Roberto Sierra's Missa Latina was commissioned by Leonard Slatkin for the National Symphony, where it was first performed in 2006. Since then it has been performed in Honolulu, Milwaukee and twice in Puerto Rico, so Houston was the sixth -- and Los Angeles will be the seventh later this month. Leonard Slatkin and Heidi Grant Murphy, the soprano soloists, were both in the premier and probably most of the subsequent performances. The baritone was a last minute substitution due to illness.
The work is, by consensus of every chorus member that has commented, the most difficult we have done as far as memory serves, which for me is over twenty years. We have done works before that have had very difficult sections, or which have been hard but short, but this one just keeps coming at you for well over an hour in performance. In rehearsals, which were absolutely exhausting, one thing gets fixed and another problem pops up – and you end up playing whack-a-mole. Even the comparatively simple parts require careful counting and concentration. The rhythms are particularly difficult, but the notes aren't easy either, particularly finding some of the entrances. In many sections the orchestra doesn't help very much -- whatever they're doing in these places has a lot of notes that don't seem to have much to do with ours. Which brings us to the conductor, Leonard Slatkin. Before he appeared some people were saying that he's known for his baton technique -- but I sure didn't see it. There were certainly places where he could have given us a lot more help than he did. He was particularly unreliable on cueing entrances; in one place he told us at rehearsal to watch him for the cue, and he gave it to us the next time -- but thereafter only about a third of the times we did that passage. My experience is that if we have an accented entrance on an off-beat, and if he's sometimes given us a clear cue there, it is extremely difficult to make the entrance correctly if he does absolutely nothing. I have this moment of thinking, "Is this the wrong place?" -- and then it's too late. There were other aspects of his baton technique that many of us found less than helpful, including minimal preparation for new tempos, unclear downbeats in sections that are hard to count because the orchestra is doing crazy stuff, and switching back and forth between in-two and in-one. Moreover, I thought it kind of odd that he conducted a lengthy section clearly marked 3+3+2 in the score as 4+4. Why? Slatkin is moving to Detroit and Eschenbach will be taking his place at the National Symphony, and all other factors aside, from a purely technical point of view I think they'll be moving up tremendously. For one thing, if Eschenbach realizes that the chorus is having difficulties and could use a cue, you can absolutely depend on that cue being there every single time.
On the other hand, Slatkin was nice enough to us and did flex on tempos a bit to accommodate the fact that we just couldn't do one passage as fast as he initially wanted to take it. He was also very merciful in giving us short "sit breaks" between movements, which I truly appreciated.
So how did it go? None of the performances was exactly perfect -- but in many or most cases I'm pretty sure that our mistakes were in places where the orchestra was pretty much covering us -- which may have had a lot to do with making the mistakes in the first place. I have a feeling that we might have come across a bit scared in the first performance on Thursday (although comments I heard from the audience did not reflect this), but after that I think we were more confident and most of the places that are relatively exposed were pretty solid. Most of the audience really seemed to appreciate the work. We lost ten or so each night -- people who walked out after about forty minutes or so -- but after the herd was culled the remainder seemed very enthusiastic, giving standing ovations for every performance. They particularly liked Heidi Grant Murphy -- and so did most of us. Her beautifully controlled vibrato was absolutely perfect for this kind of music, and she tossed off the complex ornamentation with casual artistry. Some people thought her voice was kind of small, but I talked to people in the audience who were pretty far back, and they said that she came through absolutely clearly. Apparently she has the kind of voice that cuts through and projects really well. I thought she was absolutely superb, and the word I heard most commonly to describe her performance was "gorgeous". She's performed with us a number of times over the years, the first being in 1990 when she was just Heidi Grant, and she's been great every time. She's also a real sweetheart and has been very nice to us.
What did we think of the music? I think opinions among the chorus varied widely, but to be honest it's pretty hard to have much of an opinion at all when you're working that hard. I must say that many or perhaps most of the orchestra members, and particularly the string players, did not appear to like the work at all. I heard comments like, "boring", "badly written", "20 minutes of music padded out to way-too-long", and so on. If there was anyone in the orchestra who was enthusiastic I missed it -- but then those folks do tend to take a fairly blasé attitude.
What did I think of the work? Well, to start out, to a certain extent if the audience is happy I'm happy; that's what I'm there for. Unlike, for example, the Adams Transmigration of Souls -- which I found moving but from all comments I heard from the audience did not get across very well -- this one seemed to work very well with the audience. I was particularly struck by a comment about how the progression from penitential and serious to graceful and joyous was very appropriate for the text of a mass. And I guess I responded, to some extent (when I was not grimly trying to count) in that way. For myself, I view the material in this work as being of three types: 1) cacophony, or "mess" depending on volume; 2) relatively "normal" modern; and 3) Latin-rhythm sections. I personally did not enjoy the first category, felt neutral about the second, and hugely enjoyed singing the third type. I know it's easy to make fun of those passages, and I have heard or read of people doing so, but for myself I thought they were just great.
