Alexander Lingas wrote:

>Re: Peres as "mad genius"
>Although I'm well aware of his hearty laughter,


Oh, has word of this moniker gotten back to him?


>I really find this
>designation a bit patronising. Although he has had his hits and misses,
>Peres works and studies very hard.


Of course he works and studies very hard.
(Mad geniuses always do!  ;-> )

I knew of his work at Royaumont (as did, I expect, most of the subscribers
to this list), but I hadn't realized it was quite so extensive.


>He runs a centre for studying medieval
>music at Royaumont abbey called CERIMM that is a sort of medieval
>counterpart to IRCAM.  He regularly hosts scholarly conferences on a wide
>variety of subjects (Russian Old-Believer singing, various Western medieval
>repertories, oral traditions of polyphony, Byzantine chant (in which I
>participated), Jerome of Moravia, etc.), the proceedings of which are
>published in the series Rencontres a Royaumont.  He also has a series of
>ongoing study projects employing top-ranked scholars, including one on
>music in various medieval cities.  In addition, some of his musical
>projects take years of preparation.  I have heard from Angelopoulos, for
>example, that the Ensemble Organum has been working for some time on
>singing ornamented chant according to the rules of Jerome of Moravia, all
>of which Peres can quote by heart in rehearsal.


I very much look forward to hearing the concerts and recordings that come of
that last project!


As the person who came up with the "mad genius of medieval music" title for
Peres, let me stress that I don't mean to belittle him or his hard work.
(Poke fun, yes; criticize some of his "misses", yes; belittle, no.)  I meant
the "genius" every bit as much as I did the "mad" -- probably more.  I think
many subscribers to this list must feel the same way -- otherwise, this
thread wouldn't have become the liveliest to have appeared on this list in
months.

Marcel Peres demonstrates a great deal of courage as well as hard work and
thought.  (So, by the way, does Harmonia Mundi, which has recorded and
released his work, no matter how obscure the repertory or unorthodox --
pardon the pun! -- the approach.)  He has indeed had hits and misses; that
the hits (genius) have been fascinating and often revelatory and the misses
(madness) have sometimes seemed spectacularly wide of the mark is precisely
why, I think, the "mad genius" moniker caught on.



>Granted, it is a big shock for people to hear for the first time a sound
>completely different than the usual mix of Solesmes and English cathedral
>singing.


Certainly, but that's why we pay attention to him and sometimes find his
work revelatory.

One obvious example of his genius and courage  is in actually putting into
practice rules that were known but ignored -- most notably, in my view, that
chant for solemn feasts was performed much more slowly than on regular days.
The fact that he applied that rule and some principles for ornamenting chant
(e.g., filling in the intervals) is why I so revere his recording of
Josquin's Missa Pange Lingua.  (That and the lovely polyphonic singing, of
course!)

A key point about that recording and Peres' achievement in it is that HE
EXPLAINED WHAT HE WAS DOING AND WHY IN THE PROGRAM NOTES FOR THE DISC.  I
don't know where (or even if) Peres publishes the results of his own
research, but any such publications will not be accessible to the large
majority of the audience for his concerts and recordings.  Program notes are
an outlet where he can make his case for the approach he takes and why
without worrying (at least in the immediate term) about arguing with other
scholars who don't agree with his approach.  (I might add that program notes
also give critics like me the opportunity to understand -- and to be
receptive to -- his ideas before the deadline for submitting our reviews.)
Yet Peres often fails to take advantage of this opportunity.

To take the examples that have irked me most:

1. I never saw any explanation that made sense of why he chose to use
Corsican vocal timbre and embellishments in Machaut's Mass.

2.  Ockeghem's Requiem.  He performed and recorded one of the best-known and
most-recorded works of 15th-century using a vocal style that seems to
disregard most commonly held assumptions/notions of what constitutes
beautiful sound and musicality in this repertory.  That could be a very
healthy thing, but the program notes with the CD devote not one word to the
issue.

Does he need to JUSTIFY himself?  Well, does anyone?  But I can't imagine
working as hard as he does without wanting people to understand your work,
and he could be so much more helpful than he is in that regard.

This makes me want to put the following questions out:

"Genius": Which Ensemble Organum recordings do you think are the most
important?   Ground-breaking, influential, etc. -- you pick (and state) the
criteria for importance.

Which Ensemble Organum recordings do you find the most beautiful or
pleasing?

"Mad": Which Ensemble Organum recordings do you think were  the biggest
misses and why?

Matthew Westphal
[log in to unmask]



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%