Final Cadences in Sticheraric Modes: Problems and Potential Solutions

[basil]

[moderator note] split off from another discussion https://analogion.com/forum/index.php?threads/englishmenaion-com-updates.49134/

The last line of the Fourth Mode setting violates orthographic rule #39, and https://englishmenaion.com/menaion/october/ is still showing inconsistent spelling.

Additionally, Plagal Fourth Mode new sticheraric idiomela that end on the second to last syllable are close to nonexistent in Greek, and the few that do exist (by necessity) use a medial cadence on Ni rather than a final cadence. This disturbance of the usual Plagal Fourth Mode musical rhetoric is quite understandable given the rarity of this phenomenon in Greek. But this pattern is quite common in Romanian, so Romanians have come up with novel solutions to this problem. Here is how Dimitrie Suceveanu writes such final cadences:

This examples applies the usual Plagal Fourth Mode musical rhetoric of the original Greek for final cadences in a novel form. This scenario is far more common in English than it is in Greek, though not quite as common as it is in Romanian. I think English composers have a lot to learn from Dimitrie Suceveanu, Hieromonk Macarie, and Anton Pann.

 

[Laosynaktis]

I don't think Suceveanu's setting is the best solution.
Gabriel's setting is fine and fully consistent with the greek cadences. Another solution could be the following:

Gabriel's and this are consistent with the following, taken from the Doxastarion by Petros.

 

[Shota]

Here is how Dimitrie Suceveanu writes such final cadences:
View attachment 120232

This would stress "Pel" too, not only "gi". At least according to Suceveanu himself, who sets "mare milă" like that.

 

[basil]

I don't think Suceveanu's setting is the best solution.

Why not? I think it is a good solution that preserves the characteristic feeling of the mode, which would otherwise be diminished in a great deal of Romanian pieces.

Gabriel's setting is fine and fully consistent with the greek cadences.

I never said it wasn't, just that the Romanian examples are worth studying. The Greek examples you provided that end on a word accented on the second-to-last syllable use a formula whose ending is typically (in Greek) used in the middle a piece and not for its concluding phrase. Since this scenario is unusual in Greek, quite common in English, and very common in Romanian, I question whether the solution found in these rare Greek examples is always the best one in those other languages. Clearly Suceveanu felt otherwise. You might disagree with his approach, but his approach is worth mentioning.

Another solution could be the following:
View attachment 120236

Yes, though Peter the Peloponnesian almost always reserves the "Pa Vou Vou-Ga Ga-Vou" phrase ("Pe-la-" above) for a single syllable in his new sticheraric pieces. Obviously in the older slow heirmologic katavasiae (such as that of the Third Ode for the Dormition) this phrase is found split across two syllables in many places (as you have given it above), and I think a judicious application of this technique preserves the characteristic feeling of the mode and is a good solution to the problem. At the same time, I would be wary of making a habit of doing this in new sticheraric compositions in the style of Peter the Peloponnesian for anything other than exceptional scenarios, such as this scenario. In general, I think new sticheraric compositions in the style of Peter the Peloponnesian should at least strive to follow his constraints, even if some of those constraints can seem fairly arbitrary relative to older standards.

(Another example of this is the 01010 Plagal Second Mode formula on page 530 of Papa Ephraim's book, which is almost always reserved for a phrase that is accented on the second-to-last syllable in the new sticheraric pieces by Peter the Peloponnesian, even though it obviously could take another syllable after the vareia and does in many other contexts. While this could be done occasionally in new sticheraric compositions in the style of Peter the Peloponnesian, I think the common case should be to reach for the formulae on page 535 instead.)

 

[basil]

This would stress "Pel" too, not only "gi". At least according to Suceveanu himself, who sets "mare milă" like that.

I wouldn't read into this too much. As you can see on page 894 of Papa Ephraim's book, that "Ga-Vou Vou-Ga" phrase very often takes either an accented or unaccented syllable.

