told us, was ‘youth’: all pieces had been composed before the composers had turned 40. But the other theme that stood out to me was ‘experimentation’. Alistair’s piece glasteppich i experimented with time — its elasticity, its delicacy — in a piece that un-folded sparsely-placed singular sound events over a 13 minute time span, but which none-theless, almost imperceptibly, created a sense of trajectory and development. My piece, Two Miniatures, experimented with the opposite — densely interlaced motivic and harmonic material that played out in a quick succession of rhythmically and registrally varied gestures. The early Beethoven sonata and the Roman-tic pieces were no less experimental … but that story will need to be told another time. The setting for the last concert “Piano+Piano” was Llewellyn Hall. The ‘con-text’, which I’ll return to in a moment, was not entirely clear. As an ‘official’ School of Mu-sic event, it was billed as “Alumni Concert #1”. Promotional material for the concert in-cluded stylish photographs of the two pianists (“Piano+Piano”) as well as Larry Sitsky … but why were these particular alumni brought to-gether for this event? And what music were we going to hear? As it turned out, it was a feast of pianistic talent featuring Edward Nee-man giving the Australian première of Larry Sitsky’s piano sonata written especially for him; and Michael Azzopardi (ANU jazz grad-uate) giving an impressive solo performance of well-known Herbie Hancock and Chick Corea tunes as well as his own compositions. Edward performed the sizeable sonata “Re-tirer d’en bas de l’eau” magnificently, carrying off Larry’s masterful shaping of a large-scale dramatic trajectory with complete convic-

tion. The most surprising movement was the opening movement, a delicate wash of ‘water’ music that created a moving gentleness. This was counter-balanced by dramatic fist and arm clusters in one of the later movements. In the second half of the concert, Michael Azzopardi gave an equally masterful solo jazz performance, no mean feat when the cus-tomary rhythm section is not there to share around the attention. Musically, each half of this concert had its own integrity and creative interest, but the experience of the event as a whole was, for me at least, strangely discom-forting (which, I hasten to say, had nothing to do with the music or the performers). Was it a mismatch of ‘contexts’? – the music still seeking one, the performers clearly desiring to realise one for the music …but how? An of-ficial event that recognises and celebrates tal-ent and achievement aims, of course, to be an affirming and encouraging experience. There was a lot of talk accompanying the concert by School of Music representatives, telling the story of the idea behind the Alumni concert series, congratulating the School for its past alumni achievements (a significant one being the retaining of alumni on staff at the ANU), emphasising the commitment of the School to future events like these. (Unfortunately, the specific achievements of the alumni in this concert were not mentioned but I guess that was covered in the program notes.) But … do we need to be mindful of what we layer on top of the music and the musical performance, what we force into its ‘context’? Do we need to be mindful of the ‘ownership’ of the ‘context’ – turning the freedom of irrelevance into a constricted relevance, appropriating the inter-preter’s “desire to realize a context for this dis-covered music which wants one.”? In offering logos, series names and honours, should we not avoid trying to gain authority over the mu-sic, trying to ‘own’ the performance, the per-formers/composers ... the experience. Gaburo: “In that owning-system, one speaks of performers, say, as good or bad property, and created works as good or bad material. If one is good property and finds good material one can become a package. If one becomes a pack-age one can be managed. Once one becomes managed one can be sold.” It is no secret that universities tread a fine line in this respect. The excellence of all these events — each very different in nature and content — lay not in some externally determined benchmark, in some sales pitch, or in any greater purpose outside of the experience itself (‘world première’, ‘international best-seller’, ‘soon-to-tour-Europe’). For me, it lay in the fact that groups of people (performers, com-posers, audiences) created their own contexts for the new and the experimental, created their own reasons and motivations to share a momentary musical experience — which may be why people still compose … which may be the only purpose music can ever really have.

