Announcement of the Patriarchal Holy Synod on Ecclesiastic Music

herron.samuel

Ieropsaltis
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.
NG

This paragraph is factually not true in any way whatsoever. Much of Karas' erroneous and problematic and now condemned research was out of reaction to the problems of decaying tradition in specifically Athens as well as elsewhere in Greece. His response, in my opinion, was NOT the way to correct it, but it certainly was an attempt because an attempt was needed. He did not do all this research in a vacuum where every church in Greece had humble psaltis who spent 20 years studying our Sacred Chant and everywhere the same beautiful tradition was practiced organically and homogeneously as Nafpliotis himself would deem fit. The spread of polyphony and Sakellarides-style choirs was becoming widespread. There is still evidence of this, even today, as many churches in the Greek islands of the Adriatic to this day use Italianate-style music and organs in their Churches. I witnessed this myself when I visited several of these islands and churches in 2006.

On top of this, you had chanters going completely wild with untraditional and fantastical Leitorgika compositions and in many regions of Greece a complete breakdown and borderline destruction of any traditional approach to traditional Communion hymnology. Such proof of these compositions are widely available for download from CMKON.ORG. Even those who were supposed (and did in 99% of instances) to safeguard this sacred tradition itself, such as Priggos and Stanitsas, would perform (a choose "perform" on purpose in this instance) the Anaphora in non-traditional maqam influenced compositions with the rationale that it was what the people wanted to hear. In many ways at this time, nobody was Watching the Watchmen. This was what Karas was reacting to.

And frankly, out of reaction to Karas, the traditional chanting community has found its center and returned to many traditions that had been either lazily fallen by the wayside or openly disregarded for several decades. In a similar way that the Arian heresy forced the Church Fathers to lay down Church vocabulary and declare what IS dogma, ultimately culminating in the Nicaean Creed, so as to condemn Arian teachings as NOT dogma, Karas and his teachings have forced a whole generation of psaltis to lay down and declare what is true psaltic tradition to be able to point out what is not psaltic tradition.

Respectfully, Dr. Giannoukakis, while I admire that you were brought up under a traditional teacher of Byzantine Chant and have pushed so hard to pass this on in many ways, to assume this was how it was everywhere is a little too idealistic and not the complete truth. These issues never are so black and white when they sit on a shifting foundation of political upheaval, European colonial and cosmopolitan influences, World War II, Civil War, and so many other factors. We see the visual proof in the iconography of the time and the following trend of returning to Byzantine style iconography. However in iconography we have visual proofs of exactly how it looked in more stable and traditional times dating back centuries. Music, even with notation, is not so simple. Karas, I feel, was a failed attempt to try and rediscover this in the same way iconography has rediscovered its roots. I know your response will be to say it did not need to be rediscovered. I would agree with you. To cure the problem correctly would have been to go where traditional psaltis were and study under them for several years before returning. However, in many areas a rediscovery was needed and to deny this is to ignore the true situation as it stood in the psaltic world.

I personally admire the attempt (the road to Hell may be paved with good intentions, but God also honors the good intent), and as I have said his work has led, in a different way than he intended, into the re-evaluation of what was being done by psaltis everywhere and a re-discovery on a wider scale of what is and isn't traditional chanting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

domesticus

Lupus non curat numerum ovium
This paragraph is factually not true in any way whatsoever. Much of Karas' erroneous and problematic and now condemned research was out of reaction to the problems of decaying tradition in specifically Athens as well as elsewhere in Greece. His response, in my opinion, was NOT the way to correct it, but it certainly was an attempt because an attempt was needed. He did not do all this research in a vacuum where every church in Greece had humble psaltis who spent 20 years studying our Sacred Chant and everywhere the same beautiful tradition was practiced organically and homogeneously as Nafpliotis himself would deem fit.