For comparison I took the same Romanian text and created two more settings of it, one using the solution used by Peter the Peloponnesian in the (rare) cases of this problem in Greek, and one using the solution provided above by Dr Arvanitis (very similar to a solution used by Peter the Peloponnesian in Greek pieces that are accented on the third-to-last syllable).

Based on Peter the Peloponnesian (#2):


Based on Dr Arvanitis (#3):


So we have three solution types: the example by Suceveanu (#1) and examples #2 and #3 above.

#1 has the disadvantage of being a more recent innovation than #2 and #3, which date back to the time of Peter the Peloponnesian. On the other hand, in my opinion it has the advantage of evoking a very common characteristic feeling of this mode.

#2 has flawless logic, like all of the new sticheraric pieces by Peter the Peloponnesian, but in my opinion it loses some of the characteristic feeling of the mode, even though it attempts to preserve that feeling with the initial descent to Pa. In my opinion this is tolerable if it happens very rarely (as it does in Greek), but it less tolerable if it is a very frequent occurrence. Others might disagree and find that the initial descent to Pa suffices to provide a feeling of finality.

#3 has the advantage of using a stylistically common ending for this mode, used frequently by Peter the Peloponnesian in Greek pieces that are accented on the third-to-last syllable. #3 slightly stretches the usual conventions of new sticheraric pieces in the style of Peter the Peloponnesian (by adding an extra syllable), but this can be justified by past precedent in the slow heirmologic katavasiae. In other words, this "disadvantage" is minuscule, if it can even be called a disadvantage at all.

Altogether it is difficult for me to conclude that any one solution is objectively better than another. They all seem to have different advantages and disadvantages. It is unclear to me whether Suceveanu was aware of these other options (and intentionally disregarded them) or simply was not aware of them. I do hesitate, though, to start deploying rare/unusual (in Greek) formulae at a large scale in English simply because they happen to solve a particular mathematical problem, especially when past precedent in Romanian seems to favor a different approach.

 

[Shota]

It is unclear to me whether Suceveanu was aware of these other options (and intentionally disregarded them) or simply was not aware of them.

I'm not Romanian, but #2 doesn't sound natural to me (there are Romanians on Psaltologion who might want to weigh in). Option #3 I don't know. And we can be very sure that Suceveanu's choice was conscious, because Visarion the Hieromonk, whose work was independent of Suceveanu's, proceeds to invent his own final cadences as well.

 

[basil]

I'm not Romanian, but #2 doesn't sound natural to me (there are Romanians on Psaltologion who might want to weigh in). Option #3 I don't know.

In addition to discussing the relative merits of these solution types (to the problem of Plagal Fourth Mode new sticheraric pieces whose final phrase is accented on the second-to-last syllable) in the abstract, we should also discuss their applicability to specific texts. I am a native English speaker, so I can comment on Gabriel's application of solution type #2 and Dr Arvanitis' application of solution type #3 to the English text for St Pelagia referenced above.

In both cases, I think they overemphasize the vocative "O", which is usually unaccented in English. In contrast, my application of solution type #1 to this text (given above) does not have this problem. Dr Arvanitis' application of solution type #3 could be changed, I think, to replace the "Ke-Zo Ke" for "O" with a simple one-beat "Di." Emphasizing the vocative "O" can't be avoided in Gabriel's application of solution type #2, I think.

This is another reason I have a strong dislike for solution type #2: it is quite rigid and inflexible. For this reason, I think we owe it to ourselves to explore other options, like solution types #1 and #3.

And we can be very sure that Suceveanu's choice was conscious, because Visarion the Hieromonk, whose work was independent of Suceveanu's, proceeds to invent his own final cadences as well.

I also suspect it was a deliberate choice, because Suceveanu seems to have been quite well-versed in the style of Peter the Peloponnesian. I would be shocked if he knew everything else he knew but did not know about solution types #2 and #3.

