ExEcutivE Board

Reba Beeson, PresidentKatherine Hazan, Vice PresidentVictor Germack, Treasurer William Lee, Secretary

trustEEs

Dr. Mirjana BlokarPeter BurnimPhilip ButterfieldGuy ClarkLynne Flexner Carla Darista Frampton

associatEs

Allan BernardWally BlanchardEmily BuckinghamInezita GaySusie Greenwood

Thomas Crawford, Music Director & FounderYana Stotland, Associate DirectorGlenn Askin, Development DirectorJoan Baynes, President, ACO Guild of VolunteersMary Dunphy, Bookkeeper

American Classical Orchestra133 West 70th Street, New York, NY 10023-4498 P.O. Box 441 Greenwich, CT 06836

Box Office: 212.362.2727 Fax: 212.362.2729www.aconyc.org info@aconyc.org

Press and Public Relations:Jay K. Hoffman & Associates, Inc.136 East 57th Street, Suite 801, New York, NY 10022info@jaykhoffman.com 212.371.6690 Fax: 212.754.0192 www.jaykhoffman.com

Twenty-fourth Season 2008-2009

Rob HahnPeggy KarcherDr. Francesca KressPamela RabinoviciSybil ShainwaldNancy Vick

Robert LevineWendy OrmondManolis SaridakisJoel Wilson

Thomas Crawford, Music Director and Founder

Thursday, January 8, 2009 8pm

New York Society for Ethical Culture

2 West 64th Street, New York City

d

Levin & Mozart

- Progr a m -

Piano Concerto No. 24 in C Minor, K. 491 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791)

Allegro

Larghetto

Allegretto

Robert Levin, fortepiano

-intermission-

Symphony No. 6 in F Major ‘Pastorale’, Opus 68 Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)

Allegro ma non troppo – Awakening of cheerful feelings upon arriving in the country

Andante molto mosso – By the brook

Allegro – Merry gathering of country folk

Allegro – Thunderstorm

Allegretto – Shepherds’ song. Happy and thankful feelings after the storm

W. a. MoZart Piano Concerto in C minor, K.491Program note by Robert Levin

levin

& m

ozar

t

2

The Piano Concerto in C minor, K.491, is the second of two concertos Mozart composed in the minor mode. (The D-minor concerto, K.466, is the other.) Like all of Mozart’s works in this key—among them the Serenade for eight winds, K.388/384a; the Fantasy, K.475 and Sonata, K.457; and the Adagio and Fugue, K.546—it is somber and disturbing. The autograph of the concerto reveals a unique disorder. Mozart normally drafts directly and neatly into what will be the final score, switching to a sketch leaf to work out a problematic passage in hasty and often barely legible script. The solution, once reached, is then carried back into the draft score. In the case of K.491 materials of the opening orchestral tutti appear out of order, with a variety of symbols to denote the jumping back and forth to create the final sequencing. Moreover, the solo keyboard part is a hasty scribble for long passages, which are crossed out and replaced by revisions that spill over into the lines of the score that are reserved for the orchestral instruments. Several passages are schematic and require fleshing out by the performer, and at one spot in the finale’s second variation all versions are crossed out; no final intention may be divined. This suggests that the sinister character of the music affected its composer viscerally.

This is a particularly remarkable state of affairs if one considers that the concerto was composed while Mozart was in the final stages of composition of The Marriage of Figaro (K.492). Might the work on that sparkling comedy (notwithstanding Basilio’s and the Count’s calls for revenge) have created an inner need in Mozart to express the more desolate states of soul?

At the time Mozart composed and introduced his path-breaking keyboard concertos, they were anything but classics. Their language was and remains a volatile synthesis of elegance, charm, impishness, audacity, operatic staginess, earnestness, pathos and tragedy. A performance style capable of encompassing such vast dramatic scope must have been imbued with spontaneity and characterized by a directness of discourse far removed from the preoccupation of recent generations of Mozart performers with beauty of sound, grace, and piety. As performance aesthetics have shifted from speaking a living language to ever more perfect and dazzling reproduction of established texts, the sense of improvised discourse has yielded to painstakingly replicable performances, and actual improvisation has disappeared.

