Concerti Particolari
Academia Montis Regalis, under the direction of Enrico Onofri, have released a disc of eleven Vivaldi concertos. Particolari refers to particular, or special in Italian. The particular thing about them is that they all share strong character and fall into the genre of Vivaldi’s sinfonias, or “concertos for strings.” Onofri writes of these pieces: “[The concertos] therefore seemed to provide a perfect tribute not only to the idea of singularity and to the indefinite and elusive, but also to the unconventional beauty that it creates.” The notes also include details of this being the first recording for the orchestra for a number of years; it’s also Onofri’s debut recording with them as its newly named conductor.
Strictly speaking, the concertos go beyond an altogether cohesive string orchestration. Readers may already be familiar with the recordings by Concerto Italiano of Vivaldi’s string concertos. It’s believed some of these may have been created for theatrical productions and been used as operatic sinfonias. In the three movement Concerto alla Rustica, RV 151, the ensemble employs oboes and a bassoon in the continuo. Both RV 159 and 155 include solo episodes. Having first heard this concerto in the late 1980s by way of the English Concert’s recordings of Vivaldi on DG Archiv, the color here was welcome. The middle movement gives the opportunity for the solo line to the oboe over the violin, which again, is a welcome contrast to the other recordings I have of this work.
The other element that makes this recording stand out is the pitch center of A=440hz. While at sight first unusual, perhaps, for a baroque ensemble, scholarship points to Venice using a slightly higher pitch center, which other recordings of Venetian works also follow. It may be going too far to say that it lends a brightness to the ensemble’s sound, but something has to explain the sound captured on this recording. While my bias with recordings by Onfori has already been shown in my reviews (I tend to like his interpretations very much!), the sound engineering has not always been, in my opinion, ideal. That said, none have been bad, but it’s always a disappointment with an otherwise excellent performance that the sound engineering had a distracting reverb or that the clarity of the soloists pushes you away from the opportunity to get closer. The team behind this recording is like a breath of fresh air; in the slow movement of RV 155, track 27, both Onofri and the continuo team of harpsichord and lute are captured in near perfect clarity. When the full ensemble plays, the sound of the ensemble and their acoustic at the Sala Ghislieri is synergistically full and impressive.
The rub with this approach is where are you in the mix of the recording? The middle movement of RV 159, for instance, could have you fully believing you were the harpsichordist with the immediacy of the sound. I can’t say this quality mimics the sound of what it would be like in the audience, in fact I know it is different; the effect of feeling you are immediately next to the ensemble, however, is exciting. My hope is that others take notice of this effect. Close miking with just the right amount of reverb is for me the magic sauce (and like sauce making, we often can’t put to words the special treatment a chef uses to achieve her superlative qualities) and this one is likely a good candidate for an exemplar to be mimicked by others.
Many will know Onofri from his days as concertmaster of Il Giardino Armonico, and the comparisons between this ensemble and his former colleagues is an apt one. Onofri does play with dynamic contrasts and gets from this ensemble a rather full, intense sound at what seem very appropriate moments, and the performances are far from monochrome. The contrasts used in dynamics are less shocking, perhaps, than in Antonini’s latest recordings; the tempos chosen are also not as inspired by fast drives in Italian sports cars. While I am also an admirer of IGA’s interpretations and recordings, I believe Onofri’s will perhaps be less polarizing than those by IGA and in some cases, Biondi’s Europa Galante.
I will say, in terms of contrasts, Onfori’s interpretations for me offer fresher style than the recordings by Concerto Italiano, listening to their Naive/Opus 111 releases. It could also be that I am more familiar with CI, and in some, I’m really splitting hairs, as both interpreters are world class. In the middle movement of RV 134, for instance, the violins have the melody but the use of the continuo instruments for contrast, the harpsichord in particular, is refreshing and frankly makes an otherwise dull movement sparkle with Onofri. In contrast, Alessandrini and Concerto Italiano’s interpretation is like night and day. He pushes it faster, and I so admire the phrasing of his violin section, but the rendition by Onofri is just more creative.
In Alessandrini’s second recording of string concertos, from which I compared RV 134, he also employs smaller forces. You cannot ignore the larger forces used by Onofri, which to be sure, seems less mainstream today than it was a generation ago. Those who collected the set by CI may want this new recording just for the beautiful contrast in the weight and volume that AMR offers in their newer performances.
Both ensembles, I think are worth your audition; certainly CI’s recordings are more comprehensive for this genre. When listening to the A major concerto, RV 158, with the 1993 recording by Freiburg Barockorchester, another night and day comparison emerges. Sound engineering wise, the FBO recording is flat and distant; interoperation wise, the FBO is a very competent orchestra. One performance almost sounds like a dress rehearsal; the other an exploration of sound, with artists intent in exploiting more from the page than what may have been initially seen. The recording by Concerto Köln from 2009 has a better engineered sound, but the interpretation of the final movement, again, isn’t terribly interesting. The creative depth taken isn’t much removed from a high school performance (with obviously tight technical skill). In cuing AMR, the phrasing employed uses smaller blocks of notes. It brought to memory Bruce Hayne’s discussion of romantic vs. baroque phrasing, insisting that baroque composers likely thought of phrasing in smaller clusters. This attention here is welcome; it makes for the standout against three otherwise decent, technically sound, but otherwise lackluster interpretations.
At the end of the day, how many recordings of the Concerto madrigalesco or Sinfonia al Santo Sepolcro does one fan of Vivaldi need? You may decide you don’t need another rendition and I can certainly understand. These pieces have been recorded by many ensembles before. After several auditions on headphones and on loudspeakers, know that chosen repertoire may have been intentional. Without going to extremes, Onofri reveals his artistic direction for the AMR by choosing pieces that are no doubt familiar to many. The contrasts to other recordings, perhaps more than anything else, reveal the richness inherent in Vivaldi’s writing that allows for such a variety of interpretive options.
One can only hope for more from the newly energized Academia Montis Regalis!