 

[Shota]

In addition to discussing the relative merits of these solution types (to the problem of Plagal Fourth Mode new sticheraric pieces whose final phrase is accented on the second-to-last syllable) in the abstract, we should also discuss their applicability to specific texts.

My feeling is that Suceveanu tries to avoid overemphasizing “și“ (and). Greek is more flexible with και.

 

[GabrielCremeens]

Basil,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I’ve fixed the inconsistent spelling of “Romanos/-us” on my website.

Regarding the orthography of the final cadence in the Doxastikon at “Lord, I have cried,” you’ll notice that Papa Ephraim has a footnote for the rule you cited, which states: “Although Hourmouzios Hartophylax followed this rule, Gregorios the Protopsaltis and Theodore "Phoakaeus" did not. Instead they would put both kentēmata above the oligons in this example.” I’m simply choosing to follow the convention of Gregorios in this case, rather than Chourmouzios. (This is also the way this formula is written in the 1820 Anastasimatarion of Petros Ephesios. The 1820 Syntomon Doxastarion prefers the way you recommend, although even it is inconsistent; you can see how the exegete writes the final cadence of the Doxastikon of the Aposticha of Christmas, Εὐφράνθητι Ἱερουσαλήμ, in the way that I have it.) In any event, it seems to me that there appear to be two orthographically acceptable ways of writing this formula, since Hourmouzios favors one way and Gregorios another.

The question of the final cadence in the Doxastikon is, obviously, a much bigger question, and I appreciate your insight into the different ways we can approach this problem. Personally, I would prefer not to invent a new cadence (even given the precedent that exists in other languages) when an existing cadence from the Greek repertoire will do the job. I don’t find Suceveanu’s solution to be convincing, mostly because the fact that it is so obviously a splicing of two different formulas sticks out to me like a sore thumb. So, rather than creating something new, I would find it preferable to use an existing formula that satisfies the requirements of the text we are working with.

Then it becomes a question of whether or not the formula I have chosen is suitable or not. I am sympathetic to the argument you make about it being used infrequently in Greek settings. If we examine the Doxastarion of Petros the Peloponnesian (whose works essentially define the short sticheraric compositional genre), we will find 99 pieces in sticheraic Plagal 4th Mode that we can examine. Out of those 99 pieces, he used the cadence in question 7 times, in the following hymns:

1. November 30th - Ὑπόδεξαι Βηθλεέμ ("Both Now" at the Praises). «Πᾶσα πνοή, αἰνεσάτω τὸν παντουργέτην.»

1. Royal Hours of Theophany - Πρὸς τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ (Doxastikon at the 1st Hour). «ὁ αἴρων τοῦ κόσμου τὴν ἁμαρτίαν.»

1. Royal Hours of Theophany - Ἡ τοῦ Προδρόμου καὶ Βαπτιστοῦ (Idiomelon at the 3rd Hour.). «καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ κόσμου.»

1. Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee - Παντοκράτορ Κύριε (Doxastikon at "Lord, I have Cried.") «σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀριθμήσας, ἐλέησόν με.»

1. Sunday of the Last Judgment (Meatfare) - Ὅταν τίθωνται θρόνοι (Doxastikon at "Lord, I have Cried.”) «ἐπιστρέψας ἐλέησόν με.»

1. Orthros of Holy and Great Friday (The 12 Gospels) - Οἱ νομοθέται τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (3rd Troparion at the 12th Antiphon) «καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ κόσμου.»

1. Royal Hours of Theophany - Οἱ νομοθέται τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (Idiomelon at the 6th Hour) «καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ κόσμου.» This one is particularly interesting to me, because the Doxastarion of Petros contains two settings of this hymn, with different melodic material throughout each setting, but he uses the same concluding phrase each time.

