Dear Mr. Arvanitis:
In response to Mr. Combitsis' commentary, you provide a discussion that I would like to address. These discussions are valuable at many levels, but more importantly, because they will remain as part of a historical record.
You write:
1. I, at least, have repeatedly written about various aspects of Karas work in the greek part of the forum. But it seems that you have not read them or you have not understood them or refused to understand.
Your commentary and examples have been substantial over the course of your participation in this forum, but also in a series of papers to a number of meetings focusing on aspects of ecclesiastic music. Also, your thoughts and hypotheses have been published in a number of articles during the last 10-15 years.
Where one would be in congruence with your hypotheses is when you begin an original, evidence-based line of investigation. This is noble, is meritorious, and I am certain, uninfluenced by the Karas prejudice that (elsewhere) defines your work, will be fruitful. The problem lies in your work and hypotheses that are INFLUENCED or BIASED on a platform/basis that "Karas' Theory has evidence-based merit". This is factually incorrect, and you know it. Karas INNOVATED and INVENTED. He did not TEST A NOVEL HYPOTHESIS to go out and find material to support it.
You further write:
because the mere mentioning of Karas' name brings you a fever or something like this. If you love tradition you should pay attention to every effort made to describe this tradition, study it seriously and accept or reject it only after this study, or accept what seems positive and reject what is negative.
There is NOTHING in the Karas Theory that makes any credible advance in understanding outstanding issues of Byzantine paleography, genera, exegesis and so on, beyond what the theorists and the learned men of letters along with the psaltae of the 18th century/early 19th century offer. Instead, Karas advocates for a return to stenography for interpretational aspects of the music, innovates with intervals unheard of ever in history, obfuscates matters that had been clear for decades. Simon Karas as a person may have been delightful. It is his WORK and THEORY and THESES that are the focus of our criticism, not the person.
As far as tradition goes, please consider the meaning of the word "tradition" (παράδοση). Did Karas TRANSMIT, or did he INNOVATE and INVENT?
If Karas TRANSMITTED, he does not mention his sources (no bibliography, no footnotes, no mention of "so and so told me"). In your distinguished career as a musicologist, you have been careful to provide (in your published works), references and footnotes. Why do you uphold a different, unscholarly standard for Karas when defending his "theses"?
Just as Mr. Combitsis did in the 80s, I too purchased the two tomes of the Theory in the mid-80s at the insistence of a friend who argued that the Theory was an "eye opener" (even though he spoke gibberish and nonsense when I asked him questions on the matter). I read the tomes carefully. I then asked psaltae of old-time (who were friends and teachers of mine; George Syrkas, Matthaios Tsamkiranis, Fr. Panaretos of Philotheou with whom I had lengthy correspondence with and in person at the times of my visits, Matthaios Andreou and of course Constantinos Lagouros). Their pronouncements, in toto, can be summarised by what Matthaios Andreou uttered (my translation may be off) "Look, Nicholas- don't waste your time with this. The only rational basis of psaltic theory is in the system of the Three Teachers and in what Costas [Lagouros] has taught you". Consider, Mr. Arvanitis, that Matthaios Andreou had been shown how to interpret 17th-18th century paleography by his teacher, Emanuel Vamvoudakis...
So, taken together, my first experience of the Karas Theory was not impressive. With age and a better understanding of Byzantine Music theory, I confirmed its untenability and its departure from anything scholarly.
You further write:
You mentioned also Mr. Giannoukakis's questions, which were addressed to the "Karas' side" but also to me personally. What can I answer to this person when he does not pay attention that I give a reference for the sponsors of Vasilikos' Choir and he thinks that I give the sponsors of the Greek Byzantine Choir?