It may surprise some listeners to learn that even the orchestral sections of the keyboard concertos are affected by the soloist’s improvisation. Mozart’s autographs prescribe keyboard accompaniment of these sections: the left hand doubles the string bass part while the right hand improvises an accompaniment. In the early concertos this is indicated by figures, as was done in Baroque music; often it was Mozart’s father who provided them. In later concertos the direction Col Basso appears, without figuration, at the beginning of every page of the score except where the keyboard has a solo role. The aesthetics of the 19th century conceived the concerto as an heroic conflict between solo and orchestra and had no use for this practice; published editions replaced Mozart’s indications with rests. In reinstating it, the full range of solo/tutti relationships emerges—accompaniment of orchestral passages, chamber-music accompaniment in solo sections, and the infinite guises of the protagonist, from the shy or coy to the most ebullient and virtuosic.

Within the first seconds of the first movement Mozart threatens us with a slide into the abyss. It starts quietly, with unison strings, on the tonic note, ascending a third to E-flat. We expect the fifth, G, to follow, thereby outlining the tonic chord; but Mozart chooses to sound the sixth (A-flat) instead. From this disturbing ambiguity he slides down two half-steps, past the G to F-sharp, then jumping a diminished 7th to E-flat. (This particular diminished 7th is also used in the wind serenade and piano fantasy and sonata mentioned above.) The sliding gesture and diminished 7th are then reproduced, falling down the circle of fifths from G minor, to C minor, to F minor, to B-flat minor, and E-flat minor. Only the entrance of the two oboes pulls the piece back into C minor, through the reinterpretation of C-flat as B-natural. Later in the movement, when the opening tune is sounded in E-flat major by the flute, Mozart chooses not to intervene, and we land in F-sharp major—tonally halfway around the world from C minor. The whirl of keyboard scales in this passage creates a voluptuous sense of danger. In the contrapuntally worked-out development, which combines motives heard individually earlier on, a growing agitation precipitates a direct confrontation between solo and orchestra that anticipates the heroic rhetoric of such 19th-century concertos as Beethoven’s “Emperor” and Brahms’ First Concertos.

The second movement is a rondo in which the wind band, on increasing display in earlier concertos, triumphs completely. Indeed, the first violins have the melody for a grand total of four measures of the entire movement. The episodes, in C minor and A-flat major, are given over to the winds, with oboe, flute and bassoon dominating in the former, the clarinets in the latter.1 The coloration of the winds underscores the operatic character of the music; the sweet, childlike consolation of the last measures, in which the staccato string accompaniment uses the I – IV – V – I progression of “Heart and Soul”, seems to have vanquished the threats of the preceding movement.

Mozart’s variations for solo piano often follow a standard pattern: the rhythmic surface gradually increases, a minor-key (major-key if the theme is in minor) variation provides color and contrast, an adagio suspends the sense of time and allows for elaborate ornamentation, and a fast variation brings the work to an entertaining conclusion (unless the unadorned theme is brought back at the end to round off the work)—cf. the Rondo in D, K.382, heard in several of these concerts.

When Mozart chooses to include variations in a chamber or concerto composition, his attitude changes from entertainer to one of sophisticated creator; works such as the String Quartet in A major, K.464, the Serenade for twelve winds and string bass in B-flat major, K.361/370a, the Serenade for eight winds in C minor, K.388/384a and the Divertimento for string trio in E-flat major, K.563 show that he was the absolute master of the idiom when it mattered to him. The finale of the present concerto is a particularly powerful example. Both halves of the theme pivot on a chord that can be interpreted two ways—hopefully, looking towards A-flat in the first half, D-flat in the second; or in the forlorn keys of G minor and C minor. The mood varies from wistful to confrontational, in which the violent triplet accompaniment in the solo keyboard’s left hand reaps the whirlwind of symphonic retribution; the jolly clarinet-led A-flat variation recalls the middle movement while remaining true to the variation tune; the oboe, flute and bassoon, heard in C minor before, are in the sunny key of C major here, reversing the order from that of the second movement. The return to C minor precipitates a foreboding that leads to a cadenza for the soloist and the final variation,

3

1 This structural scheme is reused by Mozart in the second movement of his Piano Sonata in B-flat, K.570.

levin

& m

ozar

t

4

in time. Here the poignant duality of the pivoting chord is illustrated by Mozart by repeating the ambiguous measure whilst changing the spelling of the chord; the performer sees the paths to redemption and despair literally, though it is left to the listener to infer them.