7

Amy Turnbull

Mozart composed the opera Le Nozze de Figaro or The Marriage of Figaro in 1786 primarily as a populist op-

era, which was designed to appeal to the upper middle class and aristocracy. He attempted to do this by appealing to some of the ideals of the enlightenment, mocking the old royalty and using popular artistic styles of the time. However, despite his best efforts, the opera failed in its premiere in Vienna. In order to understand why this is so, we will first look at the political and social context of Vienna and how it relates to the subject content of the op-era and compare the subject content of the op-era to the original play and its context. We will then investigate larger structure of the opera and how it relates to the economic and artistic context of the time. Finally I will be support-ing each point with a close analysis of Act II scene IX which is part of the finale in act II. Joseph II was the Emperor of the Austrian Habsburg dominions from 1780-1790. He spent a large amount of his time in Vienna, which was the capital at the time. Joseph II sympathised with many of the ide-als of the enlightenment and attempted to realise them in society through his many re-forms. These had limited success. His reforms included: The suppression of the rich monas-teries; allowing the practice of non-catholic faiths, the introduction of poor relief, the prohibition of child labour, and the abolish-ment of the death penalty. He also established schools, asylums and Hospitals. Many of the traditional aristocracy did not like these re-forms, which weakened their balance sheets, and although no disagreement was voiced in the beginning of his reign it was resistance to this policy that forced Joseph to make many retractions in his last year. The Marriage of Fi-garo was composed in the middle of Joseph II reign and its subject content reflects his ideals.. Mozart wanted to create an opera which the Viennese people would like. He knew that comedy had to be a key element and said “The chief thing must be the comic ele-ment, for I know the taste of the Viennese” in

a letter to his father in 1783. Both the subject content and the use of opera buffa as the form reflect this. Mozart’s opinion can be further validated by a look at the popular operas and plays of the time, these largely constituted of opera buffa and comic plays. The play was also very popular in France and is the sequel to The Barber of Seville was very popular in Vienna. The subject content of the opera ‘The Marriage of Figaro’ is an adaptation of the French comedy play of the same title by Pierre Beaumanchais. The play The marriage of Figaro was First performed in 1784 and was very popular in France at the time. The play is the sequel to the Barber of Seville which was also composed by Beaumanchais It played in the Burgtheatre, the main theatre in Vienna, from 1776 to 1783. The play The Marriage of Figaro embodied the ideas of the enlight-enment and was very provocative against the aristocracy. Consequently Joseph II banned the German translation of play in 1985 unless it was censored of its more offensive passages. One of the reasons that the opera wasn’t a complete success in Vienna was be-cause of its less radical political comment in comparison to the original play. “The portrait of the aristocracy drawn in Mozart’s opera does not break new ground in realism or audacity, but parallels contemporary trends on the stage” In order to be able to write an opera based on a banned play Mozart must first obtain permis-sion from the emperor, Joseph II. The libretto for the opera was written by Da Ponte who relates in his memoirs how he persuaded the Emperor to allow the opera to be performed. Sir, answered I, as I had to write an opera, and not a comedy, I have been able to omit certain scenes, and shorten others, and I have carefully expunged whatever might offend the decency of a theatre over which you majesty presides. If that is the case, re-plied he, I rely on you opinion for the good-ness of the music, and on your prudence for the choice of the characters: you may immediately give the parts to the copyist. Hence a large amount of the play content which ridiculed the aristocracy was edited out in the opera. The play was also abbreviated because of the requirements of the form of the Opera buffa. Da Ponte had to reduce cast numbers to a manageable amount of 11 which was still more then the conventional number. He also either simplified or removed several strands of the plot and characters were stripped of their complexities so that they almost act as familiar stereotypes. The finales in opera buffa must consist of fast tutti sections thus the material at the end of acts must be suit-able for this. The end of Act II is an example

of this. In the play The act ends quietly with the characters dispersed, in the opera how-ever Da Ponte was obliged to create material suitable for a tutti section. The public great-ly anticipated the opera as the sequel of The Barber of Seville, and due to the editing out of play content for both political and artistic reasons it did not live up to their expectations. The opera, while not radically differ-ent, does break some musical conventions of the time. The opera has four acts instead of the usual two. There was also a controversy in the second half of the eighteenth century between those who asserted the primacy of music in op-era, and traditionalists who valued the poetry-of the libretto higher. Mozart thought that the music was the most important aspect which is illustrated in a letter to his farther in 1783 where he states that “his libretto will certainly not go down well if the music is not good. For in opera the chief thing is the music” This opinion was endorsed by others in the musi-cal community of Vienna, including Salliari. Although Mozart obviously put a lot of thought into aspects of his composition in order to create an opera which was popu-lar, there was still some stylistic reasons why the opera was not a huge success in Vienna. During the late eighteenth century Audiences generally favoured the operatic style Italian composers rather then German. The Italian style was considered to be simple and lyrical while the German style was considered to be complicated and lacking in tune. Mozart was also considered to change key too often. The reasons for this dislike for change in key is ex-pressed by the composer Piccinni “To quit a key almost as soon as we have entered it, to become extravagant without reason.... is to prove that the artist is ignorant of the end of his art as well of its principles” John Brown, a contemporary Scottish painter also expressed a similar view “nor will German music much delight those who have been long accustomed to more simple melody” That Mozart’s Op-era’s received lukewarm reception in Vienna is also recorded in a conversation between Joseph II and Diggersdorf where the former said “Nor did Mozat’s music make much of a sensation among our public. It is for the connoisseur who knows how to unravel its refinements rather tan for the dilettante who lets himself be guided by his natural feeling ” We have looked at the broader structure of the Opera and related it to its context, I will now give a close analy-sis of Act II Scene IX – the second scene in the finale. Which, is attached as appendix 1. Preluding Scene IX, the Count be-lieves that the Countess is hiding a lover in her dressing room, In truth Cherubino was hidden there, but not as a lover, he was dress-ing up in girls cloths so as to pretend to be Susanna as part of Figaro’s plot against the Count. Cherubino hearing the Count, jumps out the window in fright. The Countess ad-mits that Cherubino is there and why. Scene IX opens with the Count finding Susanna and

