Announcement of the Patriarchal Holy Synod on Ecclesiastic Music

Domesticus and others,

I am confused by what you think needs to be explained to me. As Mr. Apostolos mentioned, this is "simple to understand."

Also, realize that writing something belittling or accusatory is not well mitigated by a simple emoticon. That intent is transparent. Try actually being pleasant.

Finally, please calm down all. This kind of vehement argument is unbecoming of all.

Thank you,
David

David Walker said:

Domesticus and others,

I am confused by what you think needs to be explained to me. As Mr. Apostolos mentioned, this is "simple to understand."

Also, realize that writing something belittling or accusatory is not well mitigated by a simple emoticon. That intent is transparent. Try actually being pleasant.

Finally, please calm down all. This kind of vehement argument is unbecoming of all.

Thank you,
David

Click to expand...

David,

You are correct in your assessment of "this kind of vehement argument". It truly is sad that it has all come to this, but understand what's going on here: essentially, our traditional system of Byzantine Music has been "under attack" with this "system" perpetuated by Simon Karas (of blessed memory) and his followers. Oh, sure, there have been others who have tried to invent new systems of notation and tried to make changes, but they have all gone by the wayside and were essentially ignored by the psaltic world.

The system in question by Simon Karas, however, is so destructive, that it attempts to "re-define" HOW hymns are chanted. If you were to hear a traditional chanter and one who was schooled under the Karas system chant, for example, the hymn "Ton tafon sou Sotir" ("Your tomb, O Lord"), you would hear a marked difference in execution.

The bottom line is that there is no basis to this system, and we've said it all before in countless postings on this forum: Mr. Karas was never a chanter (if he was, no one has told us where), did not study with a credible teacher (if he did, no one has told us who) and AS HE HIMSELF SAYS in the introduction to his theory manual - and I'm lightly paraphrasing here with my own words - he had some sort of an epiphany and all of these newfangled scales and symbols and whatnot sort of "came to him" (in a dream, perhaps? in a paranormal visitation by Iakovos Nafpliotis? who knows?), and that's how the theory manual (the very same manual which the Patriarchal Holy Synod mentions BY TITLE in this recent announcement) was "born".

Look: Mr. Nassis, and every other Mr. Nassis in this forum that subscribes to this group, knows what's going on, and we have hashed and re-hashed all of these facts, yet they refuse to acknowledge that, indeed, there is a discrepancy. They refuse to acknowledge that, indeed, there is a marked audible difference in execution of hymns which greatly deviate from the accepted tradition, a tradition which has been passed down from teacher to student and of which we have audio documentation going back to the time of Iakovos Nafpliotis (close to 80 years, if not more). They even refuse to answer a simple list of questions regarding the credibility of Simon Karas and his "theory", which, if they WERE able to answer them properly, MIGHT lend some credibility to their cause. But you see, the reason they REFUSE to answer them is because they CAN'T answer them. And the reason they CAN'T answer them is because they have nothing on which to base their answers. These questions have been posted and re-posted by Mr. Giannoukakis, and all that has happened is they have been ignored. (I like "poo-poo'ed" better... )

Truly, Mr. Walker, this division in the world of Byzantine Music is quite sad, really, and this persistence on the part of a relatively small group of people (in total) who INSIST that Simon Karas and his followers are the "authentic practitioners" of Byzantine Music has prompted the Patriarchate and the Holy Synod to issue the announcement that it did. Why do I say it's "simple to understand"? Very simply : The Patriarchate only recognizes the "prevailing theory and practice of our ecclesiastical music", which is the one founded by the Three Teachers (Xrysanthos, Gregory and Chourmouzios) and which was approved by the Mother Church. All other "unconstrained, irresponsible and blatant self-initiatives and recantations of the said Theory" are characterized as "obsolete and foreign" in relation to this. In a nutshell, that's what this decision says. As I said in my prior post: no one can be FORCED to do anything; however, if you CHOOSE to continue along a deviated path, you will be considered NOT in accordance with the Mother Church.