During a performance of K.491 in Vienna’s Augarten at approximately the time Beethoven had begun to work on his Third Piano Concerto (Op. 37, likewise in C minor), he exclaimed to Johann Baptist Cramer, “Cramer! We shall never be able to do anything like that!” But he continued to try. Beethoven’s Third Concerto represented a breakthrough for its composer on many fronts, one of which is a critical victory in his continuing struggle to escape from Mozart’s daunting legacy. Beethoven first emulated K.491 in the Piano Trio in C minor, Op. 1/3, and again in the Third Concerto. It is revealing that the first movement of the latter substitutes an overt, triadic opening, preferring the certainties of a tonic-and-dominant drum tattoo to the threatening equivocacy of Mozart’s diminished sevenths; but the disquieting shadows from K.491’s first movement coda are taken over directly into that of Op. 37.

These performances aspire to the values of an earlier time. All embellishments and cadenzas are improvised, and the shaping of the solo rhetoric changes from performance to performance: the element of risk is at the forefront. (Although improvised ornamentation is primarily the domain of soloists, John Spitzer and Neal Zaslaw have documented the practice in 18th century orchestras as well. We are reviving the practice in these performances.)

The decision to improvise embellishments, cadenzas and lead-ins was not taken lightly. Nonetheless, I feel that observing the spirit of Mozart’s concerto performances, instead of the letter of their transmission, is especially important, and a logical outcome of the historical performance movement. I am fully aware of the peril of this choice, even when, as is the case in K.491, cadenzas by Mozart do not survive. On the other hand, an audience that knows (and anticipates) every note of the authentic cadenzas as well as the concerto proper is deprived of the critical element of uncertainty that is the very raison d’être of the cadenza. Instead, these live performances incorporate the whims of a particular moment; the content of the improvised elements will survive only in the memories of performers and audience. (I am incapable of reproducing a note of my improvised cadenzas, even immediately after playing them.)

It is my hope that in taking the risks associated with this decision that others will be encouraged to follow suit. When improvisation regains its former position at the center of Classical music making, perhaps the gap between composer and performer, between old and new music, between vernacular and art music, and between Classical performer and audience will narrow.

Programme note ©Copyright 2001 by Robert D. Levin

5

roBErt LEvin, fortEpiano

Robert Levin’s performances have been acclaimed throughout the United States, Europe, Asia and Australia. His free fantasies in the styles of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Mendelssohn, often improvised on themes provided by his listeners, have delighted audiences and critics alike.

Robert Levin’s appearances in recital and with such major orchestras as the BBC Symphony Orchestra, the Boston Symphony Orchestra, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Cleveland Orchestra, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, the Orchestre Sympho nique de Montréal, the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra, and the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra span repertoire from the sixteenth century to the present day. Equally at home with the piano and the fortepiano, he has performed regularly with the Academy of Ancient Music, the English Baroque Soloists, the London Classical Players, the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment and the Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique with Sir John Eliot Gardiner, Christopher Hogwood, Sir Charles Mackerras and Sir Roger Norrington. His recordings including the complete Bach harpsichord concertos with Helmuth Rilling, both books of The Well-Tempered Clavier on five instruments, a Mozart concerto cycle with Christopher Hogwood and the Academy of Ancient Music and a Beethoven concerto cycle with Sir John Eliot Gardiner and the Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique. As a chamber musician he has appeared regularly at the Lockenhaus, Oregon Bach and Sarasota Festivals and in duo-recital with pianist Ya-Fei Chuang, and with violist Kim Kashkashian, with whom he has made numerous recordings. He has performed with the New York Philomusica since 1971.

