The Vespro della Beata Vergine by Claudio Monteverdi
is one of the monuments in music history. Monuments are usually
the subject of thorough investigation, and that is also the
case here. Ironically, such an investigation tends to raise
more questions than can be answered. In his liner-notes to this
recording Edward Higginbottom sums them up. At what pitch should
this work be performed, how many singers should be used, where
and how many instruments should be used? And then there is always
the question of how exactly Monteverdi meant this work to be
presented: was it a collection of pieces from which a maestro
di cappella could take whatever he needed, or is it written
as a coherent liturgical unity? The many recordings of the Vespers
reflect the many and various answers to these questions.
There are good arguments in favour of most answers. And as long
as there is no firm historical evidence none of these answers
are 'right' or 'wrong'. In most cases the decisions taken by
Edward Higginbottom make sense. To mention them briefly: the
music is performed here as it is printed in the collection,
without any additional liturgical chants. Only in some cases
Monteverdi specifically requires instruments. Although it was
common practice in Italy to add instruments to play colla
voce this practice has not been followed: where no instruments
are required or suggested the choir is accompanied by basso
continuo only. In his notes on the performance Higginbottom
doesn't deal with the scoring of the basso continuo. In this
performance it is rather modest, with only organ and chitarrone,
whereas in some other recordings they are joined by a string
bass, and sometimes also a harp and a harpsichord or a second
organ. In this recording the vocal scoring is basically one
voice per part, with ripieno voices added where that
is felt appropriate. The upper voices are sung by trebles; in
Monteverdi's time these were likely shared by castratos, falsettos
and trebles.
The only aspect where I find Higginbottom's decision questionable
is the issue of pitch. He acknowledges that there is strong
evidence that in Veneto the pitch was relatively high, and some
performers adopt A=465', but Higginbottom has decided for 440'
instead. There may be some good arguments for that, but his
statement that in some sections the music becomes shrill with
a high pitch fails to convince. Only last year I heard a performance
in this high pitch, and I didn't notice any shrillness at all.
This recording has a number of virtues. The very fact that the
solo parts are sung by members of the choir - the favoriti
- guarantees a strong coherence between soli and tutti. This
is without any doubt in accordance with the way religious music
was performed in Monteverdi's days: the split between soloists
and choir is unhistorical. This practice also results in an
excellent blending of the voices in the concertos and the episodes
for two or three voices from the Psalms. The Choir of New College
has a very beautiful and strong sound, with considerable transparency.
The delivery of the choir and the soloists is generally quite
good. The instrumental parts are brilliantly played. The strings
and the cornetts are equally impressive, and in various sections
they show their skills in regard to ornamentation.
That said, this performance is not entirely satisfying. Firstly,
the tempi are mostly moderate. One may argue that the text of
Audi coelum justifies the rather slow tempo. But for
the most part I find the chosen tempi too slow. That is in particular
the case in the concerto Nigra sum which is slower than
any recording I know. The Psalms could have been sung a little
faster too. And when this would have gone together with stronger
dynamic accents on the good notes the rhythmic pulse would have
been better exposed than is the case here. The tempi at the
second disc, with the Sonata sopra Sancta Maria, Ave
maris stella and the Magnificat, are more convincing.
Dynamically I find these performances too flat: there are too
many long notes with hardly any dynamic gradation. In this regard
I notice a difference between the vocal and the instrumental
parts. That is also the case in regard to ornamentation, for
instance in Ave maris stella. It is a sequence of seven
verses, with instrumental ritornellos ad libitum. The
first three verses are for the tutti, verses 4 to 6 are for
a single voice, and the seventh is for tutti again. Whereas
the instrumentalists add ornaments to their parts, the three
soloists - two trebles and a tenor - don't apply any ornamentation.
I find that rather odd, in particular as the material of the
verses is the same - this really begs for variation through
ornamentation.
The very issue of ornamentation is a matter of debate in music
of Monteverdi's time. We know that performers were expected
to add ornaments. At the same time various composers warned
against exaggeration. Nicholas Mulroy is moderate in this respect
in Nigra sum, and some may believe he has got it just
right. But in Pulchra es Sebastian Cox and James Swash
add hardly any ornaments at all, and that is disappointing.
The quality of the soloists is beyond doubt: they have all very
nice voices which are well suited to this kind of repertoire,
and they generally give good accounts. But I am surprised by
the amount of vibrato in some of the trebles' voices, in particular
those of Sebastian Cox and Hugh Cutting. It is not nice, and
I wonder if they can't do without it. If so, that seems to me
a matter of serious concern. If they can, their performances
should have been corrected through another recording session.
It really takes away some of the virtues of their contributions
to this recording. Thomas Hobbs is also not without vibrato,
and the intonation in Deus in adiutorium suffers from
it. But in Audi coelum he sings really well.
Time to sum up. This is a good recording which has many virtues
and makes good listening. But unfortunately it also has some
serious flaws. If you look for a recording with only male voices,
then you don't need to look further. The scoring makes it an
interesting alternative to what is on the market. But as this
interpretation doesn't fully explore the qualities of Monteverdi's
music I can't put it at the top of my list.
Johan van Veen
see also review by Michael
Greenhalgh
Nicholas Mulroy, Thomas Hobbs (tenor) 
