Low and high modes

[Shota]

Trying to revive the English part of Psaltologion

In the Greek part there's an interesting ongoing discussion on the terms ήχος έξω and ήχος έσω (I prefer to translate these as high and low mode) and their possible use in modern practice.

http://analogion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6705

From what I have understood ήχος έξω is taken to mean the tetraphonos mode as e.g. in this message by Christo Psomiadis (στην πλούσια χειρόγραφη παράδοση αλλά και σε θεωρητικές πραγματίες ο α' ήχος με βάση τον ΚΕ λέγεται και "έξω"... εντάξει ίσως έπρεπε να γράψω "τετράφωνος" για να γίνω περισσότερο κατανοητός)

http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45540&postcount=6

Vasilis Zacharis corrects this by saying that tetraphonos is produced by plagal modes and that "1st mode tetraphonos" theoretically is a "mistake". However, it's a widely disseminated term, especially from the Three Teachers' time to denote mode of the 1st mode pieces transcribed from KE.

http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45541&postcount=7

In any case the two terms are applied to denote pieces in the 1st mode transcribed by Three Teachers from PA or KE. That both terms έξω and έσω existed and it's not a creation of Simon Karas has been abundantly demonstrated in the discussion that ensued.

Now I'm getting closer to my question. In this message I posted several quotes from the sources collected by Evangelia Spyrakou, which refer to existence of ἔξω or ἔσω διπλασμός in the mss from the Byzantine times

http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=46226&postcount=152

As mentioned by Fr. Maximos in two messages (with references to Spyrakou and Stathis), the term ἔξω διπλασμός should refer to the practice of chanting by a psaltis an octave higher than the usual basis of the mode, or to the practice of chanting with two voices moving in parallel with a difference of an octave

http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=46230&postcount=154
http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=46237&postcount=157

This appears to be confirmed by an excerpt from the theoretical treatise by pseudo-Damascene (14th. c., but it describes practice of at least two previous centuries as well, as Spyrakou says) which I quoted in my message: Ἅμα δὲ ἄρξεσαι τὴν διπλοφωνίαν, λέγεις ἶσον· εἶτα διπλασμὸν ἑπτὰ φωνὰς καὶ γίνονται ὀκτώ. It also appears that terms like ὁ δομέστικος ἀπ᾿ ἔξω, or ἀπ᾿ ἔξω διπλασμός, or ἀπ᾿ ἔξω εἰς διπλασμόν are synonimes.

So here is my question: if we fix the basis of the 1st mode at PA, then in light of the above it seems logical to me that the pieces with indications like ὁ δομέστικος ἀπ᾿ ἔξω should be chanted from PA', and not from KE. There appears to be some confusion in this regard, as demonstrated by this excerpt from an article by Spyrakou ( http://www.asbmh.pitt.edu/page12/Spyrakou.pdf ): Μόλις ο δομέστικος ψάλλει απήχημα σε άνω Κε, διότι ορίζεται ότι οφείλει να ψάλλει «ἀπʹ ἔξω», τον ακολουθούν «οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ», οι ψάλτες δηλαδή που ο Γαβριήλ Ιερομόναχος ονομάζει «βοηθούς», για να ψάλλουν όλοι μαζί στον άνω Κε το Δοῦλοι Κύριον, ἀλληλούια... ο πρώτος στίχος της στάσης ψάλλεται από όλο το χορό του Δομεστίκου στην βάση του πρώτου ήχου Κε, διότι σύμφωνα με το βατοπαιδινό χειρόγραφο «ἐσωτέρᾳ φωνῇ ὅλοι ὀμοῦ». This excerpt refers to the polyeleos Δοῦλοι Κύριον by Koukoumas. I assume this is the same polyeleos as the one copied by Tasos Mpokos from the transcription of Chourmouzios

http://analogion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3824

Notice that Chourmouzios' exegesis is from PA and not from KE... If we do not fix the basis of the 1st mode at PA or any other note, that's also fine (because before the Music Committee of 1881 the notes of the Byzantine scales didn't have absolute pitch), but I don't understand why the low and high modes should differ by a fifth (as for the case of PA and KE) and not an octave.