A recognized Mozart scholar, Robert Levin’s completions of Mozart’s fragments have been published by Bärenreiter, Breitkopf & Härtel, Hänssler and Peters. His highly praised reconstruction of the Symphonie concertante for four wind instruments, K297B, and his acclaimed completions of the Requiem and the C-minor Mass have been recorded and performed worldwide.

levin

& m

ozar

t

6

BEEthovEn syMphony No. 6 in F major, Op. 68

Program notes by Jeffrey Kurtzman

At times Beethoven liked to work simultaneously on two compositions in contrasting styles and modes for the same medium. On June 8, 1808 he sent off to his publisher completed scores of both his Fifth Symphony in C minor, Op. 67 and the Sixth Symphony in F major, Op. 68, following several years of working on the two compositions. Early sketches for both symphonies date back to the so-called “Eroica” sketchbook of 1803-1804, and the two symphonies were performed together on a program in Vienna on Dec. 22, 1808, though with their numbers (Fifth and Sixth) reversed. Indeed, no two works could be considered more opposite in character than the dynamic, dramatic Fifth Symphony, with its hammer-stroke theme of the first movement and triumphal finale, and the Sixth Symphony, dubbed the “Pastorale” by Beethoven himself, with its evocation of an idyllic countryside whose peace and serenity are interrupted only briefly by a thunderstorm.

Beethoven on occasion did apply descriptive titles to his compositions; but some of the familiar ones, such as the “Pastorale,” “Appassionata,” and “Tempest,” piano sonatas were added by publishers or have become commonplace because of comments Beethoven made to friends about the pieces. Other than the “Eroica” (Third Symphony), the “Pastorale” is Beethoven’s only symphony to bear a title, which first appeared in the score of a violin part for the first performance. But whereas the “Eroica” is only a single-word characterization, even if it was originally associated with Napoleon Bonaparte, Beethoven’s inscription for the Sixth Symphony reads; “Pastoral Symphony, or recollections of country life; more expression of feeling than painting.” Moreover, each of the movements has a descriptive title. Beethoven himself, like many of his contemporaries, ridiculed efforts to paint external subjects in music. He was even somewhat ambivalent about his own description of the Sixth Symphony, writing in his sketchbook such comments as “The hearers should be allowed to discover the situations . . . All painting in instrumental music is lost if it is pushed too far . . . Anyone who has an idea of country-life can make out for himself the intentions of the composer without many titles . . . Also without titles the whole will be recognized as a matter more of feeling than of painting in sounds.” Nevertheless, Beethoven eventually settled in his autograph score on a descriptive title for each of the symphony’s five movements, altered slightly when the symphony was published:

1. Pleasant, cheerful feelings awakened in people upon arrival in the country-side.

2. Scene by the brook.3. Happy gathering of country folk.4. Thunderstorm.5. Shepherd’s song: Grateful feelings of thanks to

the Almighty after the storm.

What musical characteristics did Beethoven have in mind when he wrote “Pastorale” at the head of his symphony and added titles for each of the five movements? One is the choice of key for the work. F major had frequently been associated with Nature and a pastoral environment ever since the 13th century, including several pastoral symphonies antedating Beethoven’s. Frequent use of subdominant harmonies and the subdominant key engender a relaxed atmosphere

7

in relation to the tonic. In the idealized imagination of 18th- and early 19th-century city dwellers, the inhabitants of the countryside were happy, carefree peasants and shepherds, whose music was characterized by simple dances and folksongs. Long-breathed melodies with repetitive patterns or repetitive phrases that mimic folksong fill the symphony—a marked contrast to the abbreviated, elemental motive that permeates the Fifth Symphony. Other characterizations of the countryside are even more obvious, such as the imitation by the flute of birds chirping in the first movement and flute, oboe and clarinet performing the same function at the end of the second, or the representation of a storm in the fourth movement by loud diminished-seventh chords, string tremolos and jagged descending string figures bristling with energy. Since folk dances were often accompanied by drones, the open fifth drone in the first and last movements is an automatic evocation of the pastoral landscape and the music of country folk. The special sonorities required to produce these effects make this the only Beethoven symphony with a varied orchestration in every movement.