Mozart in context:The Marriage of Figaro

8

Susanna only in the dressing room. Confus-ing both the the Count and the Countess. To create a populist opera Mozart uses primarily popular musical conventions of the time. Tonic-Dominant relationships are integral to harmony in the late eighteenth century. Tension is created in music by mov-ing clockwise around the circle of fifths while relaxation of tension is created by moving anticlockwise. The overall Key changes in the finale follows a general increase in ten-sion followed by a relaxation of tension.

Overall harmonic structure of Act II finale:Key: Eb → Bb → Bb → G → C → F → Bb → Eb

This is typical of a piece of that time and also re-flects sonata form. The finale of act II also fits the typi-cal form for opera buffa, ending with a

fast tutti. Mozart himself also comments on this necessity in a letter to his father “It must wind up with a great deal of noise, which is always appropriate at the end of an act” Mozart was aware of the Dra-matic effects of modulations. One exam-ple of this is given in a letter to his father. But since passions whether violent or not, must never be expressed to the point of exciting disgust, and as music, even in the most terrible situations must never offend the ear, but must please the listener... so I have not chosen a key remote from F(in which the aria is written). But one related to it – but not the nearest, D minor, but the more remote A minor. Mozart uses these kinds of modula-tions within the opera for example. Scene IX begins at the key change, from Eb to Bb major of the first piece in the finale, just after the Count opens the door to find Susanna in the closet. It opens with Susanna singing. There is also a tem-po change here to molto andante from allegro. The overall key within Scene IX is Bb major. The molto andante is entirely in Bb major without any modulations. No ac-cidentals are present at all. The harmonic structure is quite simple. Consisting of al-most entirely tonic and dominant chords. Bb is however, a move clockwise around the circle of fifths from Eb, which an increase in tension. From the previous scene, This is a reflection of the appearance of Susanna. There is a change in tempo to Allegro at bar 268. this corresponds to the point when the Count goes into the closet to ensure that no one else was there apart from Susanna. It is a moment of increased agitation betrayed by the Countess. At this point there is also some chromaticism, with the introduction of a B natural in the violin part. This as well as the tempo change creates tension in the piece. The allegro goes through a num-ber of key centre changes (shown right). Harmonically. this is a roughly

symmetrical pattern, which is similar to modulations within sonata form. There are some sections however where Mozart does travel through many keys in a short space of time. One example of this is the last sec-tion, though primarily in Bb still has a large section, bars 312-324, where he modulates extensively using secondary dominants. Throughout this scene there is no blatant denouncing of upper class in the play, and as mentioned above this, could be a rea-son for the plays tepid reception in Vienna, Susanna does however, manage to avoid the exposure of Cheruino, thus revealing that she is cleverer then her superiors. This is re-flected in the melodic lines of the characters. Susanna’s voice and melodic line is higher then the Countess’s. During this time period a lot of music was homophonic, one melody with an accompaniment this immediately elevates Susanna’s character, as being supe-rior to the rest. During the molto andante. Throughout the opera, musically there is little difference Susanna’s and the Countess’s melodic line. This is expmplefied in Act II scene IX where Susanna’s melodic line is actually more complex, and hence more inter-esting and has relatively more larger interval jumps in it compared to the Count and Coun-tess, who move mostly in steps or with repeated notes. And whose part has mostly an accom-panying function. Susanna’s line is still very simple and beautiful. This may suggest that her character is superior to that of the Count, and Countess, and, since she is of a lower class to the Countess it implies that the lower class is superior. Thus making a social comment. Another instance where music is used to emphasise the superiority of the lower class is during the final passage of the Allegro, bar 307, where the three characters sing the same text, Susanna’s melodic line however has a slightly different rhythm to that of the Count and Countess, this aligns the characters in their class as well as per-haps asserting Susanna’s superior character. Another way in which The Marriage of Figaro differed from other more famous operas is that it contains a smaller percent of aria content then other more popular op-