 

[antonios]

Well, in brief, the terms έξω (ekso) and έσω (eso), are used to describe something high (ekso) or something low (eso). Not four notes higher, or seven notes higher. The word for the octave is διπλασμός (diplasmos). So, έξω διπλασμός (ekso diplasmos) means an octave higher, and έσω διπλασμός (eso diplasmos) an octave lower. Thus when we refer to modes ekso and eso means exactly what they mean in every case, not an octave, but just high or low. So in the case of first mode to describe the difference between the first from Pa and the other from Ke, before the notes Pa and Ke being introduced, the used the terms έξω πρώτος (ekso protos) meaning the first with a high base, and έσω πρώτος (eso protos) meaning the first with a low base. The same happened with second mode too. If you need the sources i 'll be happy to produce some, though they are in greek. The terms are used also in other cases as in eso and ekso thematismos, or in eso and ekso petasti always with the same meaning. Eso=low, ekso=high

 

[Shota]

Well, in brief, the terms έξω (ekso) and έσω (eso), are used to describe something high (ekso) or something low (eso). Not four notes higher, or seven notes higher. The word for the octave is διπλασμός (diplasmos). So, έξω διπλασμός (ekso diplasmos) means an octave higher, and έσω διπλασμός (eso diplasmos) an octave lower. Thus when we refer to modes ekso and eso means exactly what they mean in every case, not an octave, but just high or low. So in the case of first mode to describe the difference between the first from Pa and the other from Ke, before the notes Pa and Ke being introduced, the used the terms έξω πρώτος (ekso protos) meaning the first with a high base, and έσω πρώτος (eso protos) meaning the first with a low base. The same happened with second mode too. If you need the sources i 'll be happy to produce some, though they are in greek. The terms are used also in other cases as in eso and ekso thematismos, or in eso and ekso petasti always with the same meaning. Eso=low, ekso=high

This makes sense and I'll be grateful for the sources. What I don't understand is why Chourmouzios transcribed Koukoumas' polyeleos from Pa, if it is a high mode (and hence has to be chanted from Ke, according to you). Furthermore, it is in fact one particular case where ἀπʹ ἔξω means ἀπʹ ἔξω εἰς διπλασμόν (I don't say it's always the case, but in this case it is). Talking about ms Vatopedi 1281 of the 15th c. (f. 145r), Spyrakou's writes: Μόλις ο δομέστικος ψάλλει απήχημα σε άνω Κε, διότι ορίζεται ότι οφείλει να ψάλλει «ἀπʹ ἔξω», τον ακολουθούν «οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ», οι ψάλτες δηλαδή που ο Γαβριήλ Ιερομόναχος ονομάζει «βοηθούς», για να ψάλλουν όλοι μαζί στον άνω Κε το Δοῦλοι Κύριον, ἀλληλούια. Σε πιο αναλυτική γραφή δε, από τον κώδικα Σινά 1312 του β΄ ημίσεως του ΙΕ΄ αιώνα (φ. 7r), «ὁ δομέστικος τοῦ πρώτου χοροῦ, ἀπʹ ἔξω εἰς διπλασμόν». Thus if Pa is taken to be the basis of the 1st mode, then Koukoumas' polyeleos has to be chanted from Pa' and not Ke.