The cheerful feelings signified in the first movement’s title are reflected in simple combinations of tonic, subdominant and dominant harmonies--all major triads, without the complication of minor harmonies or dissonant chords. While folksongs often have square-cut phrases with obvious cadences, in the first movement, Beethoven’s folk-like melody exhibits greater expansiveness by leaving phrases open-ended, demanding continuation. Such musical expansiveness is analogous to paintings of the period that depict rolling countrysides with wide, distant horizons. In the development of the first movement, Beethoven casts aside his typical dialectical conflicts of motives, rapid shifts of mode and key, and dissonant harmonies in favor of simplicity and stasis. We hear the same short thematic patterns repeated over and over again above stagnant drones, first in one key, then another, directly juxtaposed without transitional modulations. Only momentarily do we hear a passing modulation to a minor key which vanishes as quickly as it arrives, the only such minor chord in the entire movement!

The second movement, “Scene by the brook,” is Beethoven’s most painterly, even while adhering to sonata form. The flowing and murmuring of the brook is depicted by an almost continuous undercurrent of motion in the upper strings and muted solo cellos over which a leisurely melody in the first violin unfolds, punctuated by trills suggesting, perhaps, the rustle of leaves, or the improvisational piping of a lone shepherd. In the recapitulation the trills are shortened to sound like the twittering of birds. The wind instruments assume prominence in the second theme, and in the development, the flutes and oboes are sometimes suggestive of bird calls and bird songs, including a rising 16th-note arpeggio that Beethoven identified as a “yellow-hammer,” according to his sometimes overly romanticizing biographer Anton Schindler. But indicative of Beethoven’s interest in more than mere imitation, this arpeggio becomes a principal accompanying figure in both lower winds and the first violin in the development and recapitulation. The short epilogue opens with imitation bird calls that Beethoven himself identified in the score as a nightingale (flute), a quail (oboe) and a cuckoo (clarinet), which, according to Schindler, he considered a “joke.”

In villages on the outskirts of Vienna, Beethoven encountered Austrian dance music for small bands in which winds played a dominant role. Such a wind band makes a prominent appearance in the third movement, which replaces Beethoven’s typical Scherzo and Trio. The “Happy Gathering of Country Folk” is represented

levin

& m

ozar

t

8

by folk dances in the same triple meter as a Scherzo and Trio with some of the same sectional repetitions. The “trio,” with its reduced texture, focuses particularly on a small wind band. According to Schindler, Beethoven observed “how village musicians often played in their sleep, occasionally letting their instruments fall and remaining entirely quiet, then awakening with a start, throwing in a few vigorous blows or strokes at a venture, but generally in the right key, and then falling asleep again.” Beethoven imitated such a gesture early in the trio, where the syncopated tune in the solo first oboe is sporadically accompanied by a few notes thrown in by the second bassoon, interspersed by gaps of silence. The bassoon’s effect is truly comic, as is its more subtle imitation later by the violas, cellos and horns, each one “awakening” the next. A trio would normally return to a repeat of the scherzo, but before doing so, Beethoven inserts another, rather rough and heavy-footed German dance in duple meter. After a da capo of the entire movement up to this point, the final return to the opening dance leads directly without pause into the fourth movement, “Thunderstorm.” It is this storm which expands the structure of the normally four-movement symphony to five movements.

The thunderstorm gradually takes shape from the scurrying remnants of the dance until it suddenly bursts forth in full fury. Hector Berlioz said of this movement: “It is no longer just a wind and rain storm: it is a frightful cataclysm, a universal deluge, the end of the world.” For the first time a minor key and fortissimo dissonant diminished-seventh chords disrupt the placid major keys and harmonies of the rest of the symphony. Jagged downward rushing strings in unisons and octaves are interrupted by thunderblasts of winds and timpani and the softer, rumbling thunder of cello and string bass, in turn interspersed with lightening flashes in the first violins. An abatement of the storm gradually leads back to yet another loud, sustained outburst featuring trombones, the chaos of descending chromatic string scales and a descending chromatic bass. Finally the storm slowly dissipates, and after a flash of distant lightening in the first violin, a slow chorale in strings and winds signals the return of stability, the major mode, and the thankfulness of the country folk.