era’s of the time. It contained about 50% areas whereas the more popular Una cosa rara com-posed by Vincente martin y Soler contained about 63% The requirement of an aria is that it is static, the composer is obliged to describe one sentiment, or state of mind. This puts con-straints on the dramatic movement of the op-era. Mozart avoided these reflective, static ari-as so he could keep momentum in his opera. In composing The Marriage of Fia-gro Mozart was not interested in making any radical comment against the aristoc-racy, he was, however, still aware of political and social issues of the time. Above is some evidence to support this. This relevant to cur-rent musicology issues as there is some de-bate as to whether or not Mozart was indeed aware and indeed scholars use The mar-riage of Figaro as proof for, or against this. From this analysis it is evident that the opera The Marriage of Figaro was written with the intention of being a populist opera. Mozart chose the subject content and form of the piece with the intentions of creating an opera that would sell. He wrote primarily us-ing the musical conventions of the time, and where they differed it was with attention to creating an opera which would be popular. Despite this, the opera was not a huge suc-cess in Vienna. Two main factors influenced this. As the sequel to The Barber of Seville it was greatly anticipated and its less radical political comment compared to the original play meant that it did not live up to the ex-pectations of the audience. The audience’s of Vienna favoured the simple style of Italian composers over what was considered the more complicated on of Germans. The Marriage of Figaro was considered too complex, melodi-cally and harmonically for the general audi-ence to enjoy. From this we can see that de-spite careful planing, the popularity of a work still relies on the natural taste of the audience.

Bibliography:• Anderson, E. (1966) The Letters of Mozart and His Family,

Vol II, St Martin Press, New York• Brown, J.(1789) Letters upon the opetry and Music of Italian

Opera, Edinburgh, p. 16• Carlton R. A. ‘Changes in Status and Role-Play: The Musi-

cian at the End of the Eighteenth Century’, International Review of the Aethetics and Sociology of Music, Vol. 37, No. 1 (June 2006) pp. 3-16

• Deutsh, O.E.,(1966), Mozart, A Documentary Biography, trans. E. Blom, P. Branscombe, and J Noble, London, p 340

• “Joseph II.” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 02 Jun. 2010 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/306348/Joseph-II>.

• Goldovsky. B (1991), The Adult Mozart: A Personal Per-spective, D. Armstrong, C., Inc, Houston, Texas

• Heartz D. ‘Mozart and Da Ponte’, The Musical Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Winter 1995), pp. 700-718

• Heartz. D, (1990), Mozart’s Operas, University of California Press, Oxford, England, p.137

• Levarie, S. (1977), Mozart’s Le Nozze di Figaro, Da Capo Press, New York, p. 107

• Mac Arthur, E. J. ‘Embodying the Public Sphere: Censor-ship and the reading Subject in Beaumarchais’s Mariage de Figaro’ Representations, No. 61, (Winter, 1998), pp. 57

• Mozart W.A, Da Ponte. L., (1983), Le Nozze di Figaro, [mini score], Ernst Eulenburg Ltd, London.

• Nosk. Frits, ‘Social Tensions in ‘Le Nozze di Figaro’, Music & Letters, Vol. 55, No. 1, (Jan., 1969), p 45

• Platoff, J. ‘Tonal Organisation in ‘Buffo’ Finales and the Act II Finale of ‘Le nozze di Figaro’, Music & Letters, Vol. 72, No.3 (Aug., 1991) p. 387-403

• Steptoe. A, (1990), The Mozart-Da Ponte operas, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 171-172

9

Events Guide

Do you have a concert or other event coming up?