Now, we could look at this and say, “this cadence is used rarely; it only shows up 7% of the time in the Doxastarion of Petros (and not at all in his Anastasimatarion), but I don’t think those numbers tell the whole story. The fact that it’s only used 7% of the time is because only 7% of the texts under consideration have a concluding phrase where the accent falls on the 2nd-to-last syllable: παντουργέτην (0010), ἁμαρτίαν (0010), εἰρήνη τοῦ κόσμου (010010), ἐλέησόν με (01010), etc. All of the other texts end with typical phrases and words like ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν (0100101), τὸ μέγα ἔλεος (010100), Κύριε δόξα σοι (100100), or all of the various other types of accentuation patterns that can take the more typical Plagal 4th ending. I would argue that that the cadence is rarely used not because it doesn’t work very well or doesn't invoke the feeling of the mode; rather, it’s rarely used simply because it doesn’t fit the accentuation patterns of the ending phrases of the vast majority of troparia in sticheraric Plagal 4th Mode.

After checking the Doxastarion, I decided to look at Petros’ Slow Heirmologion as well, to see if it could contribute any additional insights into this discussion. After surveying the Plagal 4th slow katavasies of several feast days - whose melodic style is nearly identical to Plagal 4th sticheraic - I found the same treatment as in the Doxastarion: every time a concluding phrase ended with a word accented on the 2nd-to-last syllable, Petros used the same cadence as in the examples cited above. (The slow katavasies in Plagal 4th can be found on pages 117-134 of the aforementioned Heirmologion.) This leads me to conclude that this is not a “rare” cadence that we should hesitate to apply wholesale in English; it is simply the final cadence for a textual pattern that occurs infrequently in Greek. That, however, is the domain of hymnography, not composition.

Now, as to whether or not the cadence in question feels appropriately “final” or not: I would argue that the “standard” Plagal 4th ending cadence doesn’t feel particularly “final,” either. (For clarity, I’m referring to the one below.)

Yes, this formula is used very frequently as a final cadence. However, it’s not used exclusively for that, as can be seen by a survey of Petros’ settings in Plagal 4th Mode; we will encounter it used in the main body of various pieces as well. So this cadence is not exclusively “final;” we’re just used to hearing it used more frequently in that context, but that’s not the only place we find it, and there are parallels to this in 1st Mode and Plagal 2nd as well.

You mentioned the fact that this formula briefly cadences on Pa as one of the factors that leads to its feeling of finality, but I don’t find that to be necessary, either - we can also encounter final cadences like this one (from May 21st - Saints Constantine and Helen, Doxastikon at the Praises), which don’t sit on Pa at all:

Or cadences such as this one, which don’t really sit on Pa for any longer than the formula that has been discussed at length above:

My final argument for the suitability of the cadence I chose is the parallel that exists in Plagal 2nd Mode. As in Plagal 4th Mode, the vast majority of Plagal 2nd Mode hymns have texts that take the typical final cadence we are accustomed to hearing:

However, when a Plagal 2nd sticheraric hymn ends with a text that has an accent on the 2nd-to-last syllable, Petros chooses to use the hard chromatic equivalent of the cadence under discussion:

Given all of the facts stated above, I don’t see the necessity of creating a new cadence to invoke a more “typical” Plagal 4th final ending sound for the piece in question.

 

[GabrielCremeens]

Now, that being said, and understanding the concern about the (over)emphasis of the vocative “O,” the following two adjustments to the final cadence of the St. Pelagia doxastikon could be made:

I would welcome any feedback on which of the two proposed adjustments is preferable.

 

[basil]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.

You are welcome. I trust it is obvious that these comments and suggestions come from a place of sincere respect for your excellent work.

I’ve fixed the inconsistent spelling of “Romanos/-us” on my website.

Well, that solves one problem but introduces another: now, the same web page features one convention at the top (i.e., Romanos rather than Romanus) but a different one on the bottom (i.e., Dionysius rather than Dionysios).