This fourth movement again leads without pause into the uncomplicated rondo finale, the “Shepherd’s Song” offering grateful thanks. As in the first movement, a folksong-like melody dominates the scene, introduced by a shepherd’s call resembling a yodel in a succession of winds over a drone bass. Once more the harmonies are major and simple, scarcely clouded by a rare minor triad. Repetitions of the principal melody are varied, including accompanying 16th notes reminiscent of the murmuring brook of the second movement and a flowing 16th-note variation of the theme itself. A secondary theme in the subdominant includes a direct quotation from a Croation folksong. In keeping with the peaceful, congenial character of the finale, the symphony ends with a soft recollection of the shepherd’s call with which the movement began against the backdrop of quietly murmuring 16th notes. Anthony Hopkins has suggested that the entire symphony represents the succession of different times of day: Saturday morning in the first movement, Saturday afternoon for the “Scene at the Brook,” Saturday evening for the village dance, Saturday night for the storm, and Sunday morning for the pious thanks of the country folk following the storm.

How was Beethoven justified in writing such a composition when he ridiculed the efforts of composers to paint external subjects in music? The answer is that despite the many visual images suggested by the titles, what Beethoven imitates is not a

picture or vision of the countryside, but primarily its sounds—the sounds of folk dances and drones, the sound of a flowing brook, of bird calls, of a thunderstorm, organized into typical, but somewhat modified, symphonic structural forms. His canvas is a sound-canvas, using the very material of his art to evoke scenes that the listener can hear aurally and simultaneously imagine visually. The pictures, stimulated by the titles, are in the mind of the listener; in the symphony there are only sonorities, but shaped in such a way as to imitate natural sounds and evoke feelings typically associated with them. As Rudolf Bockholdt has observed, Beethoven’s own description of the symphony as “more expression of feeling than painting” might be more precisely expanded to “more the expression of the feeling of country life than painting of country life.”

9

thoMas craWford, Music dirEctor

Music Director and Founder Thomas Crawford is active in numerous musical disciplines as conductor, composer, and organist. As a conductor, Mr. Crawford is a champion of both historically accurate performance styles of the Baroque and Classical repertoire and of new American music. He has distinguished himself as a composer in many idioms and has been especially prolific in vocal music.

Mr. Crawford founded the Fairfield Orchestra in 1980. In 1985 he also started the Orchestra of the Old Fairfield Academy. In 1998, after achieving success in performances and professional recordings with both orchestras, Mr. Crawford changed the name of his ensembles to American Classical Orchestra in order to focus exclusively on period instruments.

Mr. Crawford’s orchestral training comes from Samuel Adler of the Eastman School of Music and from Hugo Fiorato, Conductor of the New York City Ballet Orchestra. He holds a Master of Arts degree in composition and organ performance from Columbia University and a Bachelor of Music degree in composition and organ performance from the Eastman School of Music. Mr. Crawford has held church and choral directing positions in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. He has served as Director of the Westchester Boys Choir and has guest conducted numerous oratorio choirs throughout the region. His choral training comes from Westminster Choir College in Princeton. He is Organist-Choirmaster at St Paul’s in the Bronx.

Mr. Crawford has led his orchestras in Carnegie Hall, on the Lincoln Center Great Performers Series and, most recently, at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. He has attracted many outstanding artists, including Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma, André Watts and Richard Goode. Mr. Crawford is also responsible for the Orchestra’s numerous international recordings with such great artists as Malcolm Bilson and Keith Jarrett.

aMErican cLassicaL orchEstr a

The American Classical Orchestra celebrates classical music performance on authentic instruments, specializing in repertoire from the 17th to 19th centuries. Founded by music director Thomas Crawford in 1985 as the Orchestra of the Old Fairfield Academy, the Orchestra works to render more faithfully music of the Baroque, Classical, and early Romantic eras. In 1999, the orchestra’s name was changed to American Classical Orchestra. Interested in reviving and preserving the art of playing period instruments, the American Classical Orchestra also fosters the education of musicians and the public in authentic performance technique.

