Wednesday, February 13, 2019

The Dizzying Democratization of Baroque Music




The Dizzying Democratization of Baroque Music

As two midwinter New York concerts made plain, early-music performers have ventured beyond the repertory’s familiar names.

The early-music movement has changed not only how musicians play—tuning, timbre, technique, style—but also what they play. A couple of generations ago, programs of Baroque music were dominated by such starry names as Monteverdi, Vivaldi, Handel, and Bach. It became clear, though, that an auteur theory of the Baroque, one that limits the repertory to a few masters, suppressed vast quantities of excellent music. One sign of this emerging view was the suggestion, from musicologists, that “Pur ti miro,” one of Monteverdi’s most beloved arias, might actually have been written by Francesco Sacrati or by Benedetto Ferrari. The obvious next question was which other works of theirs are worth hearing. In recent years, the Baroque repertory has undergone a dizzying democratization, as two midwinter concerts in New York made plain. At Weill Hall, the Polish countertenor Jakub Józef Orliński sang music of Nicola Fago, Domènec Terradellas, Gaetano Maria Schiassi, and Johann Adolf Hasse, alongside a little Vivaldi. In the Fuentidueña Chapel, at the Cloisters, the ensemble Sonnambula based a program around the Flemish composer Leonora Duarte. The absence of historical celebrities hardly hurt attendance; both events played to full houses.
Duarte, who lived from 1610 to around 1678, belonged to the converso community of Antwerp—Jews who fled Portugal and Spain and converted to Catholicism. Diego Duarte I, Duarte’s grandfather, established a thriving jewelry business that went on to have various illustrious clients, including King Charles I of England. The Duarte family, steeped in culture, was famous for its musical evenings; Leonora and her five siblings all sang or played instruments. The English polymath Margaret Cavendish, a regular visitor, wrote that Duarte’s voice “Invites and Draws the Soul from all other Parts of the Body, with all the Loving and Amorous Passions, to sit in the Hollow Cavern of the Ear, as in a Vaulted Room, wherein it Listens with Delight, and is Ravished with Admiration.” Another visitor said that he had heard comparable music-making only under Monteverdi in Venice—an extravagant compliment.
The Flemish artist Gonzales Coques, who studied in the Brueghel studio, painted a splendid portrait of the Duartes in musical mode. Certain works by Vermeer may also give glimpses of their world. Diego Duarte II, the composer’s brother, owned a Vermeer—probably “A Young Woman Seated at a Virginal,” which now hangs at the National Gallery in London—and the painter may have sold it directly to the family. Could Duarte be one of Vermeer’s pensive musical women? Evidence is lacking, but there is no harm in imagining. While Sonnambula played at the Fuentidueña Chapel, images of two Vermeers were projected on the wall.
Seven Sinfonias by Duarte survive, amounting to just under twenty minutes of music. Sonnambula filled out the program with other works of her era, including pieces by English composers: John Blow, William Brade, Alfonso Ferrabosco II, and John Bull, who was based in Antwerp for a time. As Elizabeth Weinfield, a viol player and Sonnambula’s leader, observed in a program note, Duarte’s music draws on the English viol-consort tradition, which is centered on the introverted, aching tone of the viola da gamba. At a time when homophony was coming to the fore—melody over accompaniment—Duarte’s contrapuntal interplay of lines would have had a somewhat old-fashioned sound. Yet the texture is suitable for a family of independent minds. It’s tempting to describe the Sinfonias as jewel-like in construction. You could also compare them to Vermeer’s paintings, small in scale and infinite in depth.
The members of Sonnambula—who include, in addition to Weinfield, the violinists Jude Ziliak and Toma Iliev, the gambists Amy Domingues and Shirley Hunt, and the keyboard player and tenor James Kennerley—are in residence at the Cloisters this season, under the auspices of the Met Museum’s LiveArts program. On this occasion, Sonnambula collaborated with the writer Teju Cole, whose work is rich in musical references. Cole read aloud short prose texts meditating on Duarte’s life and times. He noted that none of the Duarte siblings had children, meaning that the family had vanished from Antwerp by the end of the seventeenth century. The Duartes died one by one, Cole said, “like instruments in a consort sequentially falling silent.” For a remarkable hour on a cold February night, their world came alive again.
Orliński, who performed at Weill with members of New York Baroque Incorporated, is part of a formidable wave of gifted younger countertenors which also includes Philippe Jaroussky, Anthony Roth Costanzo, Iestyn Davies, Franco Fagioli, John Holiday, and Aryeh Nussbaum Cohen. The popularity of Baroque opera has pushed this voice type out of the niche category and, in some cases, into crossover celebrity. Jaroussky has long been a media star in France. Costanzo has won notice for his appearances in Philip Glass’s “Akhnaten”—he will sing the role at the Met next season—and for a chaotic but memorable multimedia spectacle called “Glass Handel,” in which he performs Glass and Handel arias in ornate costumes while dancers swirl and videos play. Orliński, who is twenty-eight, is the rare countertenor—possibly the only countertenor—who can break-dance. He reportedly incorporated a move called the windmill into a production of Francesco Cavalli’s “Erismena,” at the Aix-en-Provence Festival, in 2017.
Modern countertenors have overcome the pale, pinched sound of yore, finding a stronger core to their tone. Orliński’s voice is warm and bright, almost clarinet-like in timbre. Exceptional breath control allows him to spin out tensile, buoyant phrases. He swoops across wide intervals with little sense of a break between registers. The sheer polish of his singing can lead to a certain sameness; at times, I wanted sharper diction and better-defined contrasts. Still, his feeling for the music was profound.
What sets Orliński apart is his inventive choice of repertory. Half the pieces that he sang at Weill also appear on his recent Warner Classics album, titled “Anima Sacra,” a collaboration with the ensemble Il Pomo d’Oro. Orliński devised the program in consultation with the Guadeloupean singer and dancer Yannis François, who moonlights as a researcher into overlooked Baroque repertory. François thought that Orliński was particularly suited to Baroque sacred music. Most of the composers gathered for “Anima Sacra” were active in Naples or in Dresden during the first part of the eighteenth century. Some works received their première recordings and may not have been performed in several centuries.
The prize discoveries are two pieces by Fago, who figures in music history mainly as a teacher at Neapolitan conservatories. Fago’s “Confitebor” and “Tam non splendet” unfold like miniature operas, with vivid melodic writing and propulsive dance rhythms. The “Memoriam” section of the “Confitebor,” celebrating the Lord’s miraculous works, begins with a rugged, minor-mode instrumental unison, followed by an ethereal melisma on the word “memoriam”: a suggestion of dark earth against luminous sky. Orliński delivers these obscurities with such assurance that, after a few listens, they lodge in one’s memory as classics. The same is true of “Mea tormenta,” a slashing aria from Hasse’s oratorio “Sanctus Petrus et Sancta Maria Magdalena.” Orliński dispatched this incisively at Weill. On disk, he sings it with unrestrained ferocity, and Il Pomo d’Oro storms around him.
Orliński, having opened his recital with Vivaldi’s “Stabat Mater,” returned at the end to familiar ground, offering as an encore the aria “Vedrò con mio diletto,” from Vivaldi’s “Giustino.” This is one of the loveliest laments in Baroque opera, and Orliński dedicated it to the memory of the great American baritone Sanford Sylvan, who had died, suddenly, a few days earlier. Sylvan was a singer of immaculate taste and acute expressivity; Orliński’s performance, charged with emotion and unerringly graceful, was a worthy tribute. ♦
This article appears in the print edition of the February 18 & 25, 2019, issue, with the headline “Deep Cuts.”

