JOSQUIN. Miserere mei Deus —
Cappella Amsterdam, Daniel Reuss
Funeral Motets & Déplorations
[30.9.2018]
cappellaamsterdam.nl |
allmusic.com
Release date: 26 October 2018
Déploration sur la mort d'Ockeghem
1. Nymphes des bois / Requiem æternam [3:30]
Déploration
2. Nimphes, nappés / Circumdederunt me [2:19]
In principio erat Verbum
3. In principio erat Verbum [2:41]
4. Fuit homo missus a Deo [4:35]
5. Et verbum caro factum est [1:46]
6. Absolve quæsumus, Domine [3:39]
7. Absalon, fili mi [3:30]
Planxit autem David
8. Planxit autem David [3:54]
9. Montes Gelboe [2:17]
10. Sagitta Jonathae [3:24]
11. Doleo super te [2:42]
12. De Profundis / Requiem æternam [4:33]
Miserere mei, Deus
13. Miserere mei, Deus [5:33]
14. Auditui meo dabis gaudium [4:13]
15. Domine, labia mea aperies [5:00]
16. Pater noster / Ave Maria [7:05]
17. Musæ Jovis · Nicolas GOMBERT [5:20]
[30.9.2018]
medieval.org Remarks
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/cds/remarks.html
30 December 2018
Todd M. McComb
———
And I suppose that my continued refrain regarding motets, and
so why so many groups are focusing only on mass cycles, has become
tedious: Yet motets have long been regarded as Josquin's most
significant output, so their neglect is particularly vexing. And
so I was happy to see a new program finally
appear: Indeed, even seeing the announcement reminded me of the
Herreweghe classic (which was, coincidentally,
relatively new when the EM FAQ project began, and so my first Josquin
recommendation there), but the result felt more like a journey back
in time than merely that: I don't mean it in a positive sense
either, but rather as a regression in attitude & approach toward
the music, i.e. as a renewed attempt to approach it from a later
(largely Baroque, i.e. modern) perspective.
Reading the liner notes
in particular felt almost like my work had never existed: From
trivial complaints such as never mentioning Absalon, fili mi
at all (and so its more recent attribution to La Rue), to the pat
absurdity of claiming that people wouldn't have been able to hear
two melodies at once, they're utterly dismissive of a medieval
orientation (& without even mentioning the possibility, almost
as if part of a "there is no alternative" Thatcherist
cant...). The performance follows suit (or perhaps the notes reflect
the performance): The earlier repertory is performed in a wretched
manner, with absurd ahistorical tuning & ficta, and indeed
muddled phrasing that obscures the middle parts almost completely.
This jumbled mess of turgid rhythmic interpolations & cadential
"tics" does then start to sound almost appropriate by the
time of the more motivic Miserere (as the program proceeds
mostly chronologically), i.e. the title track & without cantus
firmus.... One can barely pick out the tenor elsewhere, and so of
course the various chants are obscured, and moreover, rather than
emphasizing intervals around the tenor, tuning is allowed to move
around (including there, in the "hold" voice) in order
to emphasize a smooth, soprano-dominated texture. I haven't read
any other discussion of this interpretation to this point, but I
have no doubt that it'll be hailed by Baroque-oriented listeners
(& people who just love Western imperialism, whatever else they
might claim) who — pace e.g. the complaints regarding tuning
by Ars Antiqua, which is at least according to a well intended
approach, if not fine execution — want their music to sound
"angelic" & placidly unchallenging, while anything
premodern should indeed seem obscure & pointless. The result
is a triumph in this sense!
Do I know anything about who Daniel
Reuss is? No, other than that he has recorded later music to this
point, and that this is supposed to be the start of his series on
the Renaissance.... The whole thing comes off as an unrepentant
glorification of imperial modernity to me, and so quite far from
clashing sorrows.... I mean, to be fair, there are some nice moments
where some of the distinctive sweep of the famous motets reveals
itself, but in obscuring most of the musical detail, that also comes
off as imperious in & of itself. I try not to get too much
into negative rants here, but "disappointing" doesn't
begin to describe the resulting impact. (And yes, it also makes
for something of a meditation on the passing of internet —
& so general — relevance for non-commercial sites such
as this. None of this should surprise me, yet hearing it really
did offend me in a pretty basic way. Boo!) To return to the
"back in time" observation, then, this album doesn't
prompt me to look back to c.1500, but rather back to c.1980 —
or perhaps (itself in distorted form) to c.1600. The latter seems
to have been the intent.
[3.1.2019]