Apostolos

As a minor addendum to the thoughts of Apostolos-

1) The argument that the decision was arbitrary and lobby-inspired, instead of the outcome of a careful scholarly consideration of the merits of the Karas method by the Patriarchate is untenable. The Patriarchate had at its disposal a wealth of scholarly documentation from no less than three specific committees convened between 2000-2005 by the Church of Greece on the specific matter. Indeed, the arguments and supporting documentation submitted to the Church of Greece, written and oral testimony, derived from both sides; Mr. Angelopoulos and others who argued in favor, Mr. Stathis who took a neutral poistion on the matter, and the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the psaltae in Greece and non-Karas-aligned researchers. The opinion of the Church of Greece, after careful consideration of the cases, was provided in two major decisions which were in very clear favor of maintaining the "accepted methods and practices of the Three Teachers". All this was at the disposal of the Patriarchate.

2) Had Karas followed acceptable, evidence-based, scholarly practices to try and explain HOW pre-17th century notation evolved into what Western scholars call "post-Byzantine" notation (i.e. the exegetic notation of the Three Teachers), I have no doubt that his contemporaries would have taken note of his thesis. For example, Konstantine Psachos made some proposals that eventually inspired a revision of the thinking of the "Western" scholars (even though Copenhagen still resists to consider what the rest of the world now has accepted- but that is another topic to discuss at another time...). Instead, Karas IMAGINED an exegesis of the old notation that had NO BASIS in oral tradition and even in any of the 18th century, post-Chrysanthine theory texts (Agathokleous for example).

3) The tonal intervals he proposes, if one considers the more accurate fractional representations instead of the "rounded" integer versions, especially for the chromatic genera, have no precedence. They are new and foreign to the ear. Furthermore, he goes on to invent "scales" to explain the activity of "attractions", (inspired by the maqamat system) that are short of irrational and most egregiously, he goes on to propose systems of scales that go beyond the traditional tetrachord/pentachord structure. Consider some of the scales he proposes for the enharmonic genus...

Karas INVENTED a system that suited his personal taste and his own personal views of what Byzantine chant OUGHT to be instead of explain HOW it got to be what it was. Karas also arbitrarily acted in this manner in the realm where he is better known; the Greek traditional folk song. There is solid evidence that he sought to impose his revisionist ideas even on the elders of villages telling them that they were "wrong" in their singing (even as Karas was clueless about the those specific songs).

These personal INVENTIONS were confined to library stacks for more than 50 years until Lycourgos Angelopoulos resurrected them in the late 70s, early 80s. Those who participated in his choir were imbibed with the idea that the Karas theory actually articulated and "resurrected" the long-lost practices of pre-17th centure Byzantine chant, in some cases as extreme as "our performance and execution is exactly that of psaltae of the 15th century".

There are those who follow the accepted principles of evidence-based research in musicology and are proposing testable hypotheses about the EVOLUTION of notation and a link between oral tradition and how this resulted into the exegetic notation of the Three Teachers. This is scholarly investigation.

The Patriarchal decision in no way affects scholarly investigation. What it does is lay the ground in very precise and clear language that, as far as the Karas Theory, all theories inspired by it, and all PERFORMANCE inspired by it is concerned- these have no place in the accepted traditions of the Mother Church. Again, to remind you- this decision was not a hasty or arbitrary one. It was a result of careful consideration of the VOLUMINOUS data and testimony acquired from the experience of the Church of Greece. Further, I am confident that the Patriarchate consulted eminent musicologists from BOTH SIDES as an additional "safety" mechanism prior to arriving at the decision. Mr. Angelopoulos himself testified in person in the past few months at the Patriarchate.

To summarise, no one will plant bugs into the churches of, for example, North American Orthodox churches, and then submit a subpoena to the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate (assuming that the church is under its jurisdiction) to excoriate a chantor or a choir. However, the decision does provide clear guidance about what a chantor ought to do in practicing a role as a "lower clergy" of a Church.

The musicologic arguments in support of the Karas Method and its effects on chant expression are untenable and that has been very extensively described.

What I still don't understand is why, in the face of the evidence-based facts, do those who cling to the Method still argue in its favor? It reminds me of the cycles and epicycles arguments and models of the pre-Kepler view of the solar system, when the ancient Greeks had already described a simple elliptical model of a sun-centric solar system...

Last, even if we consider that it is time to "refresh" Byzantine chant, and to innovate, why would one stop with the Karas innovations? Why not go on and experiment even further?

It is exactly this sort of "inventive" (r)evolution that the Mother Church intends to prevent in its mission of preserving the traditions that were given to her to protect as intact as possible.