Comprised of leading period instrumentalists in the New York metropolitan region, the Orchestra has achieved significant critical acclaim through its performances and its professional recordings in New York City and Connecticut. The ACO has recorded the complete Mozart wind concerti, using its principal players as soloists. These three compact discs mark the first comprehensive survey of the Mozart wind concerti by an American period-instrument ensemble and conductor.

The American Classical Orchestra has appeared in the Lincoln Center Great Performers Series. In December 2000 the Orchestra made its debut at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in a program specially designed for the exhibition “Art and the Empire City: New York, 1825-1861.”

aMErican cLassicaL orchEstr a Musicians

ViOLiNLinda Quan, concertmistressJudson Griffin, principleBonnie Aher Helene Bergman Rachel Evans Evan Johnson Karl Kawahara Peter Kupfer Anca Nicolau Lisa Rautenberg Mark Rike Cynthia Roberts Mark Zaki Margaret Ziemnicka

ViOLADavid Miller, principalAndrea Andros Margret Hjaltesteb

CeLLOMyron Lutzke, principalDavid Bakamjian Maxine Neuman

BAssJohn Feeney, principalMotomi Igarishi Anne Trout

FLuteSandra Miller Anne Briggs

OBOeMarc Schacman Sarah Davol

CLARiNetNina SternEd Matthew

BAssOONAndrew SchwartzTom Sefcovic

HORNRJ KelleyAlexandra CookJohn Bowden

tRumPet Carl AlbachLouis Hanzlik

tROmBONe Richard ClarkKen Finn

timPANi Dan Haskins

levin

& m

ozar

t

10

11

cLassicaL Music for Kids®

Classical Music for Kids was created by the American Classical Orchestra as an education and outreach program to introduce children to the pleasures of classical music in an interactive, age-appropriate, entertaining format. Since CMK’s creation in 1999, the Orchestra has reached more than 200,000 students and their families with its in-school and family matinee performances.

For this work, the American Classical Orchestra was chosen from a national pool of candidates in 2002 to receive the Early Music America’s “Bringing History Alive” award. This award is given to a music organization exemplifying excellence in introducing classical music to primary- and secondary-school students. In 2006, the ACO received the prestigious National Endowment for the Arts award, “Learning in the Arts for Children and Youth,” for its Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Music – Jefferson at Monticello.

Classical Music for Kids consists of two interrelated parts: live public performances intended for a family audience and an education and outreach program held in school classrooms. The in-school program is part of our coordinated approach of partnering with the schools and their teachers, both to teach the children classical music and to prepare them for the program to be presented to a broader audience in a concert hall.

The participating teacher receives a curriculum guide that complements the repertoire at the public performances. Prior to the concert, the students learn about the music in class and attend an in-school interactive performance, led by Maestro Thomas Crawford and guest artists. The students learn how to attend a live performance and are introduced to the period instruments, composers, musicians and music excerpts from the program.

We bring history alive for students by recreating performances similar to those given in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The students learn the differences between the period instruments and their modern counterparts, and they hear the beautiful music as it was intended to be heard.

levin

& m

ozar

t

12

DONORs – CORPORAte, iNDiViDuAL & FOuNDAtiON

Includes donations, grants and in-kind support from December 15, 2007 If there are any omissions or mistakes, please accept our apology and contact the ACO office.

Visionaries ($25,000–$150,000)

Emily & Richard BuckinghamConnecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism

Claudia & Rob Hahn - Rob Hahn FoundationWilliam Lee & The Carrie Lee Music FoundationNancy Newcomer Vick - Newcomer Foundation

Angels ($10,000–$24,999)

Lynne & Don FlexnerCarla & George Frampton

Angie Kozlowski - ASK Family Foundation Lois Robards

Benefactors ($5,000–$9,999)

Dr. Mirjana Blokar & Dr.Ted FederCindy & Peter Burnim

Ros & Philip ButterfieldGuy Clark & Harrison Morgan

Eileen Guggenheim & Russell WilkinsonKatherine & Steve Hazan

Artur and Heida Hermanns-Holde FoundationPeggy Karcher

Dr. Francesca Kress and Jack MayberryPeggy & Mark Kurland

Pamela & Gabriel Rabinovici Sybil Shainwald

Nonnye Wheeler - Wilmot Wheeler Foundation

supporters ($1,500–$4,999)

Alpha WorkshopsAlexandra & Bruce BallardReba Beeson & Granville Wyche BurgessJoanne & Wally BlanchardJudith Boies & Robert ChristmanDavid S. BrownShelley & Albert CohenAmy DiGeso & Paul Rakowski Joan & Peter FaberLori & Victor GermackErika HallHearst Corporation Michael Horowitz, EnTrust Capital, Inc.