 

[antonios]

This makes sense and I'll be grateful for the sources. What I don't understand is why Chourmouzios transcribed Koukoumas' polyeleos from Pa, if it is a high mode (and hence has to be chanted from Ke, according to you). Furthermore, it is in fact one particular case where ἀπʹ ἔξω means ἀπʹ ἔξω εἰς διπλασμόν (I don't say it's always the case, but in this case it is). Talking about ms Vatopedi 1281 of the 15th c. (f. 145r), Spyrakou's writes: Μόλις ο δομέστικος ψάλλει απήχημα σε άνω Κε, διότι ορίζεται ότι οφείλει να ψάλλει «ἀπʹ ἔξω», τον ακολουθούν «οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ», οι ψάλτες δηλαδή που ο Γαβριήλ Ιερομόναχος ονομάζει «βοηθούς», για να ψάλλουν όλοι μαζί στον άνω Κε το Δοῦλοι Κύριον, ἀλληλούια. Σε πιο αναλυτική γραφή δε, από τον κώδικα Σινά 1312 του β΄ ημίσεως του ΙΕ΄ αιώνα (φ. 7r), «ὁ δομέστικος τοῦ πρώτου χοροῦ, ἀπʹ ἔξω εἰς διπλασμόν». Thus if Pa is taken to be the basis of the 1st mode, then Koukoumas' polyeleos has to be chanted from Pa' and not Ke.

Ekso by himself just means high. Ap'ekso though means that somebody is going to sing high something that others are going to sing low thus turning the meaning to "an octave high".

About the Koukoumas' polyeleos now, i have to see the text. In general though i can tell that ekso protos (high first mode) is the mode that modern theory transcribed as first from Ke and eso that from Pa. Regardless of the mode of a certain piece though when we see that domesticos will sing ekso means that he will sing it an octave higher.

We have to be carefull not to confuse the cases. The term means always the same (high-low) but according to what is used for. Echos (Έξω-έσω πρώτος), voice pich (Έξω φωνών, απ'έξω-απ'έσω), sign interpratation (έξω-έσω πεταστή), or even whole thesis (έσω-'εξω θεματισμός) .

 

[V_Zacharis]

This makes sense and I'll be grateful for the sources. What I don't understand is why Chourmouzios transcribed Koukoumas' polyeleos from Pa, if it is a high mode (and hence has to be chanted from Ke, according to you).

Let me confuse you more:

 

[Shota]

Let me confuse you more:
View attachment 17139 View attachment 17140

View attachment 17138 View attachment 17137

The conclusion probably is that we should not take bases given by Three Teachers in their transcriptions too literally and that they might differ in that respect from old mss. However the question from which base was Koukoumas polyeleos ( http://analogion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3824 ) chanted in Byzantine times remains open. It also is not clear why ἀπʹ ἔξω and ἀπʹ ἔξω εἰς διπλασμόν do not mean the same thing in certain cases. So for a time being I'm sceptical about the reintroduction of terms έξω and έσω in modern psaltic terminology.

 

[antonios]

The conclusion probably is that we should not take bases given by Three Teachers in their transcriptions too literally and that they might differ in that respect from old mss. However the question from which base was Koukoumas polyeleos ( http://analogion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3824 ) chanted in Byzantine times remains open. It also is not clear why ἀπʹ ἔξω and ἀπʹ ἔξω εἰς διπλασμόν do not mean the same thing in certain cases. So for a time being I'm sceptical about the reintroduction of terms έξω and έσω in modern psaltic terminology.

There's a slight difference between έξω and απ'έξω and if you are just a bit careful, as you should everytime with terminology, there will be absolutely no problem. I have already answered this issue just above. Ekso= high. Eso=low. The terms are as simple as that. According to what they refer to you get the meaning. I think we should use them today, not excluding the other terms, for a number of reasons. Most notably it is used throughout the long history of byzantine music depicting certain things that other terms need more explanation to do. It is used in many other cases (eso-ekso thematismos, eso-ekso petasti, ap'eso ekso (a sign)) which describe different things, but ekso-eso means the same (high-low). So our terminology becomes (in fact it is from early on) more consistent and, allow me the term, "in unison" with present and past.

PS. I write these lines very fast and in bad English. If something is not clear let me know.