The beginnings and development of a New Zealand music: The life ...

19
LAMDIN, Clive.
"Carousel".
A young person's guide to Douglas Lilburn1s
Canzona vol.3 no.9, October 1981:6-9.
NORMAN, Philip. Douglas Lilburn's "Nine Short Pieces for Piano":
a brief analysis. Canzona vol.} no.I. September 1979:23-8.
Three of these (Norman's, Lamdin's and Harris's analyses) were prompted
by the need for material on these works which were, at that time, on
the New Zealand secondary school music examinations syllabi. The
fourth, Bibby's analysis, was prompted as a follow-up to the n~~chki6~
issue of Canzona.
Bibby's analysis, though suffering through attempting to tackle
a wide topic in a relatively small space, is interesting in that it
isolates a number of compositional features Bibby finds characteristic
of Lilburn's writing for piano.
Despite each of the pieces examined
receiving barely a paragraph of attention, and despite some of her
findings about Lilburn's music being open to debate, Bibby's article
is undoubtedly the most comprehensive writing on an aspect of Lilburn's
music available to date. However, rather than suggest a critical
excellence achieved by Bibby in her article (although many valid points
are raised), this indicates the lack of critical writings on Lilburn's
music elsewhere.
Harris's, Lamdin's and Norman's articles all examine, in varying
degrees of detail, specific individual compositions by Lilburn.
Norman's article attempts a concentrated analysis of the musical
components of each of the pieces in the Nine Short Pieces for Piano
collection. Lamdin's article provides what is essentially a listening
guide, for school pupils, to Carousel.
It is written, appropriately,
in a conversational tone, and aims at helping the reader draw
conclusions ab.out the music.
Harris's article on Symphony No.3 is in two parts, the first of
which concentrates on Lilburn's use of a twelve note row in the work.
Regrettably, Harris makes some extraordinary claims about the
properties of the row- claims that Lilburn was moved to refute in a
I ater 1ssue . f 36
0 Canzona.
The second part of Harris's article provides a 'descriptive
analysis' that is at best cursory and adds little to an understanding
of the work.
Where appropriate, the contents and conclusions of these
articles will be referred to and incorporated into the text of this
36 Canzona vol.2 no.7, March 1981:47.