My questions are directed to the underlying Theory of the Karas Method which no one has answered. If you have answers, I believe they may be constructive to understand something that to this remains elusive for me:
1)
http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80322&postcount=3
2)
http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80283&postcount=43
3)
http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79964&postcount=1
4)
http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80147&postcount=45
5)
http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80182&postcount=37
6)
http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=81999&postcount=21
And, in my later comments:
a) Where and from who did Karas HEAR the exegeses for which he has assigned his various paleographic neumes? Who were his witnesses and what were the qualifications and experiences as well as exposure to Athonite or Constantinopolitan chant of those witnesses?
b) Where and from who did Karas hear the pitch intervals that he then categorised into the tonal relationships of more than 100 variations? Who were his witnesses and what were the qualifications and experiences as well as exposure to Athonite or Constantinopolitan chant of those witnesses?
c) On what historical AUDIO and ORAL WITNESS does Karas base his novel tonal fractions and their corresponding integer values (some for which he has NEVER PRESENTED ANY FRACTIONS!!!!)?
d) On what historical ORAL WITNESS AND EVIDENCE does Karas offer, until then, UNHEARD OF cadential meanderings as NOVEL exegeses of the known qualitative Chrysanthine neumes?
e) Why do Karas' own acolytes, today, on many occasions, NOT FOLLOW EVEN THOSE INTERVALS THAT KARAS LAID DOWN FOR THEM but instead INNOVATE in performing even MORE EXTREME sharps and flats (yfesodieseis?) and cadences (or vocal acrobatics) that have NEVER BEEN HEARD IN HISTORY of Byzantine Chant for the 60+ years of traditional audio witness and traditional oral practice?
Karas' acolytes consider anything that carries relics of Karas as holy and sacred without questioning the basis, the methods and the data. The behaviour is close to cult-like.
I have said this a few times on this forum: We may hold on to our convictions dearly and passionately, but is it ever formally possible that our convictions are factually wrong?
To respond to this part of your previous question:
What can I answer to this person when he does not pay attention that I give a reference for the sponsors of Vasilikos' Choir and he thinks that I give the sponsors of the Greek Byzantine Choir?
Mr. Vassilikos' financial sponsorship (in total) PALES in comparison to the financial sponsorship of The Greek Byzantine Choir of Angelopoulos. Furthermore, where Vassilikos' sponsorship is largely PRIVATE, The Greek Byzantine Choir is (was) STATE SPONSORED (Greek Ministries). In fact, if one looks trhough the DIAYGEIA database, in terms of totals, the Greek Byzantine Choir has enjoyed an almost monopoly of Greek State-Sponsored financial funding to promote "Traditional and Historically-Authentic Byzantine Chant". Anyway, I applaud Mr. Angelopoulos for his fundraising abilities. I am concerned with scholarship and this is the focus of my response to you, Mr. Arvanitis.
You further write:
Will this person pay attention and study my arguments and understand what I am saying? No! And this was proved when I uploaded an article of mine about the diatonic scale of Chrysanthos. Mr Giannoukakis had probably a glimpse of the very last lines and accused me of giving a wrong scale for the chromatic genre!
My comments to you were SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT the CHROMATIC GENUS, and especially for the "soft chromatic". Since Mr. Charis Symeonidis has adequately and elegantly demonstrated, in a scholarly manner, the untenability of the Karas' interpretation, along with his very elegant findings (and very elegant methodology I might add) on the so-called "diatonic second" and "chromatic fourth" there is no need for you to counter-argue....His arguments are hypothesis-driven and evidence based (Agathokleous, older theory, oral tradition). He does not try to fit a square peg in a round hole to deify someone...
You then write about:
2. Concerning "Your tomb, O Lord", Karas made a suggestion for the solution of a theoretical problem. This had little influence on his teaching and singing. This suggestion for the solution of this theoretical problem (wrong, according to me) is not something far from being similar to suggestions (wrong, according to me) e.g. by Avraam Efthymiadis for the so-callled "epeisacta" (in his more recent editions of his Theoretikon. If we cannot accuse the latter for suggesting some possible solution, we should not accuse the former, too, for doing the same.
"Epeisakta" and "pareisakta" melodies, Mr. Arvanitis, and the arguments of Eyfthymiadis have considerable merit and are more credible than invoking "attractions", as has the Karas fold, to explain something that is so obvious. You do not need to invent cycles and epicycles for something that is so obvious.