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

Spend Money Where You Spend the Most Time




Spend Money Where You Spend the Most Time

It’s tempting to pamper yourself with a windfall of cash, but try this instead — look at how you spend your day. Then put your money toward the things you spend the most time doing. You’ll be happier.
CreditCésar Pelizer
Image
CreditCreditCésar Pelizer
By Eric Ravenscraft
When you buy a phone or a car, you do your research to make sure you get the best bang for your buck. When it comes to indulging yourself, however, you might not do the same diligence. There’s one easy way to make sure that, even when you treat yourself, your money goes as far as it can: spend money where you spend your time.
Imagine this: it’s tax season and you’ve got a decent refund coming in. You want to use a small portion of it to pamper yourself a bit. What should you spend your money on? A nice dinner out? A new gadget? Maybe you want to spend money on an experience like some studies keep telling you to do.
Those are all good ideas, but spending money to improve the things you do every day can have the most long-term impact.
Take your bed, for example. You (hopefully) spend about eight hours there every night. Buying a new pillow or a nice bed might be more boring than a luxury cruise, but when you’re still getting a good night’s rest months or even years later, the benefits become clearer.
ADVERTISEMENT
However, it’s not just a matter of comfort. From a financial perspective, splurging where you spend the bulk of your time saves more money than buying things that seem the most fun. For example, earlier this year, I spent $160 on an ugly, if super comfortable office chair. I also spent $60 on a copy of Super Mario Party.
Now, a video game should be more fun than a chair, no matter how nice the chair or how dull the game. Moreover, the game cost about $100 less than the chair. So, the game must be the better indulgence, right? It’s cheaper, it’s entertaining and it’s even an experience I can share with friends.
You have 3 free articles remaining.