Here are some comments from other people about this performance. First, from one of my co-workers who attended on Thursday:
Roger – First of all, I really enjoyed the concert. I thought that the Missa Latina was the most intriguing and complex new composition I’ve heard in years! You had given me a spot-on preview of what to expect, so I was ready. The most difficult passages for me were the ones in what I recall as the 2nd or 3rd movement – there was a cacophonic tempo and the choral voices “mushed” up some with the orchestra – as you wrote, it was dense and complex music. When I think about the various elements in a mass, the tempos made a lot of sense. Sierra’s composition reflected both the somber as well as the joyous elements in the mass; probably the most difficult hurdle I faced was dealing with the Latin. It’s been a long time since I was exposed to a mass in Latin! (And then it was only peripherally..) I was blown away, though, by the exquisite passages from the Sanctus on…and I thought that the chorus finished on a superb high. I also thought that the chorus did a fine job considering the complexity of the composition as did the step-in baritone. The soprano was exquisite.
Some in the audience were confused. Where I was sitting, several folks left either at intermission or early in the piece. There were those, however, who were obviously enthralled with the various Latin tempos and rapid transitions. They stayed and were rewarded IMO by the wonderful ending.
In fact, I liked this piece so much that I bought the CD.
Beethoven’s 8th was wonderful, but the real bonus was Sierra’s work.
Roger, thank you VERY much for talking about the chorus journey to making this performance a reality. I truly enjoyed the evening.
And from another of my colleagues:
BRAVO!
I really enjoyed the performance Saturday night. I found Sierra’s piece quite innovative and can just imagine how much work it must have been to study this. The choir and Heidi were fantastic, very much in harmony and it was just such a pleasure to listen to.
Even Demian with his 11 years was intrigued by the different Latin rhythms mixed in with the choir.
It was a real treat and it’s great to experience such level of performance here in Houston.
Overheard by my mother-in-law from a stranger after the concert:
That chorus is fantastic!
An extract from the review by Everett Evans in the Chronicle:
The “Latin” in the title has a double meaning — referencing both the language of the Roman Catholic mass and the Latin American influences Sierra has incorporated into his composition. Fusing classical music tradition with contemporary elements, the Missa Latina puts a secular spin on a sacred concept — as Leonard Bernstein achieved in somewhat different manner with his Mass.
...
The overall effect is compounded of luscious harmonies, rhythms layered upon other rhythms, some haunting themes (especially in the Agnus Dei) and colorful orchestrations. A hymnlike interlude gives way to a calypso beat. A section stressing the standard symphonic complement of strings gives way to one sparked by xylophone, bongos and maracas. After an inspired a cappella passage for Murphy and chorus, the Alleluia finale bursts forth like a Caribbean holiday — a stroke of showmanship that ends the work on an exultant high.
Music lovers may debate whether the Missa Latina is ideally shaped or sustains musical inspiration throughout. Yet there’s no denying that it’s a largely successful synthesis of expressions stately and vivacious, respectful and festive. Sierra’s accomplished use of the orchestra, chorus and soloists, his level of invention and genuineness of feeling mark Missa Latina as a major achievement.
Slatkin commanded Thursday’s performance with insight and energy, marshaling the wide-ranging influences into a cohesive interpretation — and the musicians responded enthusiastically. Murphy used her shimmering, expressive soprano to fine effect. Meglioranza wielded a solid, steady baritone, but might have summoned greater projection when the massed forces were at full tilt. As prepared by Charles Hausmann, the chorus sustained a full and balanced sound, showing mastery in rhythmically tricky passages.
From George Howe about the first performance:
I was fairly pleased. I do believe that if we can get more direct (i.e. less amorphous) communication from Maestro Slatkin in the half-dozen or so real trouble spots, then we can sing with confidence and with more attention to dynamic range and interpretation as a result. Sierra's composition in several places does not allow the chorus to realize a very high comfort level. I imagine that all 150+ of us are working very hard to stay at maximum intellectual alert for the full 70 minutes. I know I am too busy counting to enjoy most of what I am hearing when I am not singing.
From Dr. Joe Anzaldua, after the first performance:
I just got back from a very memorable lunch. Last night some friends of ours (originally from Puerto Rico), went with my wife to the concert. They met Roberto Sierra afterwards and invited him to lunch at a local Puerto Rican restaurant. They asked me to come along...so I did! This man is amazing. He is humble, unassuming and very gracious. He had nothing but praise for the choir. There was nothing he said he would change. This will not be one of my most favorite pieces to have had performed, but talking to its creator put a very different light on this piece for me. Again, he had nothing but praise for our choir!
He does have another choral piece that is a capella. It is rooted in the Taino Indian culture (indigenous to P.R.). He used the words of a writer by the name of Calletano Col y Toste. Apparently, the words are likened to our Lord's Prayer. Roberto will send me the MP3 file since there exists no other recording. I will send it on to those that are interested.
From Sally Evans:
I am soooooooooooo sorry I missed the performance. It was one I really wanted to experience, but prior commitments and an ill mother precluded.
Everything I've read on the chat line and in the review tells me that the chorus nailed the piece. You will remember where notes didn't quite ring true or passages didn't quite come together -- but the audience won't. Remember the adage: the difference between a professional carpenter and an amateur is that the professional never points out his mistakes.
Congrats to you all!
Katrina Tanner:
I quite agree! The professional carpenter metaphor is a great one. I need to remember not to always dwell on mistakes and imperfections and rather enjoy the performance. I think I was there by the Sunday performance -- I really had fun during that performance and was a little sad that we wouldn't be performing the piece again.
As always ... it's a pleasure singing with y'all!
Sarah Clark:
On those notes, I must agree. I was sad that we wouldn't have another go at this beautiful music (never thought I would say that). I invited an acquaintance to the Saturday night performance and she called the music "heavenly" saying that in parts it was as though the heavens had opened up and the angels were singing...