Not suspicious. Not cheesy.
May 25, 2006
________________________________________________________
The Washington Post: Their name sounds more Monty Python than Monteverdi, but the Suspicious Cheese Lords -- a Washington-based men’s a cappella group that specializes in music from the Renaissance – is one very serious ensemble. In a genuinely beautiful performance at The Church of the Epiphany on Tuesday, the Lords showed that they could deliver not only thoughtful interpretations, but rapturous music-making as well. 
Giovanni PalestrinaThat was clear from the opening notes of Palestrina’s 1584 motet, “Sicut cervus”, given a performance so weightless and transparent it practically turned to light. Two dreamlike songs by the 16th-Century child prodigy Vittoria Aleotti were equally luminous, though a challenging work by Francesco Landini -- full of pungent harmonies and intriguing rhythms -- came off just a bit ragged. But the final two Renaissance works on the program (including a finely-detailed 8-voice lament by Nicolas Gombert) layered wave upon wave of precisely calibrated, exceptionally moving song.
While they were clearly right at home in the 16th Century, the Lords also easily negotiated works from our own newly-born millennium, including several compositions from the group’s members – all of which (perhaps unsurprisingly) resonated with a certain Renaissance flavor. Despite some fine ideas, Gordon Geise’s “A Rose Beheld the Sun” felt vague and unsure of itself, but Gary Winans Jr.’s “…les cedres et chaque petite fleur…” was much more satisfying, with a distinctive musical imagination and firm compositional control. George Cervantes’ Blessing of Saint Francis, meanwhile -- with its faint but wonderful undertones of Brian Wilson -- was a real delight to the ears.
Oh, and the group’s name? It’s a playful translation of “Suscipe quaeso Domine”, the title of a motet by Thomas Tallis -- more sedately known as “Take, I ask Lord.”
Stephen Brookes
2 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (2)
Various Suspicious Cheese Lords (the entire membership of which likes the piece) assured me that it was our performance, and not the composition, that was lacking in May, and so gave "A rose..." a second chance last Sunday at our 10th Anniversary Concert. At Our Lady of Mercy Catholic Church. In Potomac, Maryland. To which, it hardly needs mention, no critic came.
Of course the group was far more confident and musical in its delivery of the piece than last May, but who cares, since nobody knows it. Your comment was picked up by various early music websites--I learned today upon some Googling--so my piece will eternally have one bad notice, marring what is otherwise an ejaculatorily effusive review of the Cheese Lords' concert. Thanks so much!
I sympathize with your frustration -- no one likes to be criticized in print, and I can assure you that critics take no pleasure in having to write a negative review. All a critic can do is listen very carefully, then report fairly and (hopefully) with some insight and understanding.
That said, I'm not sure I understand your complaint. I wrote that "Despite some fine ideas, 'A Rose Beheld the Sun' felt vague and unsure of itself" -- a balanced, accurate assessment that even the Suspicious Cheese Lords clearly agreed with! So -- what did I get wrong, exactly?
It's fair to complain if a critic has misrepresented a piece, or been biased or malicious or otherwise unprofessional. But clearly that's not the case here.
You say that the piece got a more musical delivery in the recent performance. I'm glad, and I hope that the piece came across as more carefully structured and focused than it did in May. But frankly, if "Rose" was not ready for public performance in May, then you -- as the composer -- should have pulled it from the program. It makes no sense to blame the critic for the resulting performance.