Subscribe to The Times
And yet, in the time that I’ve had both, I’ve spent far more time with the chair. I played the game about a dozen times — sometimes alone, sometimes with friends — for around one to two hours at a time. Call it 20 hours total. Since the game costs $60, that means I paid about $3 per hour of fun. That’s not bad! It’s cheaper than a ticket to a movie theater, anyway.
However, I’ve spent at least eight hours a day, five days a week in the chair (I work from home.) Over a mere three months, that would add up to 480 hours in the chair. Since the chair costs $160, I’ve paid a paltry $0.33 per hour of sitting. After a year, that would be down to about $0.08 per hour. In order to get that same cost-effectiveness from Super Mario Party, I would have to play it for over 750 hours. The game’s fun, but not that fun.
Spending money on a comfortable chair with good posture support instead of a video game sounds like the kind of stuffy advice you’d get from a parent, but in my case it’s directly related to the amount of time I spent on both. If you spend less than an hour a day at your computer desk at home, but have sunk a few hundred hours into a notoriously immersive open-world video game, then it might make more sense to buy the game. It might even justify buying the game multiple times.
ADVERTISEMENT
To put it simply, the more hours you spend on an activity, the more value you’ll get from spending money on ways to improve it. That’s not to say that temporary things are bad. Getting a massage might only take an hour and last the day, but it’s still a nice treat every once in a while. You just don’t get much mileage out of it.
Math is all well and good in principle, but how do you make this work in practice? The first step is to find the areas of your life where you spend your time. Statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor offer some useful, if somewhat obvious hints on where to start. According to the data, Americans spend most of their time in three key areas: work, sleep, and leisure, in that order. Work takes up an average of eight and a half to nine hours per day, sleep just under eight hours, and leisure or sports activities a comparatively meager three hours per day.
Since it takes up most of your time, let’s look at work. If you’re in a career where you sit at a desk all day, investing in a supportive chairor a standing desk can improve your comfort. On the other hand, if you work in retail, service industries, or other jobs where you’re on your feet all day, then your money might be better spent on a comfortable pair of shoes.
The next biggest chunk of your time is sleep. Getting a really good mattress can be expensive, but even a comfortable pillow can help you get more restful sleep at night, and wake up with less of a pain in the neck. If you’re the kind of person who can’t fall asleep in total silence, then a white noise machine could be worthwhile. At first glance, it might seem silly to spend $40 on a machine that does the same thing a free app can do, but over the course of a year, the machine costs less than a penny and a half per hour you use it. From that perspective, either option is cost-effective, so you can choose either one based on whatever you like best.
Then there’s your leisure time. At three hours of the average person’s day, it’s not quite as time-consuming as work or sleep, and yet you might spend more time on it than other, more “responsible” areas of your life like cleaning or cooking (which the Labor Department says take up about an hour of the average person’s day each). Counterintuitively, that means spending $100 on an InstantPot for the kitchen can be less cost-effective than spending $200 on a comfy recliner.
If being advised to buy cozy chairs instead of cooking equipment and video games instead of office chairs sounds too-good-to-be-true at best and irresponsible at worst, that’s because this shouldn’t be the only factor in your decision making. You don’t buy equipment for the kitchen because of the number of hours you spend cooking. You do it because it makes it easier to make food. Which, as it happens, is something you have to do. You don’t need to play video games, but you do have to eat.
The relationship between your money and your time also isn’t that straightforward.
Say you spend three hours a night playing games or watching TV, but only spend an hour or two a week vacuuming your house. According to everything we’ve said so far, you should spend your money on your leisurely hobbies, right? However, if you spend money on a robot vacuum, then you can reduce the amount of time that you spend vacuuming to almost zero.
ADVERTISEMENT
That’s an example of spending money to buy yourself time. You can’t do much to reduce the amount of time you need to sleep, and reducing the amount of time you need to spend on work can be complicated, but buying a gadget to help out with chores or make cooking easier can give you some time in your day back. If you can save yourself some time out of your day, that might be more important than optimizing your price-per-hour number.
No single factor should decide how you spend your money, but putting your money where you spend your time can help give you some valuable perspective. You only get so many hours in the day, and you don’t want to spend them in misery. If you’re going to spend money on yourself, the areas where you live your life the most are a good place to start.