If one carefully considers the arguments posed in the post immediately above, the relativism in the apologia is all-too-obvious.
The untenability of these relativistic arguments lies in considering the definition of "traditional" in the context of "what is taken" from the past, if and to what degree it is altered by the "holder" and what then is "transmitted" to someone else.
I would like to present the following thoughts for consideration:
In artistic contexts, tradition is used to decide the correct display of an art form. For example, in the performance of traditional genres (such as traditional dance), adherence to guidelines dictating how an art form should be composed are given greater importance than the performer's own preferences.
Who decides what is traditional and what is not? Usually, and in the instance of Byzantine Chant, the wide majority of the practitioners make the first pronouncement, and since Byzantine Chant is not simply an art for the sake of art but an ecclesiologic element of faith, the church has a say on the matter as well. The Karas Method (the recent Decision of the Patriarchal Synod notwithstanding) never received this approval from the wide body of psaltae, and instead served to trigger and fuel a response by them that included historically-accurate facts and practices. Those facts and arguments were carefully considered and measured and then compared to the arguments of the Karas proponents (including the letter submitted by Mr. Arvanitis to the late Archbishop Christodoulos, presented in an earlier post); first by three committees set up for the purpose by the Church of Greece and then by the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. All committees took their time to consider both sides, to consult musicologists and to even invite the key individuals of each side to offer personal arguments. In the end, the decisions were clear that the arguments of the Karas proponents were untenable and the only rational decision was to ratify what was and is the norm for the past century. Two official Decisions were issued by the Church of Greece and the recent one by the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Yet.....
On the other hand, the Karas Method and its subsequent effects on musical inspiration can be considered an "invention of tradition". This concept refers to situations when a new practice or object is introduced in a manner that implies a connection with the past that is not necessarily present. Such an invention of tradition may be deliberately created and promulgated for personal, commercial, political, or national self-interest. Karas was a noted Greek nationalist and this lay in part as his motivation to seek and transcribe/record the oldest known Greek folk songs. In his zeal, he tried to use Byzantine chant to support his nationalistic arguments, and in formulating his thesis, he unfortunately fell into the trap of inventing a tradition that no one of his day came to support, acknowledge or even discuss. In fact, to the contrary, the evidence is clear that he "neither knew nor understood the music, even though his interest is genuine" (Iakovos Naypliotis in Voudouris' memoirs)
The statement in the previous post that "Karas' connotations (if not actual conclusions) are more traditional and correct (e.g. on isokratemata, the conscious understanding of analyses and elxeis, chanting musical phrases instead of note-by-note, focus on classical repertoire, the use of the older apechemata, the strong push for choral interpretations over solo renditions, focus on historical and musicological research rather than simply the authority of the teacher, etc."....
is disingenious. Traditional and correct on what basis? Compared to what? If Karas INNOVATED and CREATED out of thin air, then is this TRADITION, or INVENTION OF TRADITION?
The isokratemata "rules" were established long before Karas had any clue about BM (notes in the minutes of the various musical committee meetings in the early 1900s);
elxeis ["attractions"] were learned orally from teacher to student, there was not need to "systematise" them in a Procrustean manner advocated by Karas.
On the musical phrase argument, the term "thesh" (cadence) was long-established and learned by memory and practice even before Karas was born. To attribute the concept of "thesh" to Karas is historically-untenable.
Further, if the psaltae of old-time were not using classical material, exactly what did they use? Does the person making this argument have material evidence that the psaltae of C/ple used anything else BUT the approved books of the Patriarchate in regular ecclesiastic service and in teaching?
On choral practice. The concept of a chorus in ecclesiastic practice in the Orthodox world was different than that we use in our day. The "choros" had a very specific constitution: The coordinator (protopsaltis/lampadarios), the two domestikoi who followed the coordinator and the canonarchs/vastaktai (isokratai). Nowhere in Karas' works is there any specific definition that a "choros" should consist of 40+ individuals along the lines of the Greek Byzantine Choir of Lycourgos Angelopoulos. Thus, the practice of byzantine chant was in fact directed by a soloist, aided by two domestikoi. Nevertheless, the soloist was conservative in the melodies used and practiced what he learned from his teachers and accepted by the church. There were boundaries to the solo performance.
On the apichimata. There was no need for the long apichimiata of old, since the notation was analytic and everything the apichimata provided were no longer necessary. The use of the long apichima today serves nothing. Indeed, where is the SUBSTANCE of a hymn? The POEM and the words of the POEM or the "nonsensical" APICHIMA of "Neanes"? What should the focus be of a chantor? The correct apichima of 2 minutes duration or the proper articulation and accentuation of the syllables of the ecclesiastic poem (eirmos, prosomoion etc...)?
As for Karas' inspiration to the "correct" on historical and musicological research rather than simply the authority of the teacher, C/ple was witness to scholarship decades before Karas was born. The author somehow misses this and aims to make Karas the "Father of Byzantine Musicology". Further, many other Westerners were concerned with B-Musicology and offered less controversial theses than Karas (Ducudray, Christ, Lamy, Bouvy, Pitra, Krumbacher....).
The note is made that "the individuals that use Karas' views, seem to tolerate and appreciate a large variety of different artistic and aesthetic choices. (on tempo, the amount and type of ornaments, the degree of the elxeis, etc.)
"Seem" is the key phrase.
Now, on to this next statement:
In fact, the Karas-influenced practioners I've met emphasize the importance of individual expression and individual artistic integrity. Something that I rarely experienced, if at all, with those wishing to simply "imitate the greats".
Truth be told, the Karas-influenced practitioners do emphasise individual expression and artistic integrity. I would add artistic innovation, creativity, inventiveness. Now, how in line with tradition this individual expression and innovation is, is another matter altogether.....
A comment is made: "I'm not sure if the distinction between 'traditional' and simply 'different' was (or is) always clear. "
60 years of audio material and witness will differentiate traditional from different. The attempt is made, again, by the author of the previous post to trivialise and relativise the meaning of the term "tradition" and "traditional" to serve their relativistic arguments.
Now, the author attempts this sophist acrobatism:
"the term "traditional" does not simply denote a criterion that can be applied by simple comparison with what's been done before. "A tradition" isn't merely the sum of what's been done before. A tradition is in continual flux, and all interpretations are 'reconstructions' in this sense."
This is the author's understanding of the term tradition. However, the author does not understand the literal or the contextual meaning of the term. It would be useful to begin with a clear and factual understanding of the terms....
The author then argues the following:
"I think that Karas' critique turned the world of byzantine chant on its head and people had to scramble to better represent their craft."
Karas did not critique. Karas provided a Method and a Theory that had no basis in tradition or historical accuracy. This method lay dormant for decades before Lycourgos Angelopoulos began its promotion. The author implies that 60 years of ecclesiastic psaltae in Greece did not represent their craft, but that Karas somehow triggered them to "better" represent it. The author is either unaware of the hundreds of renowned and acclaimed Protopsaltae and the wide acceptance they enjoyed among their peers and the people/churches they served, or is attempting to discredit them indirectly by contextualising their "worth" along the Kara-Procrustean measurement apparatus. Let me ask the author the following: "To what degree do the Karas-inspired psaltae represent the practices of the Great Church of Christ (if we agree that those practices are as close to traditional as possible)?
Last, America has its own camp of Karas-inspired psaltae who serve their churches well. Those psaltae who belong to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate now have some soul-searching, because their role is more than that of an artist. A church-serving chantor, as a lower-rank cleric, is also subject to the boundaries that the Mother Church establishes:
Do they accept the Decision of the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and conform to it, or do they go against it, and by extension the Church?
NG