Kristina & Stephen Lang - Eugene M. Lang FoundationMarita & Henry Leitner Terry & Richard Lubman New York Academy of ArtWendy Ormond Jane & Alfred Ross - Ross Foundation Charles & Mildred Schnurmacher FoundationJanet SlomTed & Vada Stanley FoundationAnn Tenenbaum & Thomas Lee

Helen Mae & Seymour AskinPaul BailinLori & Carswell BerlinNancy & Allan BernardKim BrizzolaraSheila Brody Priscilla BrowningNick ByronGrace Connell DesignsJohn DevinDanny Dilman Gayle & Phil George Margot & Leonard Gordon

Isabelle HahnAngie & Richard Hinchcliff, JrSandra & John HorvitzRandi & Jeffrey Infusino Hazel Kandall Janice Langrall & Robert BurdenRobert Simmons Lanier, Jr.La PrairieBarbara & Robert LevineMae & Matthew Miller Herb MorganGlynnis O’Connor & Doug Stern

Emilya & Robert Padlowski Barbara & Harald PaumgartenJohanna Pfund & Ron GassDr. Robert Rosenbaum & John StillmanLisa & Bernard Selz - Selz FoundationMatthew Patrick SmythAnita Grossman SolomonKarsten StaigerPamela & Peter TakiffKenneth WamplerKathy & Matthew Wiant

CONtRiButORs ($300–$1,499)

Friends (up to $299)

Becca Abrams & Nathan BennValerie Plunkett-Areco Mary Jo Ashenfelter & Tom HeckmanAlix & Richard BarthelmesChantal BastinDonna & Stanley BatkinTodd Breitbart

Dr. Michael CareyRoberto CaseyTom DaveyBarbara GermackAnne & Ken HermanPeter KupferEstee Lauder, Inc.Sal LopesJo Malone

Sarah K. Morrison Judith Rodin & Paul VerkuilYoshiko Sakamoto Tara & Manolis Saridakis Horton ScottRichard A. SheldonPeter StamosMartha & Harry Theodos

PAtRON memBeRs 2008-2009

Katina Arts-MeyerDonna & Stanley BatkinReba Beeson & Granville W. BurgessLori & Carswell BerlinGail BindermanDr. Mirjana Blokar & Dr. Ted FederJudith Boies & Robert ChristmanKim BrizzolaraDavid BrownCindy & Peter Burnim

Guy Clark & Harrison MorganAmy DiGeso & Paul RakowskiFlorence DupontLynne & Don FlexnerCarla & George Frampton Marilyn & Lawrence FriedlandLori & Victor GermackClaudia & Rob Hahn Erika HallKatherine & Steve HazanJoan HelpernSandra & John HorvitzPeggy Karcher

Dr, Francesca Kress & Jack MayberryMarcia LavipourTerry & Richard LubmanWendy OrmondEmilya & Bob PadlowskiPamela & Gabriel RabinoviciLois RobardsLinda SchoenthalerMary & Russell SeloverSybil ShainwaldVictoria TerNancy Vick

music Chair sponsors

This season, the following principal musician chairs have been underwritten by:

Other principal chair sponsorship available: Horn, Cello, Principal Second Violin, Recorder, Timpani

Nancy Newcomer Vick - ConcertmasterAngie Kozlowski - Concert PodiumAnn Tenenbaum & Thomas Lee - BassCindy & Peter Burnim - Trumpet

Claudia & Rob Hahn - OboePeggy & Mark Kurland - ViolaPeggy & Mark Kurland - ClarinetErika Hall - Flute

www.aconyc.org