Let us know so we can add it to the online calender and events guide

Sunday 1st AugustJohn Gould TrioWesley Music Centre 3pmJohn Gould (violin), Rita Woolhouse (cello) and Anne Stevens (piano) per-form piano trios by Beethoven, Men-delssohn and Brahms$25/$15/$12 tickets at doorph: 6260 8911

Wendy QuinlanRR3 3pmANU School of Music Alumnus Wendy Quinlan is joined by the Fabulous Flutes of the ANU$25/$20 tickets at doorph: 6125 5700

Tuesday 3th AugustThe World According to JamesThe Gods Cafe 8pmComprising trombonist and composer James Greening, alto saxophonist An-drew Robson, bassist Steve Elphick and drummer Toby Hall.$18/$12 bookings recommendedph: 6248 5538

Wednesday 4th AugustWednesday Lunchtime LiveWesley Music Centre 12:40pmFeaturing School of Music Graduate, pianist Adam Cook performing Shosta-kovich and Scriabin.$2 tickets at doorph: 6232 7248

Thursday 5th AugustRicardo GallenLlewellyn Hall 7:30pmWith Spanish Guitarist Ricardo Gallen.$35/$30/$20http://www.ticketek.com.au/ph: 132 849

Saturday 7th AugustMusica da CameraHoly Covenant Church 2:30pmMusic of Tchaikovsky, Barber, Handel and Roseingrave.$20/$15 tickets at doorph: 6251 1568 or 0419 255 002

Sunday 8th AugustForrest National Chamber OrchestraWesley Music Centre 3pmFund-raising for WMF String Scholar-ships. Includes Sibelius, Saint-Saëns, Suk, and Mozart with soloists Rebecca Smith and Jeremy Tatchell$15/$10 tickets at doorph: 6295 1553 or 6232 7248

SOM Premier Series Concert 3Llewellyn Hall 3pmVirginia Taylor and Timothy Kain per-

form contemporary works for flute and guitar.$35/$30/$20http://www.ticketek.com.au/ph: 132 849

Tuesday 10th AugustRomeo and JulietCanberra Theatre Centre 7:30pmThe New Zealand Ballet joins with the Canberra Symphony Orchestra with Christopher Hampson’s choreography and Sergei Prokofiev’s music.$35-$79ph: 6275 2700

Wednesday 11th AugustWednesday Lunchtime LiveWesley Music Centre 12:40pmTo be advised$2 tickets at doorph: 6232 7248

String SoireeRR3 6pmFeaturing staff and students of the ANU School of Music String Area.$5 tickets at doorph: 6125 5700

Romeo and JulietCanberra Theatre Centre 7:30pmSee details Tuesday 10th August

Thursday 12th AugustRomeo and JulietCanberra Theatre Centre 7:30pmSee details Tuesday 10th August

Friday 13th AugustThe DreamPlayhouse 7:30pmCrossover string orchestra deepblue combine film, classics, rock and elec-tronics.$38/$32/$26/$20ph: 6275 2700

Romeo and JulietCanberra Theatre Centre 7:30pmSee details Tuesday 10th August

Saturday 14th AugustRomeo and JulietCanberra Theatre Centre 1:30pm and 7:30pmSee details Tuesday 10th August

Sunday 15th AugustThe Complete Bach KeyboardLlewellyn Hall 1pmAs Arnan Wiesel’s Bach series comes to its conclusion, he introduces the clavi-chord for the first time with the piano.$30/$25 limited seatingph: 6125 5700

10

Sarah KimWesley Church 3pmOutstanding young Australian organ-ist Sarah Kim performs Bach, Brahms, Saint-Saëns and Widor.$30/$25/$15/$5 tickets at doorph: 6232 7248

Wednesday 18th AugustWednesday Lunchtime LiveWesley Music Centre 12:40pmFeaturing the Brew Guitar Duo (Bradley Kunda and Matthew Withers).$2 tickets at doorph: 6232 7248

Thursday 19th AugustThe Will to FreedomStreet Two 8pmA music-driven monodrama about women, fundamentalism and freedom. Written and performed by Maike Brill with original music composed and per-formed by Anthony Smith.$25/$22ph: 6247 1223

Friday 20th AugustCanberra Classical Guitar SocietyWesley Music Centre 7:30pmWith prominent young Australian gui-tarists Aleksandr Tsiboulski and Jacob Cordover.$20/$15 tickets at doorph: 0403 640 669

The Will to FreedomStreet Two 6pm and 8pmSee details Thursday 19th August.

