Michael Kevin Jones. Bach cello suites EMEC. 056/7 Released 2003.
Instrument played 1667 Stradivarius cello at the Metropolitan museum of art New York.
The Cello.
This CD set me off on an internet search almost immediately. I have read about Stradivarius cellos and understood that prior to 1680 there were few if any authenticated cellos made by Stradivari. Incidentally, he apparently married in the year 1667, and at that time was working for or with the Amati family. It appears that the instrument in question was likely a hybrid viol/cello initially with flat back then curved back at later date. Follow this link for more details:
https://tarisio.com/cozio-archive/property/?ID=24672
None of the above or any details of the set up were included in the notes that come with this CD.
The Recording.
On to the performance! The sound was full bodied with good lower register contrary to what I had expected from the instrument’s origins. Certainly nothing like the resonance and substance of the significantly larger Servais cello which was used by Anner Bylsma in his 1992 recording of the Suites.
The sound I suspect was both helped and hindered by the setting. As displayed on the CD case the recording took place at the Metropolitan museum of art in New York in the Kirtlington Park room. This is a room moved from its original place of construction in Oxfordshire England in the early 1900s and moved lock stock and barrel to the museum. Presumably the owner of Kirtlington Park had hit on hard times! I thought the sound echoed rather too much leading to some muddiness and even some significant resonances around the open D string.
So on the positive side the acoustic impresses initially with its grandeur but detracts when the wooden panelling makes itself rather obvious!
Which Style?
As mentioned above, there are no notes about the set up of the cello. However, the tuning was conventional and the sound suggests gut strings. The style was to my ears a hybrid of historically informed with more modern. By this, I mean little obvious vibrato but more romantic style to phrasing. There is plenty of embellishment with ornamentation.
The Music.
In general, this recording did not arouse strong feelings either way. Some of the tempos of courantes and gigues seemed a little slow and the flow lacked consistency in some movements. It is almost as if the performer was searching for direction as opposed to being clear exactly where he was going. Another way of describing it is like been driven in a car with slightly worn steering rack. There isn’t quite the precision and balance of some performances in my view.
Standout moment.
A standout moment was the Prelude of the fifth Suite in the fugal section where the performer sets up an almost rock a roll feel to the music. It is a great example of how it is very rare to come across a recording without something new to offer!
The famous Sarabande of the same Suite was played with sensitivity and smoothness which communicated the bleak mood very well.
Conclusion.
In summary, a somewhat flawed recording and a missed opportunity. I would have liked to read more about the instrument. What did it feel like to play an viol/cello that presumably is a museum piece? Why the choice of venue?
Most important of all, what was the mind-set of the performer in approaching the Suite’s recording?
Charles.