Whether one loves it or hates it, HTM has a very well-defined house style with consistent conventions for things like linguistic register, spelling, grammar, capitalization, typography, etc. When your web site exclusively featured musical settings of their texts, you got this consistency for free. But now that you utilize a wide variety of sources, you have to contend with this issue, especially if your eventual goal is to publish a printed Doxastarion or similar.

While I am not entirely unsympathetic to other conventions, there needs to be some standardization rather than every single individual translator adopting different conventions, often in conflict with each other. And translators whose scope of work is small are often ill-equipped to come up with such a style guide, because most of the challenging cases aren't encountered until one has covered a wide breadth of surface area. Moreover, a particular web site or book shouldn't place conflicting conventions near each other, because this creates a jarring juxtaposition for the intelligent reader. For example, Papa Ephraim did publish a few modern English settings on his web site, but he placed them on a separate web page. On a web page of single pieces, this is analogous to a separate chapter in a book. A printed book shouldn't feature changing conventions from one page to the next within a single chapter, either—or even within the same book, ideally. Papa Ephraim's book-length PDFs were separate for each linguistic register, and other composers (like Nicholas Roumas) do not go back and forth between different conventions, either.

Altogether, my concrete recommendation is to keep everything that follows HTM's conventions on one part of your web site, and create another part of your web site for everything else—then think about whether the pieces in that other section are consistent with each other or any particular house style. If these other translators are going to be competitive at large with HTM, they ought to converge on a consistent house style. Part of the job of an editor—and your web site is very much a collection of pieces under your editorial supervision—is to apply a consistent editorial policy. When your web site was a nascent effort from your younger past, inconsistency was more forgivable. But now that you are a serious and highly respected composer/editor doing this work (which will have lasting significance for the Church) on a regular basis, these issues become more significant.

Regarding the orthography of the final cadence in the Doxastikon at “Lord, I have cried,” you’ll notice that Papa Ephraim has a footnote for the rule you cited, which states: “Although Hourmouzios Hartophylax followed this rule, Gregorios the Protopsaltis and Theodore "Phoakaeus" did not. Instead they would put both kentēmata above the oligons in this example.” I’m simply choosing to follow the convention of Gregorios in this case, rather than Chourmouzios. (This is also the way this formula is written in the 1820 Anastasimatarion of Petros Ephesios. The 1820 Syntomon Doxastarion prefers the way you recommend, although even it is consistent; you can see how the exegete writes the final cadence of the Doxastikon of the Aposticha of Christmas, Εὐφράνθητι Ἱερουσαλήμ, in the way that I have it.) In any event, it seems to me that there appear to be two orthographically acceptable ways of writing this formula, since Hourmouzios favors one way and Gregorios another.

Yes I am well aware of that footnote Gabriel, but my point is that Papa Ephraim clearly favored Chourmouzios's convention (because he left the other one buried in the footnote). Is it not desirable for English-language composers to follow Papa Ephraim's lead rather than to continue to perpetuate arbitrary 19th-century inconsistencies?

 

[basil]

Personally, I would prefer not to invent a new cadence (even given the precedent that exists in other languages) when an existing cadence from the Greek repertoire will do the job. I don’t find Suceveanu’s solution to be convincing, mostly because the fact that it is so obviously a splicing of two different formulas sticks out to me like a sore thumb. So, rather than creating something new, I would find it preferable to use an existing formula that satisfies the requirements of the text we are working with.

I can only conclude that this is a topic where both sides have plausible arguments. Yes I am well aware that this is the standard solution employed by Peter the Peloponnesian to address this problem 100% of the time that it occurs in Greek, which is in 7% of Greek idiomela. No, I don't think his solution is very successful. I merely find it tolerable because it occurs in only 7% of total pieces. If 50% or more of Greek texts happened to contain this accentuation pattern, would the solution employed by Peter the Peloponnesian have prevailed in the oral tradition? It is difficult for me to say. Not all of the work by Peter the Peloponnesian has prevailed—his Kekragaria are rarely used, for example. I think Romanians were not unaware of this issue, and it is clear that they took a different path. I am not entirely sure why, but I think it is worth considering the reason.