My friends who cling to the Karas Method can do so until their golden senior years. However, one day, they should consider the possibility that the Theory and interpretation they hold so dear to their heart, may actually be wrong.....

NG

apostolos said:

David,

You are correct in your assessment of "this kind of vehement argument". It truly is sad that it has all come to this, but understand what's going on here: essentially, our traditional system of Byzantine Music has been "under attack" with this "system" perpetuated by Simon Karas (of blessed memory) and his followers. Oh, sure, there have been others who have tried to invent new systems of notation and tried to make changes, but they have all gone by the wayside and were essentially ignored by the psaltic world.

The system in question by Simon Karas, however, is so destructive, that it attempts to "re-define" HOW hymns are chanted. If you were to hear a traditional chanter and one who was schooled under the Karas system chant, for example, the hymn "Ton tafon sou Sotir" ("Your tomb, O Lord"), you would hear a marked difference in execution.

The bottom line is that there is no basis to this system, and we've said it all before in countless postings on this forum: Mr. Karas was never a chanter (if he was, no one has told us where), did not study with a credible teacher (if he did, no one has told us who) and AS HE HIMSELF SAYS in the introduction to his theory manual - and I'm lightly paraphrasing here with my own words - he had some sort of an epiphany and all of these newfangled scales and symbols and whatnot sort of "came to him" (in a dream, perhaps? in a paranormal visitation by Iakovos Nafpliotis? who knows?), and that's how the theory manual (the very same manual which the Patriarchal Holy Synod mentions BY TITLE in this recent announcement) was "born".

Look: Mr. Nassis, and every other Mr. Nassis in this forum that subscribes to this group, knows what's going on, and we have hashed and re-hashed all of these facts, yet they refuse to acknowledge that, indeed, there is a discrepancy. They refuse to acknowledge that, indeed, there is a marked audible difference in execution of hymns which greatly deviate from the accepted tradition, a tradition which has been passed down from teacher to student and of which we have audio documentation going back to the time of Iakovos Nafpliotis (close to 80 years, if not more). They even refuse to answer a simple list of questions regarding the credibility of Simon Karas and his "theory", which, if they WERE able to answer them properly, MIGHT lend some credibility to their cause. But you see, the reason they REFUSE to answer them is because they CAN'T answer them. And the reason they CAN'T answer them is because they have nothing on which to base their answers. These questions have been posted and re-posted by Mr. Giannoukakis, and all that has happened is they have been ignored. (I like "poo-poo'ed" better... )

Truly, Mr. Walker, this division in the world of Byzantine Music is quite sad, really, and this persistence on the part of a relatively small group of people (in total) who INSIST that Simon Karas and his followers are the "authentic practitioners" of Byzantine Music has prompted the Patriarchate and the Holy Synod to issue the announcement that it did. Why do I say it's "simple to understand"? Very simply : The Patriarchate only recognizes the "prevailing theory and practice of our ecclesiastical music", which is the one founded by the Three Teachers (Xrysanthos, Gregory and Chourmouzios) and which was approved by the Mother Church. All other "unconstrained, irresponsible and blatant self-initiatives and recantations of the said Theory" are characterized as "obsolete and foreign" in relation to this. In a nutshell, that's what this decision says. As I said in my prior post: no one can be FORCED to do anything; however, if you CHOOSE to continue along a deviated path, you will be considered NOT in accordance with the Mother Church.

Apostolos

Click to expand...

The usual and well-known arguments against Karas, again and again!

Because you complain that we refuse to give answers (because probably we can't, according to you) let me remind you and give some answers and remarks at least.
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. 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. 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? 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! Discussion and answers! Yes, but with whom and to whom? With and to prejudiced people, to people who don't even read the arguments? It's rather useless and time-wasting.
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.
3. About Karas as a church singer.
He sung in the Church when he was a schoolboy, and he visited the psaltiri where Georgios Kalogeropoulos used to sing. In Athens, he was a singer (with a choir, too) in St Nikolaos Church, opposite to the War Museum. He quit from there because he wanted to follow a fuller and stricter Typikon and the church's personnel opposed him. 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). And of course in the chapel of his school in some services.
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. 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? I don't think so. so, 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. 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....
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.

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.

