Claudio Monteverdi — Vespro della Beata Vergine Year: 1610
John Eliot Gardiner - Conducter
The Monteverdi Choir
The English Baroque Soloists
The London Oratory Juniors Choir
Ann Monoyios - Soprano
Marinella Pennicchi
Michael Chance - Counter Tenor
Nigel Robson - Tenor
Mark Tucker - Tenor
Sandro Naglia - Tenor
Bryn Terfel - Bass
Alastair Miles - Bass
Basilica di San Marco, Venice. 1990
Rating: 4.5 Stars
Rinaldo Alessandrini, Concerto Italiano
Rating: 4.25 Stars
Never thought I'd get around to this.
I originally had no interest in vocals in my classoal music
Then came Beethoven's 9th.
But that's it
But then came Novak's Slovak songs.
Okay, now I'm sure that's it.And I surely don't want any slow vocals!
But then came Gorecki's 3rd.
Okay, now I've found my real boundary, and I'm never going to like any church music!
Well, tn in walks J.S Bach, cantatas in hand. Wow!
But hey, that's Bach, eh? No reason to think anyone else can impress me like that.
And there's certainly no reason to travel back another quarter century from that!, right?
Well, actually there is... because this Monteverdi cat can write!
I went into this blind other than trying to pin down the best recording among the many available. The consensus pointed heavily to Gardiner's 1990 reading so that's what I went with.
....and...
Ahhhhh, the glory of the human voice as a musical instrument as opposed to just a deliverer of lyrics! Magnificent! Whether male or female, solo, duo in counterpoint, or full choir... beautiful.... and oh, so.... musical!
And yes, this performance is incredible. From the glory of the dueling tenors in Duo Seraphim, the beautifully combined choirs of the Nisi Dominus, to the fantastic counterpoint between vocalists and instruments (corners in particular) in the Sancta Maria, every last nook and cranny of this monumental work has something fresh to say, and say it it does in a most beautiful way.
That Monteverdi could write something so expansive, with such going on at times, and still keep individual lines distinct, is incredible. That an ensemble can keep that clarity while being so overwhelmingly grand even more so.
So while this was my first and only Monteverdi Vrspers so far, I was quite confident I had indeed selected the best version. No need to go seeking any other.
But after listening mostly blind, I did a little more research and learned Monteverdi left a lot of room for interpretation and different conductors take good advantage of this freedom. So I just had to grab another. Luckily, I managed to grab a less grand, more personal version which provided good contrast. Rinaldo Alessandrini and Concerto Italiano give us a more intimate reading that seems no less valid. I'll probably always gravitate a little more often to the Gardiner, but I can certainly see there being times where my mood might dictate I grab the Alessandrini.
So almost 4 hours of vocal church music for a guy who thought he didn't like it, and found himself loving every minute of it... not bad, eh?
Franz Joseph Haydn - String Quartet, Op. 50, #3 Year: 1787
Tokyo Quartet
Rating: 4.25 Stars
Franz Joseph Haydn - String Quartet, Op. 50, #2 Year: 1787
Tokyo Quartet
Rating: 4.25 Stars
Franz Joseph Haydn - String Quartet, Op. 50, #1 Year: 1787
Tokyo Quartet
Rating: 4.5 Stars
I ended up listening to the first half of the Haydn Op. 50 set in reverse order. This was due to the #3 coming to me as a recommendation and, as expected, I loved it, so I had to check out the first two. They managed to be even better to my ear! (which is in no way a slight against the third; it truly is wonderful.
As in checking out an either new-to-me or less familiar Haydn Symphony, I love doing the same with has quartets. As many of them as there are, I know I'm always going to hear something unique or innovative, some way in which Haydn is combining things differently or moving the art forward.
What I got in the third kicked off right in the first movement. There was an unusually strong voice in the viola, the oft forgotten stepchild of the string world. The second movement seemed to be pretty rote to start off with, but halfway through the movement, it went through a dramatic transformation that really shook things up, in a very good way. The third movement did much the same and I was just loving all the unexpected twists and turns that always engaged but never disrupted. The final movement Is one of Haydn's more rousing closers, but I thought it came to a rather abrupt close (not quite Monty Python and the Holy Grail abrupt, but still not offering the full resolution I'm used to with Haydn.... maybe this was another "surprise"). But my fascination with his employment with the viola ran pretty much throughout. Haydn has the viola often doubling the 2nd violin, then branching off and running an inverse line
Stepping back to the second quartet in the set, I found it to be at least the equal of the first, maybe even a tiny notch above. It was a little more serious/dramatic, and it definitely had more of what I would call "punctuation." How much of that was the composer's intent and how much of it was a stylistic choice by the Tokyo Quartet, I don't really know, but I do know it worked. And again, Haydn pulled off those dramatic transitions midway through the middle movements.
After all that, I had no reason to think I'd be digging the first quartet even more.... but I did. The first movement was particularly amiable, even by Haydn standards, which is really saying something. It was like a warm greeting from an old friend. The second movement was just incredible, introducing some serious gypsy music we don't normally associate with Haydn, and it was way cool! The third movement was impressive, and most welcome, as it's the first time in the set I heard the cello really get to be the anchor, centering the piece. . In the final movement, Haydn goes hog wild with syncopation and damn is it lively! Yeah, it rocked.
FischmanRockMonster, JazzMeister, Bluesboy,ClassicalMasterProfile Land of Enchantment
Johann Baptist Vanhal - String Quartet in G Major, Op. 6, no. 1 Year: 1780
Kubin Quartet
Rating: 4 Stars
The same recommendation that brought me Haydn's quartet 50/3 also brought me this one. Seeing how brief this was, I was happy to give it a go even though I'd just completed over an hour of Haydn quartets. Vanhal was a contemporary of Haydn's, this quartet being written seven years to Haydn's Op. 50.
