An Overview of the Piano Concerto in Canada Since 1900 with Stylistic Analyses of Works Since 1967 by Eckhardt-Gramatte, Dolin, Louie, Kuzmenko, and Schmidt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides an overview of the piano concerto in Canada since 1900 with stylistic analyses of five concertos written in the five decades since 1967 by five Canadian composers: Sophie Carmen Eckhardt-Gramatté, Samuel Dolin, Alexina Louie, Larysa Kuzmenko, and Heather Schmidt. The purpose of the study is to update research on the Canadian piano concerto, spotlight these five concertos, and provide an updated list of Canadian piano concertos as a resource for pianists and teachers. \nThe introduction provides a review of related literature including dissertations, relevant books, and Internet sources that explore related topics. Chapter one presents a history of the development of the piano concerto in Canada since 1900. Chapters two through six discuss five selected concertos: Sophie Carmen Eckhardt-Gramatté’s Symphony-Concerto (1967), Samuel Dolin’s Concerto for Piano and Orchestra (1974), Alexina Louie’s Concerto for piano and orchestra (1984), Larysa Kuzmenko’s Piano Concerto (1995), and Heather Schmidt’s Piano Concerto No. 4, “Phoenix Ascending” (2005). Each chapter contains sections on the composer’s biography and style as well as a brief stylistic analysis of the concerto’s form, themes, orchestration, and interaction between the piano and orchestra, with musical examples. A description of the pianistic writing completes each chapter. \nAppendix A provides a list of known piano concertos of Canadian composers written between 1900 and 2010, arranged by date of composition. Notes include information on, among other things, the duration, orchestration, publication, performances, and discography, as available. Appendices B through D provide lists of: \nconcertos of Canadian composers, arranged by composer; concertos of immigrant Canadian composers written prior to arrival in Canada; and miscellaneous concertos.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".