Nikolaos Giannoukakis said:

Dear Mr. Arvanitis:

1. 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.
................
.......................
[2. B]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! [/B]

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...

.......................
NG.

Click to expand...

1. What will surely remain "as part of a historical record" is
a) your tremendous preoccupation,
b) the fact that you actually don't read my responses on various issues or don't understand them (firstly because of the preoccupation)
c) that you actually don't have any knowledge of or relation to scientific research on byzantine palaeography and music and their problems, methods and solutions
d) that discussing with you is really a waste of time.

2. To show you how much you have understood my positions on the matter of the chromatic scales, I send you those same messages of mine I had send at that time. I hope you read and study them this time, although I'm not sure that your passion and preoccupation will leave you to understand their meaning and spirit.
(read the links in the opposite order).
http://www.analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=59055&postcount=246
http://www.analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57661&postcount=201
http://www.analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57569&postcount=181
http://www.analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57293&postcount=158
http://www.analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57254&postcount=153
http://www.analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57249&postcount=152
http://www.analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=49362&postcount=69

So, please Mr Giannoukakis, continue to work on your useful research on medicine and leave research on byzantine notation and chant alone!

Bye-bye

Mr. Arvanitis, I hate to intrude, being somewhat an outsider, but please do reply.
From pure logic, if Megaloprepis I. Naypliotis, considered by all the best psaltis recorded, the master and the criterion of psaltiki, said Karas was "not acquainted" with psaltiki, then how can Karas' reputation survive that crushing blow?! My brain is struggling with the simplicity of it...

-Edit-
And now, when his teaching is officialy condemned by the P. Holy Synod, why to speak of it anymore? It should be a closed chapter. Supporting Karas now might look like ignoring of authority (of Naypoliotis) and disobedience (to Synod's decisions).

Filip88 said:

Mr. Arvanitis, I hate to intrude, being somewhat an outsider, but please do reply.
From pure logic, if Megaloprepis I. Naypliotis, considered by all the best psaltis recorded, the master and the criterion of psaltiki, said Karas was "not acquainted" with psaltiki, then how can Karas' reputation survive that crushing blow?! My brain is struggling with the simplicity of it...

Click to expand...

Nafpliotis had made similar statements for many singers of Constantinople, even for Priggos (according to Voudouris). So, what is the answer? My own brain, too, is struggling with this....

WOW!!!! FINALLY!!!!

After the almost 300 messages on the Greek forum on the topic of the Patriarchal decision, and now THIS thread, we find someone who ACTUALLY GETS IT!!! Let's re-read that posting, shall we?

Filip88 said:

Mr. Arvanitis, I hate to intrude, being somewhat an outsider, but please do reply.
From pure logic, if Megaloprepis I. Naypliotis, considered by all the best psaltis recorded, the master and the criterion of psaltiki, said Karas was "not acquainted" with psaltiki, then how can Karas' reputation survive that crushing blow?! My brain is struggling with the simplicity of it...

And now, when his teaching is officialy condemned by the P. Holy Synod, why to speak of it anymore? It should be a closed chapter. Supporting Karas now might look like ignoring of authority (of Naypoliotis) and disobedience (to Synod's decisions).

Click to expand...

Filip88, you're my HERO! In a few lines, you've managed to capture the ESSENCE of the whole topic and throw it at Mr. Laosynaktis like a direct and well-placed karate kick! I hate to make such a cheap comparison because this IS, after all, a serious matter, but I have been reading all of the responses and comments on these threads and it saddens me to see how "the other side" just seems to be in denial of the decision that was issued. They try to dismiss it, poo-poo it (there goes that term, again!), discredit it, ignore it, and even MOCK it, thinking it will eventually be forgotten and perhaps go away. And the more support it receives, the angrier they get!

Unfortunately, Laosynaktis's response to Filip88 is not-so-direct (I like to call such a response as "νερόβραστη απάντηση" - "watered-down response") and, in fact, tries to take the focus off Karas and now make NAFPLIOTIS seem like the "bad guy"!

Laosynaktis said:

Nafpliotis had made similar statements for many singers of Constantinople, even for Priggos (according to Voudouris). So, what is the answer? My own brain, too, is struggling with this....

Click to expand...