You then argue:
3. About Karas as a church singer.
He sung in the Church when he was a schoolboy,
So have thousands of other children in Greece...
and he visited the psaltiri where Georgios Kalogeropoulos used to sing.
...and thousands of people went RELIGIOUSLY to St-Gregorios Palamas, for YEARS on every Sunday and every major feast day to listen to Karamanis, yet, never became psaltae...what is your point here? That by visiting a church, he was somehow IMBIBED with a "mystical ability" to chant LIKE Kalogeropoulos and to UNDERSTAND the tenets of BM, LIKE Kalogeropoulos? Is there any EVIDENCE that he SPENT TIME WITH KALOGEROPOULOS learning Byzantine Chant?
Further, you state:
In Athens, he was a singer (with a choir, too) in St Nikolaos Church, opposite to the War Museum.
and your point is? Serving a parish does not imply that you possess deep knowledge of Byzantine chant and theory....
Further, you state:
But he continued to attend the services in the Pangrati Metochion of the Holy Sepulchre (or of Sinai, I don;t remember), where two singers from Constantinople used to sing and he used to sing on various occasions (panegyreis etc).
WHO were the Constantinopolitan chanters? Names please...
You further write:
About the teachers of Karas (some claim that he was an autodidact!)
If a "crediible" teacher is a teacher whom you know, then many singers don't have credible teachers.
Mr. Arvanitis, you claim Mr. Angelopoulos as your teacher. We all accept that Mr. Angelopoulos is an able chantor and knowledgeable in Byzantine Music. We know that he will speak highly of you, and that there is an oral and written record supporting this. Therefore, YOU are a credible chantor, even though you champion a method that is an outlier to the accepted tradition. However, when there is NO record of ANYONE saying ANYTHING positive about Karas (in fact, Naypliotis is on record in Voudouris' chronicles as regards Karas, and I can remind you of the little quote...), this raises many questions.
You state:
I see here in Psaltologion peaple speaking about their teachers. Should I think that these teachers are not "credible" because I don't know them?
Yes you should. Just like in any fine art. In fact, the psaltae of old used this metric (reputation of a teacher) as a critical metric. Today, anyone can pick up a couple of CDs, and with some level of vocal talent, they become "experts"...
You further write:
"Karas's teacher was the Archimandtrite Efstratios Lambrinopoulos in Kyparissia, a Metropolis having a direct relation to the Patriarchate. You don't know him and I don't know him, we don't know his knowledge (Karas says that he was very knowledgeable and "musical") and his singing, but this means nothing about his "credibility". We can neither prove it, nor reject it.
Kyparissia??? As in the town in Messinia? Kyparissia has a DIRECT relation to the Patriarchate? Am I missing something here?
And on WHAT OBJECTIVE BASIS does Karas consider Lambrinopoulos credible? We can't prove it, unless we find the relatives of Lambrinopoulos and get a sense of his travels and his interactions, but we can certainly reject it! Especially when comparing how Karas chants to the accepted minimal norm of his period.
You further state:
He heard also other patriarchal deacons and priests and and of course the above mentioned singers and many other. I have written all this in the greek part of the forum but....
Again, SPECIFICS. Names please. Who were the "other" patriarchal deacons and priests. Even in the Greek section, you avoid answering this....
Last, you write:
About the "epiphany", as you and other ridicule it, as if it were something strange in the frame of scientific research. When you try to solve a problem, you may work on it even for years and don't find the proper solution. And then comes one moment of inspiration and a key idea, at least, for the solution is found and the accumulated evidence is put in order and the questions are answered. So simple! But not simple for preoccupied people or for people wanting to condemn Karas at any cost.
Inspiration does come at pivotal times in scholarly research, Mr. Arvanitis, but in a scholarly paper/tome/treatise, one lists the hypothesis, the inspiration (we call it the rationale), the background that further cultivates the inspiration and hypothesis, and then the methodological process to test the hypothesis.
Karas' two-tomes are ANYTHING but that.
They are indeed innovative and inventive, however...
NG.