So, as I launched into this thing, the first thing I noticed was that this is, as if it was even possible at this point, even more amiable than the first movement in Haydn's Op. 50 #1. Again, like being greeted warmly by an old friend, but maybe a slightly more casual, less deep friendship. The second movement was then a slight shock, but in the best possible way, as it brought some real mystery into the equation, as if to say "okay, so this friend has changed since I last saw him.... how do I now approach this relationship?" The third movement was fine, nothing earth shattering, but served as an adequate closer (this quartet has but three movements). I won't fault it because really, the first two movements raised the bar so high, I can't imagine anyone having a closer fully up to the task. Sill, a very satisfying overall listen, and with less than 12 minutes total investment, it was good pleasure bang for your time buck.
Franz Joseph Haydn - String Quartet, Op. 54, #2 Year: 1787
London Quartet
Rating: 4.75 Stars
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
After thoroughly enjoying the first three of Haydn's op. 50 quartets, I was reading up on them via various sources and stumbled upon a proclamation by David Hurwitz (a critic with whom I share much taste in common) that Haydn's Op. 54, #2 is his "most extraordinary quartet." Now that's a bold claim. Now Mr. Hurwitz, have you heard Op. 76 or Op. 77? Really... think about what you're saying!
But such a claim from such a reputable source demands investigation, so I decided to make fresh run at this extraordinary quartet. So what did I encounter?
Well. To kick things off. The first movement may have Haydn's most effective counterpoint, which itself is no small claim now on my part. But I was amazed and for now, I'm standing by that claim.
The four parts start off the second movement like a sort of four part chorale for strings, and it's beautiful, as well as an effect I never expected to hear in a classical quartet.
The third movement starts off slow, builds drama. And as it proceeds to a menuetto allegretto, the London Quartet makes extremely effective use of accelerandos and retards, allowing tempo to make this a nonstandard and continually interesting dance movement.
But even after all that, the biggest surprises come in the final movement, marked adagio/presto/adagio. Now by this time, we've gotten used to Haydn opening a fast movement with a slow introduction in a Symphony... but in a quartet? And always in the first movement, but the fourth? And then the biggest surprise is het to come. That opening adagio isn't just a brief introduction; the presto doesn't appear until we're 4 1/2 minutes into a movement that's all of 6 1/2 minutes long. And there's another adagio coming to close the piece (another nonstandard element), so that presto goes by really fast. So out of an entire traditionally fast movement, we get all of about a minute of presto..... and it works brilliantly! Really, it's as satisfying a final movement as I've heard.
So in the end, I can understand Hurwitz's claim. It is indeed a massively extraordinary quartet. Haydn's "most extraordinary?" Possibly. It may not displace my favorite (that would be Op. 76, #4), but I do love it through and through, and not only that, I have a level of respect for it commensurate with my emotional appreciation for it.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - String (viola) Quintet in G Minor Year: 1787
Alban Berg Quartet
Rating: 4.25 Stars
Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - String (viola) Quintet in G Minor Year: 1787
Talich Quartet
Rating: 4 Stars
I was in the mood for a Mozart quintet, and landed on this surprisingly tragic work, coincidentally from the same year as the great Haydn quartet I just listened to . I'm always interested in the selection of additional instrument for a string quintet, viola or cello, and how is that to be employed. Each brings a very different additional voice and requires significantly different execution to achieve the right balance. But hey, this is Mozart we're talking about here.... we could hand him a trombone, glockenspiel, two kettle drums and a kazoo and he'd bring back something that is the epitome of classical balance.
But I wasn't so sure in the first movement. That second viola spends a lot of time mirroring the first viola and the second violin to the point that it seemed rather redundant, especially since the three of them spent most of their time providing an ostinato for the first violin to ride upon, and the cello, already outnumbered at this point, seemed underused. But there was no denying the beauty of that violin line, and the trio of middle strings were instrumental in creating the tragic atmosphere, so still a good listen.
The minuet comes second in this piece, but it's hardly a dance movement at this point. The dark mood remains, and there's plenty of tempo changes, so I can't imagine actually dancing to it, with or without powdered wig. But that's okay as its a powerful, moving piece, and Mozart ends up being quite brilliant in how he takes what is traditionally the lightest part of a work and makes it extra deep.
Although in a major key (Eb), the third movement plumbs the depths even further. Slow and wistful, it also includes long stretches of syncopated eighth notes.... look, it's classical reggae! Not really a recommendation in my book, but of course Mozart carries it off in wondrous fashion. None other than Tchaikovsky said of this movement, "No one has ever known as well how to interpret so exquisitely in music the sense of resigned and inconsolable sorrow."
The final movement kicks off with an absolute dirge, still slower and darker than all the movements preceding it before launching into a much brighter allegro that resolves things much as you might come to expect from Mozart. However, while many experts play up the contrast, as if everything has turned into rainbows and unicorns, I actually hear it a little differently. To my ear, the darkness has not fully dissipated, but rather; it still exists, but the theme seems to be that we have learned to coexist with it, and that understanding is what brings the relative lightness we're now enjoying.
I gave this two listens, first by the Alban Berg Quartet and then by the Talich Quartet. The first is astonishingly crisp and precise with the latter being more emotive. Being that this is a relatively dark and heavily emotive piece, I would expect the Talich to be the better approach, but ironically it seemed the crispness of the Berg brought out the message with greater clarity. Both solid performances to be sure, but I can really see myself reaching for the Berg first in most cases.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Fischman