Mr. Arvanitis..... PLEASE.... try to at least answer within the context of the original message. Nafpliotis may have made "similar statements for many singers of Constantinople", but did any of them tried to concoct their own fantasized theory of music and then make attempts to discredit and alter the tradition and teaching of that music? Mr. Nafpliotis's comment about Karas (as chronicled in Voudouris) was NOT a bad statement. It was a mere statement of fact, that the man was simply "not acquainted" with the music. Sure, he may have made similar statements about others, but did any of them write a theory manual which goes against what has been handed down from teacher to student? Because I don't know of any that did, except for Simon Karas. And if there WERE others, they were obviously silenced very quickly (so much so that we didn't even hear about it! Again... presupposing that such a thing even happened.) The fact that the theories of Mr. Karas have caused such a stir in the psaltic world is, I guess, a credit to his Public Relations people, and mostly, his students who have good P.R. people (i.e. Angelopoulos).

Mr. Arvanitis, those of us who value our "paradosi" have read the two-volume theory manuals of S. Karas, perhaps hoping to expand our knowledge with something new. You keep trying to insist that we either never read them or never understood them. (Hmmm... must be that hard to understand, eh?) I can tell you that I DID, in fact, learn something very, very important from them.

I learned how NOT to chant.

Apostolos

Dear Mr Combitsis
Mr Laosynaktis wishes to inform you that he is not in a position to give you a reply because he is in the hospital after the strong karate-kick.

The Nurse
S. Kara-Angelopoulou

Would it be possible to upload copies of the Pasapnoario and Timiwtera composed by Petros Bereketis? I'm not sure where they can be found.

Dear Mr. Arvanitis,

In response to your commentary and web links to discussions on the Greek side of Psaltologion:

You write

What will surely remain "as part of a historical record" is
a) your tremendous preoccupation,

My "preoccupation" is a response to the many people who, over the years, have asked me about the basis-in-fact of the Karas Theory that they come across largely due to the almost monopoly of CD sales of the Greek Byzantine Choir, especially in North America. Jade/Opus (and Harmonia Mundi prior to that) virtually flooded the record stores with the Greek Byzantine Choir. Given that North American (and I would speculate European) distributors used Jade/Opus as the sole source of BM material due to licensing and PR agreements, the Greek Byzantine Choir enjoyed (and still enjoys) an almost complete monopoly of the BM record/CD sales in North America and in Europe. Thus, the impression, through PR, was created that the Theory underlying the performances of the Greek Byzantine Choir (which is accentuated as "Historically-authentic and traditional" in the CD inserts and promotional material) was universal, complete and....authentic. To those in North America who decided to serve their parishes as chantors and who did not (do not) have access to psaltae of old-time, those CDs were their first encounter with Byzantine Music. It was natural for them to be surprised when people with my "preoccupation" deconstructed the mythology surroundoung the Karas Method. Thus, my "preoccupation" is in fact a response to the debunked Theory you champion. Believe me Mr. Arvanitis, it doesn't take too long for those who explored the Karas Method to realise its flaws once they are presented with its problems. Those who still adhere to it vehemently have or serve other selfish interests, but certainly not scholarly investigation or transmission or promotion of what is factually-traditional.

You then write:

b) the fact that you actually don't read my responses on various issues or don't understand them (firstly because of the preoccupation)

This comment made me realise that your use of the term "preoccupation" is in fact meant to derisively label me as "fixated" (I assume you mean "fixated" to negatively portray the Karas Method). I have many many other real and objective preoccupations in life, Mr. Arvanitis, that are not related in any manner to music and I am certainly not fixated in the manner you allude to. Furthermore, I have read representative works of yours. I began to look at some of those works after reading this on the internet (an interview you provided to a colleague of yours):

http://www.ivanmoody.co.uk/arvanitis.htm

What troubled me, Mr. Arvanitis, reading through this interview were the following (from the link above):

"So, what was the correct way of singing? At some moment, I realized that the answer to my question was the doctrine of Simon Karas, an investigator with an enormous corpus of work on Byzantine chant, its theory and musical palaeography and on Greek folk song. In May 1982, I joined Karas’ pupil, Lykourgos Angelopoulos, and began to sing under his direction in his "Greek Byzantine Choir". In October 1982, I went to Simon Karas’ music school to study with him. He was a somewhat difficult person and didn’t want to accept all my previous knowledge and experience, not even that which I had with his pupil (this is another story to be told in another personal profile!). So, he obliged me to begin from scratch! I had no other choice, and it proved to be the best choice, so I finally accepted and began again from the beginning."


