Lux Aeterna, a choral work set by American composer Morten Lauridsen, is a work of opposites. It is an old choral idea–part of a requiem mass–set to a new form, with new words. Emotionally, it ranges from jubilation to sorrow. Musically, it contains diverse elements, from soaring unison passages to densely layered inverted chords. Perhaps most striking is that two different choirs, from two different countries, could produce such remarkably different interpretations. The piece contains five movements: the Introitus; In Te, Domine, Speravi; O Nata Lux (a setting of a hymn not normally found in a requiem); Veni Sancte Spiritus; and Agnus Dei. The work was premiered by the Los Angeles Master Chorale with the Los Angeles Master Symphonia under the direction of Paul Salamunovich. Released in 1998 under the RCM record label, it was for many years the “official” interpretation of the work. In 2005, the English chamber choir Polyphony (known for, among others, a recording of much of Eric Whitacre’s choral music) under the direction of Stephen Layton took on the challenge of recording the work anew in partnership with the Britain Symphonia. Layton and his choir took a quite different approach than Salamunovich and the LA chorale. The two recordings–while similar in some respects–contain remarkable interpretive differences: in the orchestral balance, in intonation, and in tempo.
Though both recordings of Lux Aeterna are performed with symphonias–small orchestral ensembles–the balance in each orchestra is somewhat different. This is especially evident in movements such as In Te, Domine Speravi (movement 2) in which there are prominent instrumental solos. In these cases, the Britain Symphonia tends to rest at a mezzo piano, allowing the solo (usually an oboe) to command the most attention. The Los Angeles Symphonia, by contrast, has the orchestra play at a louder volume, thus making the solos (and the interactions with the chorus) less easy to discern. This is especially evident in movements 1 and 5, where prominent motifs repeated by both symphonia and chorus are masked in the Salamunovich recording; this is, to a certain extent, due to the strongly present low strings. Since the Symphonia is not kept as distinct from the choir in Salamunovich’s interpretation, the Chorale shines on its unaccompanied movements. (The Miserere in In Te, Domine, Speravi is a masterful and heart-wrenching interpretation; likewise with O Nata Lux, which will be discussed further below.) Polyphony and the Britain Syphonia, though not as blended as the Los Angeles ensembles, interact well; it is very evident, particular in the Introitus, when the orchestra and choir are “playing off” one another.
Another striking difference in interpretation is the type of intonation. The Los Angeles Master Chorale is singing within the American choral tradition, it is dark, large, even florid at times. Polyphony sings in a more English style: straight tones with bright vowels and a very precise sense of movement among pitches. One can immediately tell the difference at the beginning of the Introitus. The Los Angeles chorale sings slowly, with a dark but somewhat breathy tone. Polyphony opens with a bright tone devoid of ornamentation; this gives the opening of their recording a chant-like quality, reminiscent of medieval music. Neither of these styles is effective for every movement in the piece. The minor, contemplative In Te, Domine Speravi is well-suited to the ethereal tones of the LA chorale, with Polyphony’s interpretation falling slightly flat in comparison. However, on the more upbeat sections–particularly at the beginning of Veni, Sancte Spiritus–Polyphony’s sense of precision and forward tone serves them well, especially on the unison passages in that movement.
The last and most crucial difference in interpretation concerns tempo. Salamunovich took the choir at a very slow tempo throughout. Even where an increase in speed might have been called for–such as the fourth movement or the Alleluia in Agnus Dei–the Los Angeles Chorale holds back. Polyphony interprets in precisely the opposite fashion: their tempo is notably faster (another factor contributing to the chant-like sound) even when a slower tempo might have been more prudent. This is notable in O Nata Lux: Polyphony takes the movement at approximately 3:40; the Los Angeles Chorale a full one minute and ten seconds faster. Conversely in Veni Sancte Spiritus, Polyphony sings at a brisk pace, with the 6/8 time signature exceptionally evident. The Los Angeles chorale takes the movement much slower, which causes the rhythms to become somewhat muddled. In both cases, one interpretation is superior in a musical sense: the O Nata Lux calls for a slower tempo in light of its lyrics and its structure, whereas the joyous fourth movement almost demands a fast pace.
The two recordings nearly resolve their differences in the last movement: Agnus Dei. This is the movement where both choirs displayed unrivaled confidence, poise and choral acumen. The tempos fall fairly close together; Polyphony’s intonation darkens; and the Los Angeles chorale breaks out of its shell at the last alleluia with immense fortissimo harmonies. Nevertheless, the differences in recordings remain. They demonstrate two nuanced, intelligent approaches to the music, and both succeed admirably at their goals. One will come away from each recording with slightly different attitudes. It speaks very highly of both choirs and their conductors that two such diametrically opposed ways of interpreting a piece can each produce a beautiful, top-notch sound; it speaks very highly of the composer that a work containing so many opposites can integrate them all into a single, unified whole that still retains its diversity.
