Pluhar, Jaroussky and L’Arpeggiata jazz it up at Zankel Hall

Early music with a twist!

Albert Imperato 11:57am GMT 1st November 2010
Pluhar, Jaroussky and L’Arpeggiata jazz it up at Zankel Hall

Big kudos to Carnegie Hall for bringing Christina Pluhar and her swinging early music band L’Arpeggiata to New York City, where they performed on Friday at Zankel Hall. I can’t remember the last time I heard rhythmic clapping at a New York City concert venue: the audience craftily used it to elicit three encores from this remarkable ensemble and the evening’s vocal guest, countertenor Philippe Jaroussky.  

L’Arpeggiata plays early music with a twist.  While steeped in period performance practice, Pluhar and the band step out, improvising throughout their program in a style that has been described as a “baroque jam session.”  Indeed after many of the solo turns by Jaroussky and the instrumentalists, I’m sure I wasn’t alone in wanting to clap as audiences often do after a particularly impressive jazz solo.

The instruments are fun to look at and a joy to listen to, played by Pluhar and her colleagues with total command. There’s a theorbo, a long-necked, lute-like object (Pluhar often lead the group while strumming one), as well as archlutes, and baroque guitars (Eero Palviainen backed up Pluhar with the latter two instruments); baroque violin, played with exceptional élan by Veronika Skuplik; harpsichord and positive organ played by Haru Kitamika; colorful and diverse percussion instruments, including multiple drums of varying sizes and timbres, played by David Mayoral; a psaltery – reminiscent of a dulcimer or a cimbalom – which makes a glittering sound when its strings are struck by small hammers (played by Margit Übellacker); and a cornetto (not to be confused with the trumpet-like cornet), a gently curved wind instrument that makes a sound somewhere between a baroque trumpet and a recorder, played with splendid agility by Doron Sherwin (in its day, the cornetto was apparently highly regarded for its ability to “sing,” ornamentation and all, in the style of the human voice).

I knew in advance that the group would be playing, "Teatro d’Amore", the program for their debut recording for Virgin Classics (a client of our company) – though calling the program a “show” would be more accurate, for each component flows seamlessly into the next, often with little break between the numbers, and all performed without an intermission. It focuses on the music of Monteverdi and his contemporaries, including one female composer, the Venetian-born Barbara Strozzi (1619-1677), who was also a singer in her day. The forces that made it to Carnegie (eight people including Jaroussky) were smaller than those on the recording, but in the intimate Zankel space there was no wanting for impact.  

Jaroussky is a superstar in France, selling tens of thousands of each new recording, and he deserves to be one here in the States.  With his clear, honeyed tone, passionate but never overdone delivery, and charismatic stage presence, he is a complete and natural performer.  In two encores, his considerable gifts for comedy were everywhere apparent.  In both a jazzed up version of Monteverdi’s "Ohimé ch’io cado" and the traditional "Ciaccona del paradiso e del inferno,” the first and third encores, he competed with the cornetto player, Doron Sherwin, with displays of showy virtuosity  (think the antics of “Anything You Can Do I Can do Better”). When Sherwin began singing (how dare he!) in the final number, Jaroussky feigned extreme distress and strutted around the stage in peeved high-diva fashion. The second encore moved the action up a few, centuries, with Jaroussky and the group giving us a sweetly affecting rendition of Astor Piazzolla’s wistful “Los pájaros perdidos."

The group rearranged the expected order of the songs and dances at the last minute, so that many audience members were a bit lost trying to find their place in the program-note texts (the final program they performed can be found here). But it didn’t matter a bit. As the music moved effortlessly from the earthy, to the sexy to the sublime, the musicians cast a spell that could hardly be broken.

Albert Imperato

Albert Imperato is co-founder of 21C Media Group, a classical music and performing arts PR, marketing and consulting firm. His on-line journal gives a window into the New York music world, as seen through the eyes of a leading PR guru.

Comments

If any readers who enjoy L’Arpeggiata - and I certainly do - do not know of the Dowland Project, then it's my recommended further exploration for the day. Created by former Hilliard Ensemble tenor John Potter and ECM’s Manfred Eicher, it sees early and jazz musicians attempt to "re-discover the essence of renaissance song from the point of view of a modern performer" as they put it. Or, as our critic William Yeoman rather wonderfully put it, it presents: "whispered conversations: among musicians, cultures and periods - past, present and future". Here's a link to one of their albums, Care Charming Sheep. Enjoy.

Hi Bartleby,

Part of the point of Albert's blog is what he does for a living - he has an unusual view of New York's musical scene, and I must say writes about it rather marvellously. But he is also very clear about when he mentions his clients (which, that being a large portion of his life, he often does). It's a different kind of blog from what you suggest. You might like to read Jed Distler's blog as well (Jed is of course a long-standing Gramophone reviewer)...