In other words, at the insistence of Karas, you COMPLETELY discarded everything you had learned for seven years from a traditional chanter (Spyros Simitzis), and instead of approaching highly-regarded psaltae (refugees from Constantinople who were in Greece and who served at the Patriarchate) to answer your dilemmas about ornamentation, you sought out Karas.

What I find further interesting in the interview is the following:

"Because of some disagreements concerning singing style [Angelopoulos], I was obliged to leave this church".

Exactly WHAT did you disagree about, Mr. Arvanitis, on style? There are second and third-hand accounts floating around about the reasons, but for the record, I believe YOUR accounts would be historically-critical.

You then go on to state the following:

"This old notation was, and continues to be, rather unknown to the majority of the church singers or, even if some have a little knowledge of its profile, they don’t possess a deep understanding of it.

AND

"I can claim that I am almost self-taught in this field [paleography] ; I mean that I had no personal guidance (moreover who could give this to me?) except from the transcriptions of the Three Teachers, my knowledge and experience of the new notation and chant and the doctrine of my teacher, Simon Karas, described by him in outline and through some examples in three papers (he didn’t teach me or anyone else directly about this)."

There is an inherent danger in self-teaching. Indeed, those self-taught can fall into traps. You, apparently fell into that of Karas.

Later, you state the following:

"So, the long way of interpretation could possibly be the tradition the Three Teachers had received from their forerunners, but it couldn’t be the case for some centuries before them."

What is your evidence that the oral tradition broke down between, say the 15th century, to the time of the Three Teachers? Can we realistically assume that at some point between the 15th century and the time of the Three Teachers, that the strict conservative directives at the Patriarchate were so relaxed to the point were innovations became permissible in a manner that significantly-altered the traditions? And, if this is your thesis, perhaps evidence can be discovered. But, can you honestly claim that Karas' thoughts are credible to serve as credible and objective support of such a thesis? Further, that Karas mystically re-discovered the pre-adulterated authentic Byzantine chant of Koukouzelis?


You then state that:

"My teacher, Simon Karas, investigated the notation of the old stichera and proved that many formulas of them are also contained in another kind of chants, the heirmoi. But the heirmoi were transcribed by the Three Teachers and are sung today in a syllabic or, sometimes, in a ‘short melismatic’ style, ie. mostly with two time units and short melismas (a few faster notes) per syllable."

Is it formally possible that the short formulae preceded the stichirarion and were used as a template upon which the stichirarika were built (with the elaboration and lengthening of the ecclesiastic services from the 5th century onwards?

Although Karas answers this question, according to your commentary in the interview, you then present, in the same breath an incredibly self-contradictory argument:

"So, Karas suggested that the old stichera would originally have had a shorter interpretation and are in fact the ancestors of the stichera sung today, revealing at the same time a continuity in the tradition in a process of a transition from more complex to simpler musical forms."

Am I missing something? Your statement is contradictory!

Later on in this interview, you provide a lengthy rationale for your study of manuscripts and their primacy in the transmission of psaltic practice, without even considering the orally-transmitted traditions, especially those in a conservative setting like the Patriarchal Church of St-George. Thinking of these comments you made, I contrasted them conceptually with the scholarly method of Cantemir who, at least, considered the PRACTICED traditions of the Constantinopolitan musicians of his time. And, in contrast to Karas who approached no credible chantor of his day, Cantemir not only approached all musicians of Constantinople, but also those who dissented with the views of their contemporaries, as he cultivated his Treatise on Ottoman Music which I am sure you are aware of.

There are merits to the process you propose in studying manuscripts to determine the evolution of chant (and embodied in your publications on the matter in Greek), but the impression is created that you do not want to consider the oral tradition in your approach. The same error you note about the procedures of the Copenhagen approach, you yourself commit.