Angela Little “Celtic Fire”Street One 8pmNew musical show which combines the ethereal voice of Angela Little (from Baz Luhmann’s ‘Australia’) with the excite-ment of Irish dancing, tribal rhythms, cinematic sounds, and visual projec-tions.$25/$20ph: 6247 1223

Saturday 21st AugustThe Will to FreedomStreet Two 6pm and 8pmSee details Thursday 19th August.Ensemble OffspringStreet One 8pmConducted by Roland Peelman, the en-semble performs new works by Tristan Murail, Kaija Saariaho, Giacinto Scelsi, Claude Viver and Australian James Cud-deford$25/$20/$15ph: 6247 1223

Sunday 22nd AugustCelebrating Arthur BenjaminWesley Music Centre 2pmPianists Wendy Hiscocks and Roy Howart play Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Lambert, Mayerl and Benjamin. Includes pre-concert talk by Hiscocks.$25/$20/$10/$5ph: 6232 7248

Percussion ConcertBand Room 3pmFeaturing staff and students of the ANU School of Music Percussion Area.$TBAph: 6275 2700

The Will to FreedomStreet Two 8pmSee details Thursday 19th August.

Wednesday 25th AugustCanberra Symphony OrchestraLlewellyn Series 10:3Llewellyn Hall 7:30pmChopin Piano Concerto No. 2 & Op.22Brahms Symphony No. 2ph. 6262 6772www.cso.org.au

David HatchWesley Music Centre 12:40pmPerforming the Brahms Clarinet Quin-tet.$2 tickets at doorph: 6232 7248

Thursday 26th AugustDido and Aeneas & Bastien und Basti-enneSt Philip’s O’Connor 7:30pmCAMRA presents Henry Purcell’s Masterpiece along with one of Mozart’s earliest operas$25/$20http://www.camra.asn.au/

Canberra Symphony OrchestraSee details Wednesday 25th August.

Friday 27th AugustDido and AeneasStreet One 8pmThe School of Music presents Purcell’s only operatic masterpiece in a new edi-tion by Geoffrey Lancaster.$30/$20ph: 6247 1223

Saturday 28th AugustDido and AeneasStreet One 8pmSee entry Friday 27th August for detailsThe Big Band SoundCanberra Theatre 7:30pmIn a Fund-raising event for Legacy,

the band of the Royal Military College presents works for concert band and big bands in a two and a half hour spectacu-lar.$50/$40ph: 6275 2700Dido and Aeneas & Bastien und Basti-enneSt Philip’s O’Connor 7:30pmSee details Thursday 27th August

Sunday 29th AugustFrom Hilarious to HauntingWesley Music Centre 3pmSoprano Sally Wilson and pianist Mark Kruger perform a selection of English songs by Delius, Haydn, Elgar, Britten, Bolcom and others.$25/$20/$10/$5 tickets at doorhttp://www.artsongcanberra.org/ph: 6295 9613Dido and AeneasStreet One 4pmSee entry Friday 27th August for details

Tuesday 31st AugustNguyêñ Lê-TuyênLlewellyn Hall 10amA Lecture Recital of new Australian Guitar music with Vietnamese Cultural Influences.Free admissionph: 6215 5700

Venue Information

Llewellyn Hall, RR3, Band RoomANU School of MusicWilliam Herbert Place (off Childers Street) Actonhttp://music.anu.edu.au/ph: 6125 5700

Street Theatre (Street One and Street Two)Corner Childers Street and University Av-enue Canberra Cityhttp://www.thestreet.org.au/ph: 6247 1519

Wesley Music Centre and ChurchNational Circuit Forresthttp://www.wesleycanberra.org.au/ph: 6295 3680

St Philip’s Church O’ConnorCorner Macpherson and Moorhouse Streets O’Connorhttp://www.stphilipsoconnor.org.au/

Canberra Theatre and PlayhouseCivic Square, London Circuit Canberra Cityhttp://www.canberratheatrecentre.com.au/ ph: 6275 2700

For more upcoming events, seehttp://music.anu.edu.au/events

11

12

30 July Rex Hotel Canberra

13

ANU SCHOOL OF MUSIC PRESENTS

VENUE // Llewellyn Hall, School of Music COST // Free Entry MORE INFO // www.music.anu.edu.au/events

TUESDAY 31 AUGUST 2010, 10.00AM

NGUYÊῆ LÊ-TUYÊNA NEw VOICE: Australian guitar music with Vietnamese cultural influencesA lecture-recital of new Australian guitar compositions inspired from the Vietnamese music culture. Traditional folksongs, melodic and rhythmic idioms from various regions of Vietnam are brought to life in harmony with art music of the twenty-first century.