Now, as to whether or not the cadence in question feels appropriately “final” or not: I would argue that the “standard” Plagal 4th ending cadence doesn’t feel particularly “final,” either. (For clarity, I’m referring to the one below.)

Yes, this formula is used very frequently as a final cadence. However, it’s not used exclusively for that, as can be seen by a survey of Petros’ settings in Plagal 4th Mode; we will encounter it used in the main body of various pieces as well. So this cadence is not exclusively “final;” we’re just used to hearing it used more frequently in that context.

Right, I am aware that it is not exclusively used as a final cadence. When it is (occasionally) used in the middle of a piece it adds a nice rhetorical effect (which should not be overused, though).

You mentioned the fact that this formula briefly cadences on Pa as one of the factors that leads to its feeling of finality, but I don’t find that to be necessary, either - we can also encounter final cadences like this one (from May 21st - Saints Constantine and Helen, Doxastikon at the Praises), which don’t sit on Pa at all:

Or cadences such as this one, which don’t really sit on Pa for any longer than the formula that has been discussed at length above:

Well this is just a different solution type, which I think achieves a feeling of finality by the long two-beat drop to Ni. This solution type feels perfectly natural to me, perhaps in part fueled by its wide adoption.

My final argument for the suitability of the cadence I chose is the parallel that exists in Plagal 2nd Mode. As in Plagal 4th Mode, the vast majority of Plagal 2nd Mode hymns have texts that take the typical final cadence we are accustomed to hearing:

However, when a Plagal 2nd sticheraric hymn ends with a text that has an accent on the 2nd-to-last syllable, Petros chooses to use the hard chromatic equivalent of the cadence under discussion:

I strongly dislike this rare way of ending Pl 2nd mode pieces as well, for the same reason, and I avoided it (and created my own alternative) in my setting of "Heavenly King" over a decade ago:



Another case where this issue comes up is in troparia of Pl 4th mode, which doesn't have a widely used Greek formula for Ga cadences that are accented on the fourth-to-last syllable. One rare example of this pattern in Greek is in the Bridegroom Apolytikion:



It makes sense to me in the context of this Holy Week service, which is a somewhat slower and older melody than regular Pl 4th mode troparia, but I have a strong dislike of this formula in typical Pl 4th mode troparia. Even in the above example, many Greek settings (like that of Constantine Pringos) avoid this formula! I am clearly not the only person who dislikes this formula. Perhaps it was just too weird and never penetrated into oral tradition, or (conversely) fell out of favor over time.

In any case, this accentuation patterns occurs frequently in English and Romanian. The rare formula mentioned above is used by Papa Ephraim:



Same with Nicholas Roumas:



And here:



You won't find this rare formula in Romanian Anastasimataria or in my compositions, except in unusual circumstances—certainly not in something as common as "God is the Lord" or the Resurrectional Apolytikion.

---

One thing that is clear to me is that oral tradition isn't always perfectly logical. For example, members of the Karas school have a perfectly logical argument for why the ison should only momentarily dip down to Ni at the end of a First Mode Theotokion, but it still has never felt right to me. Just like biological evolution, the evolution of Byzantine music is full of crooked paths that reflect the humanity of its practitioners. Ultimately time will tell how successful these rare formulae prove to be (i.e., whether they penetrate into the oral tradition) when deployed at large scale in English.

 

[basil]

Now, that being said, and understanding the concern about the (over)emphasis of the vocative “O,” the following two adjustments to the final cadence of the St. Pelagia doxastikon could be made:

I would welcome any feedback on which of the two proposed adjustments is preferable.

I think Proposed Adjustment #2 is the best application of this solution type. It maintains a smooth 4-beat rhythm and doesn't unduly emphasize any syllable. Proposed Adjustment #1 drags out "Mother" over 8 beats, which is definitely permissible in this formula, but not ideal.