You then state:

"But we have also received two more ways of reading the old notation: short melismatic and long melismatic (see above). These are, of course, part of our tradition and cannot be discarded. Given that, I believe that one can suppose that these changes in the conception of notation, from the syllabic to the long melismatic, occurred at particular times, and this is exactly one of my fields of investigation. Through such changes, chants became ever longer and this led to tendencies of ever more embellishment or, in the opposite direction, to simplification and abbreviations (cutting of some embellishments of melismatic chants). This is a very complicated story to describe here. What is important is that changes in the music itself necessitated the development of the notation and changes in the notation affected the music. The final stage of the notation, the reformed notation of the Three Teachers used nowadays, being capable of being fully analytical and describing every detail of the performance, has on the one hand facilitated the singing but on the other hand has contributed to the deterioration of church music in the compositions of some modern composers through strong influences from secular music."

I agree with your view here. Now, consider what you said in the interview when juxtaposed to the INVENTIONS of the Karas Method....

You then state:

"I have good reasons to believe that Byzantine chant was originally diatonic with ‘in principle’ Pythagorean scales, the scales of the modes being exactly like those described by the western musician Odo de Cluny of the 9th century."

You may be surprised to read that I agree with you, especially as you elaborate your thoughts in the next paragraph in sequence of the interview. Athanasios Karamanis also holds the same view as do many traditional psaltae, noting that chromaticism was used to "explain" an oral practice, as you state.

Your statement:

"All this makes me suspect that the original form of the scales is the hard diatonic transformed through musical praxis to the soft diatonic which dominates the present day praxis."

leads me to ask: is it then formally-possible that the formulaic progressions therein lie at the heart of what eventually evolved into a theory of the "epeisakta"/"pareisakta"?

The latter part of the interview creates the impression that you are charting your own hypotheses and views and this is commendable. Why you STILL cling to the Karas innovations (which in fact are contradictory to your own approach and theses) in other discussions and in some of your papers is unclear...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now, returning to your response to me, you state:

c) that you actually don't have any knowledge of or relation to scientific research on byzantine palaeography and music and their problems, methods and solutions

I do not have a doctorate in musicology, Mr. Arvanitis, but I am not a simpleton. Your overarching pronounciation is disingenious. If I agree with you on the matters listed earlier, do you not think that I have enough knowledge and experience to enter into a learned dialogue with you? Let's consider the thesis Karamanis raised (many years before you considered it BTW) about the Diatonic Genus as the basis of ecclesiastic chant with chromaticism coming to serve as a theoretical "explanation" of the oral "slippages". I would be delighted to work with you on this. It is a testable and a very reasonable hypothesis. The oral tradition would support it and the manuscripts would also support it. Does this mean that we should chant "Ton tafon sou sotir" in a quasi-First tetraphonic from now on at the analogion? No. Because, until the time the universal body of the church agrees to such a practice, we have to RESPECT the oral tradition.

On your comment:

d) that discussing with you is really a waste of time.

stop replying to my useless commentary!

Following these pronouncements, you then go on to the following:

2. To show you how much you have understood my positions on the matter of the chromatic scales, I send you those same messages of mine I had send at that time. I hope you read and study them this time, although I'm not sure that your passion and preoccupation will leave you to understand their meaning and spirit.

Just when I hoped that you would follow a very novel and testable (with tenable support thesis on chromaticism, you dismay and disappoint me. You fall back to Karas (!!!!).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I followed your recommendation "(read the links in the opposite order)".

And I would like to summarise (for the benefit of our non-Greek readers) the discussion and my evaluation of the discussions in those links.

a) http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=49362&postcount=69

A discussion between Mr. Theotokatos and Mr. Arvanitis on chromaticism, especially the intervals used among different Theory Books on the Soft Chromatic, the congruence (or incongruence) between oral practice and the theoretical intervals when the melody goes in the upper ranges beyond Ni; a response to Mr. Theotokatos thesis that the Karas Theory is unique in certain intervals (Mr. Arvanitis presents evidence that it is not-that some other Theory Books are just as removed from Patriarchal or Chrysanthine values), a discussion on the exegesis of qualitative symbols.

Mr. Arvanitis states that he DISAGREES with the Karas innovations of the soft chromatic intervals, although in the communication thread he still champions other unique intervals that have no basis in oral tradition. I would like to discuss the entire thread, but it would be best if Mr. Arvanitis can reformulate it in English as I do not want to make the error of misrepresenting his commentary.


b) http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57249&postcount=152

Here, the request is made to discuss the relevance and validity of the "homodiphony" theory of the soft chromatic genus using a series of old musical melodies.

