What is it about booklet-note writers that leads them to make the most ridiculous claims regarding both the music and the performers? How about this: “The great Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli performed 18th century works…which…were considered by most to be harpsichord music. His inspiration came principally from the same source as Nicolosi’s, but perhaps lacked some of the latter’s lucidity and coherence. Nicolosi is now perfecting the process begun by Michelangeli.” Say what? I don’t think we need to go into the positively cosmic nonsense quotient contained in this statement. Suffice it to say that such overselling tends to make one suspicious, with good reason.
These are competent performances of boring music. The two purely orchestral works are anonymous to the point of non-existence; the concertos affect a certain gallant tunefulness but are so four-square in phrasing and formulaic in construction that they outstay their welcome after the opening two minutes of their respective first movements. The G minor concerto, which the ever-optimistic author of the notes, Paolo Isotta, compares to Haydn’s Sturm und Drang period, has a particularly annoying habit of making a big point out of going nowhere. The finest (and shortest) concerto movement here is the finale of No. 2 in F, which at least has some charming writing for flutes and horns.
Pianist Francesco Nicolosi’s clean finger work gives an adequate representation of music that would test no one’s virtuosity, while the playing of the Collegium Philarmonicum Chamber Orchestra favors the strings to excess and sounds too heavy for the music. The sonics are very disappointing–boxy and congested, and you can hear a good amount of performance noise as well. Definitely not one of the year’s best.