 

[Shota]

However, when a Plagal 2nd sticheraric hymn ends with a text that has an accent on the 2nd-to-last syllable, Petros chooses to use the hard chromatic equivalent of the cadence under discussion:

Given all of the facts stated above, I don’t see the necessity of creating a new cadence to invoke a more “typical” Plagal 4th final ending sound for the piece in question.

This particular one is chanted at the Glory… Both now, so one could have expected it to end like in Kypseli, on Di. Obviously one could have modified Petros version to end on Di, but somehow Konstantinos/Stephanos felt a need for a different solution.

 

[GabrielCremeens]

Yes, but there are plenty of others that do not end on Thi because they are not the final hymn of a given set (like the attached), and they all utilize this ending.

 

[basil]

Yes, but there are plenty of others that do not end on Thi because they are not the final hymn of a given set (like the attached), and they all utilize this ending.

By "plenty" you mean up to 10% of the pieces in this style in Greek, given Greek textual patterns, even though 100% of those utilize that ending. I would hardly call that "plenty."

I thought about this some more today and realized that my success criteria for a particular formula isn't (just) logical/theoretical validity but also wide adoption in both the written and oral tradition. This is how I avoid the excesses of Karas' mentality. The rare formulas we've been discussing have logical/theoretical validity but (through no fault of their own, but rather the circumstances of the Greek language) haven't received wide adoption in both the written and oral tradition yet. So I can't reach a verdict on whether or not they are successful.

There is a bit of a chicken and egg problem in that you won't know until you try (and maybe the Romanians were a bit too conservative in not trying), so maybe giving these formulae fertile ground in a new language might allow them to become successful.

But let's not kid ourselves: we are altering (in a theoretically/logically justified manner) the soundscape of Byzantine music by doing this, however slightly, and such a change may or may not "stick" in the long term, or might generate viscerally negative reactions from conservative-minded people in its early stages.

 

[Shota]

My point wasn’t whether the “Both now” pieces would end on Di in Pl. 2 or not, but rather that for Konstantinos/Stephanos opted for a different cadence in that specific case. Romanians (Suceveanu, primarily) serialized this: there are versions that end on Pa too. One sees a pattern similar to what they did in Pl. 4.

 

[basil]

Those Romanian examples are the same alternative solution that I came up with (independently) in my "Heavenly King" (posted above). My explanation for both their solution and mine is that it satisfies an impulse to preserve the overall soundscape of the mode (in absolute terms) rather than alter it by increasing the prevalence of previously rare (in absolute terms) formulae. Ironically, this is quite a conservative impulse, even though it is achieved by coming up with a new formula. In contrast the other side is altering the statistical makeup of the mode by turning a rare formula into a common one, but this is achieved without coming up with any new formulae. So each approach is both conservative and innovative, but on different (orthogonal) axes.

 

[Shota]

Here is a Greek example of the Pl. 2 cadence from Dionysios Foteinos' Anastasimatarion. Both Petros and Ioannis use a common one in the same place.

 

[Pappous43]

Altogether it is difficult for me to conclude that any one solution is objectively better than another. They all seem to have different advantages and disadvantages.

Indeed, there is no way of "measuring" how good or how bad is each solution. This was one of the reasons why I have tried to develop a measurable method. It is a kind of statistical algorithm which measures the difference from the "Average" Ecclesiastical Byzantine Music which is called AverDiff inside the free BZQ software.
I kind of started like Fr. Ephraim collecting B.M. scores BUT THEN analysed them to "extract" the logic for a proper, devout, B.M. melody.
This is a sort of parallel way to double-check a new B.M. composition.
I have now done a comparison of the above-mentioned solutions #1,#2,#3 and #4 for Laosynaktis:

Document a) Conversion of score into BZQ mnemonic notation: (You may copy+paste it to your updated BZQ and make changes and get new evaluation of AverDiff)

Document b) See next post.