 

All the best,

James

 

Let me be clear; I have nothing negative to say about Mr. Imperato (though saying that he writes "marevellously" seems rather hyberbolic).  I do think, however, that Gramophone degrades itself by giving editorial space to someone who is a hired-gun (or would like to be a hired gun) for the artists about whom he writes.  Here is part of the mission statement of 21C, taken from its website: 

We seek to craft a consistent, focused public image for each client and to raise the client’s profile within the artistic community and society at large by generating coverage in print, radio, television and online media.

Nothing wrong with that, but Gramophone's readers are entitled to expect that the magazine is bringing them editorial content that is not just "unusual" or "marvellously" written, but written solely for the benefit of the reader, and not for the benefit of the writer or his subject.  This is quite a simple principle, and it's a bit disturbing that the editor of this venerable publication does not grasp it.  I attended the very concert about which Mr. Imperato wrote, and I agree with what he as to say about L'Arpeggiata, but this is a question about the overall integrity of the magazine.  Can I be sure when I read a review that, at least, it has been written by someone who is doing his best to serve my interests, rather than "to craft a consistent public image" for a client, or to fulfill any other self-serving purpose?  The question is particularly important with respect to a publication that consists largely of CD reviews and appears to depend financially on advertising from CD labels.  I know that this is not a unique situation, and, for the sake of the argument, I'll concede that it is unavoidable, but I would like to believe that the editors of the magazine have a commitment to principle sufficient to manage this inherent conflict of interest.  When I see, instead, a failure to understand why someone whose (perfectly honorable) job is to "craft a consistent public image" for his clients should not be given editorial space in the magazine or on the website, then my confidence wanes. 

 

Bartleby, you are, if I may suggest, drawing unwarranted conclusions from what is clearly an exception among our writers. Albert's column is clearly marked for what it is, it is clear what he does and he reminds readers of that fact in pretty much every piece he writes for the website. He is not on Gramophone's reviewers panel, and I can assure you that all our writers (Albert included, since as I say he clearly indicates what he does with regards to Gramophone) have great integrity. Gramophone reviews are never swayed by advertising considerations - indeed there have been numerous occasions when labels have decided to withdraw their advertising, to our very great cost, because they have not liked what a reviewer has said about some major release of theirs. That is hard on us but we have never changed a review or assigned a reviewer because of such considerations. Most of the time, labels appreciate that the influence of our reviews and features, positive for them or otherwise, comes as much as anything from our editorial independence. I hope this restores your confidence.

 

All the best,

James 

 

 

Dear Bartleby:

I will let James's comments speak for the magazine, but I do want to add a note about why I do my blog.  I honestly believe that music is a gift that composers and artists give to us, and after more than 20 years in the music business I like taking the time to write as I please, whenever I please, and about the subjects that I please, as a show of thanks for the gift they have given me and, presumably, the rest of the audience.  

Many times, my desire to write a post comes from the feeling that what an artist or composer has done deserves as much advocacy as possible (hence my recent posts about Hindemith and Schreker, two composers whom I feel are greatly underappreciated).  In fact, I hadn't planned on writing about L'Arpeggiata until a colleague on the way out of the hall asked me why I thought so few music writers had come to review such an important NY debut.   

With a blog title like New York Insider, and my identity and profession clearly labeled, I think readers have all the important information they need to put my comments into perspective.  Judging from the mostly very appreciative letters I get, including many from artists who have thanked me for paying attention to what they are doing, I think people enjoy hearing from someone who has a different vantage point than the professional writers and critics they mostly get their information from.  

I wonder if I could persuade you to think of me as a music-lover and artist advocate:  being called a "PR flack" sure makes me feel like a stereotype.

Dear Albert and James,

The time for our chat has clearly passed, and no one else took much of an interest in it, but I will close with this:  Albert asks me to think of him as an "artist advocate."  I do.  That's the problem.  The magazine and its writers should be advocates only of the audience.  Moreover, clear ethical standards and principles (like don't publish editorial content by a writer who has a financial interest in his subjects) are designed to avoid the pitfalls of policing one's own ethics on an ad hoc basis, which is folly born of hubris.  It is clear from James's post, however, that he is very far from "getting it" (though I would not be surprised if Albert does).  That's a sad thing for me, as a reader, to know, even if no one else seems to care.

Bartleby

P.S.  Albert, if "PR flack" caused offense, I apologize for it.  It's a term I picked up as the son of a journalist.  "Artist advocate" is fine with me, as long as, for the purposes of this particular discussion, no one loses cite of the fact that you are an artist advocate for hire.  I don't say that to be mean (I really don't).  I probably have a more favorable view of paid advocates of all stripes than most people do.  But it is very much to the point here.

B.

Dear Bartelby,

I totally concur. Thanks for writing.

Sincerely,

Rainer

We are smitten by the way you addressed this topic. It’s not frequently I come throughout a web web page with amusing content articles like yours. I’ll bookmark your feed to remain up to day along with your hereafter revisions.Just brilliant and do preserve up the complete work. Extenze