Haimovitz’ First PRIMAVERA Album

Having written about the album PRIMAVERA II - the rabbits at the beginning of this month, I decided that the end of the month would be a good time to catch up on things and listen to PRIMAVERA I - the wind. Taken together, these are the first two releases in THE PRIMAVERA PROJECT, conceived by cellist Matt Haimovitz to commission 81 new solo cello works, each around five to ten minutes in duration. Like PRIMAVERA II, PRIMAVERA I consists of fourteen compositions, meaning that 28 of the 81 commissions have now been fulfilled.

Each of those compositions serves as a “response” to the “call” of a region of a large canvas by Charline von Heyl, itself as “response” to Sandro Botticelli’s Primavera painting. The region of the canvas addressed by PRIMAVERA II was entitled “the rabbits,” while PRIMAVERA I “responds” to the region entitled “the wind,” illustrated on the “album cover” as follows:

Once again, the “scare quotes” refer to the fact that both recordings are currently available only for download. Also once again, the most reliable download site is the Web page on the Presto Music Web site, which includes an image of the “cover” with a hyperlink for enlarging. Once again (for the third time), no digital booklet is included with the download; and, while there is a Web page with both track listing and program notes, the notes do not adequately account for all of the tracks (which was also the case for the second album).

Readers may recall that I first became aware of this project through a solo cello recital that Haimovitz performed for San Francisco Performances, entitled, appropriately enough, Primavera. That recital accounted for five of the tracks on PRIMAVERA II. PRIMAVERA I includes one of the compositions that he played at this recital, Vijay Iyer’s “Equal Night.” In all fairness, however, given that the recital took place at the end of February, I cannot claim any flashes of familiarity that struck while I was listening to PRIMAVERA I.

The fact is that, when I listened to PRIMAVERA II, that performance had not yet faded from memory. As a result, there were at least a few flashes of familiarity that struck while I was listening to the album. Sadly, PRIMAVERA I was not similarly reinforced. As a result, that first album did not hold or sustain my attention particularly well; and, by the time I had worked my way through half of the fourteen tracks, attention had begun to lapse into one-damned-thing-after-another mode.

This is more than a little regrettable. After all, composers are supposed to compose; and commissions supply them with the means to focus on composition, rather than worrying about paying the rent. The more critical question is: What happens after the composition is finished? In this particular case what were Haimovitz’ “work practices” after he received a new work? How much of it involved communicating with the composer? How much involved the composer listening to the music being performed? Providing useful answers to these questions requires time, most likely a generous share, rather than a merely adequate one.

One can appreciate the potential value of this project, particularly if it was launched under pandemic conditions. However, (to evoke some physics lingo) the transition from “potential” to “kinetic” (as in active performance) is rarely an efficient one. The musicologist in me wonders whether or not Haimovitz has been keeping a diary as this project continues to proceed. Those of us committed to listening to these new compositions have our work cut out for ourselves, but how much work did Haimovitz put in before invoking our commitment as listeners? For that matter, what was the nature of that necessary work?

There is a lot more to listening that clicking a PLAY button!