I would ask Mr. Arvanitis to produce those examples he asks for using the Karas, the Chrysanthine and the 1881 Committee intervals using the MELODOS software. Then, we can compare and discuss further. Mr. Symeonidis has already worked on the Β' στίχου εκ της αργής Τιμιωτέρας, Δαμιανού του Βατοπαιδηνού, and in no way are the Karas intervals even close to what we consider soft chromatic today...

c) http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57254&postcount=153

Mr. Arvanitis adds another example to be analysed as above.

Again, please consider using the MELODOS software as above with the respective intervals...

d) http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57293&postcount=158

In an Alexandrian Greek-inspired playful response to Mr. Symeonidis, Mr. Arvanitis accepts the "homodiphony" that is Chrysanthine, but at odds with the Karas intervals, yet he still expresses reservations on its applicability to explain some minutiae of some specific melodies.

e) http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57569&postcount=181

This thread has no relevance to any of my questions ever directed at Mr. Arvanitis.

f) http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=57661&postcount=201

This is related to the questions posed and discussed above in (b). My comments earlier...

g) http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=59055&postcount=246

This discussion deals with temperament and consideration of the soft chromatic. It is a dense response and multifaceted that I would ask Mr. Arvanitis to rephrase in English so we can deal with the matters in a specific and unique thread...

Finally, Mr. Arvanitis, you state:

So, please Mr Giannoukakis, continue to work on your useful research on medicine and leave research on byzantine notation and chant alone!

Absolutely not, Mr. Arvanitis! It is a preoccupation of mine to study and research byzantine notation and chant.

NG

Laosynaktis said:

Dear Mr Combitsis
Mr Laosynaktis wishes to inform you that he is not in a position to give you a reply because he is in the hospital after the strong karate-kick.

The Nurse
S. Kara-Angelopoulou

Click to expand...

Poor John. All Forum members are upset with the legendary kick.

Apostole, the real heavy hitter around here is Mr Giannoukakis!

Thank you, Mr Giannoukakis, for countless useful posts in english. They are elegant, eloquent and "to the point". They serve well for us not yet well versed in Greek.

I found this in a 2 years old thread:

greek487 said:

The Patriarchate has never made any condemnations against Karas and never would.

Click to expand...

Apostolos said:

But I believe that, at some point, the Patriarchate WILL issue some formal statement on the matter...

Click to expand...

Dear Filip88,

I cannot and do not accept such praises.

The whole situation, especially in the last three years, was very painful for me. I was taught Byzantine Music and Chant at a time when there was peace among all psaltae (even though egos abounded, there was musical peace) and psaltae from the so-called different schools were able to chant together at an analogion. A time when Theory was clear for those who wished to learn to serve an analogion. This peace was built on the trust and the knowledge that the old-time psaltae were carriers of tradition and that this tradition was quite homogeneous.

The peace was shattered in 1982, initially imperceptibly, but over the next decade the rift grew so large that it required the intervention of the Church. Had those who shattered the peace of at least 100 years OBEYED the Church's instructions, we would not be wasting bandwidth today. Instead, they carried on, escalating their behaviour to border on the irrational.

I am very convinced that everyone in this Forum with whom I've shared all kinds of thoughts with, with whom I've debated, are dedicated to serving their church and I am convinced they do so with love in their heart. In a discussion or debate on would hope that the objective is to follow facts and to accept the possibility that what one holds passionately dear as dogma, may be factually incorrect or historically-untenable. You may have noticed that Mr. Arvanitis has proposed a hypothesis regarding a "universal" scale whose performance eventually required chromaticism to explain its evolution. This is an untainted hypothesis, that is being put forward uninfluenced by other theories, and that is testable. This type of dialogue can result in fruitful contributions to knowledge and can help explain one of the currently unclear aspects of Byzantine Music.

My advice to you is consider BOTH sides of the argument. Look at the facts and then make up your mind. Above all, strive to learn throught your life.

As for the Patriarchal Decision, it is what it is, and requires no elaboration.

NG

...

domesticus said:

...

Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHe2zzbzcTo

Laosynaktis said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHe2zzbzcTo

Click to expand...

Καλό!

domesticus said:

Καλό!

Click to expand...

English, please...