The spread of polyphony and Sakellarides-style choirs was becoming widespread. There is still evidence of this, even today, as many churches in the Greek islands of the Adriatic to this day use Italianate-style music and organs in their Churches. I witnessed this myself when I visited several of these islands and churches in 2006.
The above statement is a bit simplistic, but I undesrtand the spirit ...

....

I personally admire the attempt (the road to Hell may be paved with good intentions, but God also honors the good intent), and as I have said his work has led, in a different way than he intended, into the re-evaluation of what was being done by psaltis everywhere and a re-discovery on a wider scale of what is and isn't traditional chanting.

Nice ...
 
E

emakris

Guest
And frankly, out of reaction to Karas, the traditional chanting community has found its center and returned to many traditions that had been either lazily fallen by the wayside or openly disregarded for several decades. In a similar way that the Arian heresy forced the Church Fathers to lay down Church vocabulary and declare what IS dogma, ultimately culminating in the Nicaean Creed, so as to condemn Arian teachings as NOT dogma, Karas and his teachings have forced a whole generation of psaltis to lay down and declare what is true psaltic tradition to be able to point out what is not psaltic tradition.

This is partially true, but you seem to ignore an important fact: the cantors that follow Karas' theory and practice are deeply convinced that this is the real traditional way and they are by no means willing to change their views. Which is really problematic. You mentioned certain deviations from the tradition, even by its most important servants (the former Patriarchal psaltai). The deviations are absolutely natural in every musical culture, even the most conservative one. But no one would claim that a makam-oriented Axion estin or a Sakellarides Cheroubikon is really "traditional". Everyone knew that this was something "different" (even if they thought it was "better"). The classical chant editions and the music heard e.g. inside the Patriarchal cathedral have always been a safe guide about what is traditional and what not. But now we have a new reality: a "different" way of chanting and teaching (a "reconstruction", if you like), which is deeply believed to be absolutely traditional!
On the other hand, I am not so sure that Karas' efforts was the primary cause for the renewal of interest for traditional chanting (it was rather the beginning for the development of a new chanting style, which would be welcome, if presented as such). My impression is that the presence of certain Patriarchal psaltai in Greece (especially Pringos and Stanitsas) as well as the decline of the polyphonic movement after WWII have been by far more significant. Another important factor is also the awakening of chant scholarship in Greece from the 90s, connected with the establishment of music departments in universities.

There is still evidence of this, even today, as many churches in the Greek islands of the Adriatic to this day use Italianate-style music and organs in their Churches. I witnessed this myself when I visited several of these islands and churches in 2006.
There are no "Greek islands of the Adriatic", but simply "Ionian Islands" (Ionian Sea is not a part of the Adriatic Sea, even if it forms the southern extension of it)... Most of these islands belonged to the Venetian-ruled Greek territories and developed a distinctive style of church music. The harmonium was introduced in the 1920s in Corfu (only) by the then Metropolit (later Patriarch of Constantinopel) Athenagoras.
I don't know exactly what you heard, but the most common style in Corfu nowadays (regarding the choral practice) is Th. Polykrates' music (which is rather "Russian" than "Italianate"). I don't believe you were so lucky to hear the real local chanting of Corfu, Zante and Cephalonia, which is nowadays rare... Perhaps we need at last our own Karas here...:D
 
Last edited:

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Dear Samuel,

Your points are well taken and appreciated. Professor Makris' reply largely covers my sentiments as a response. Consider, however, that all the psaltae who came to Greece from Asia Minor would teach only what was traditional and would teach melodies that were "conservative", whenever they took on students. Those methods and melodies were widely accepted by all.

NG.
 

greek487

Tasos N.
This paragraph is factually not true in any way whatsoever. Much of Karas' erroneous and problematic and now condemned research was out of reaction to the problems of decaying tradition in specifically Athens as well as elsewhere in Greece. His response, in my opinion, was NOT the way to correct it, but it certainly was an attempt because an attempt was needed. He did not do all this research in a vacuum where every church in Greece had humble psaltis who spent 20 years studying our Sacred Chant and everywhere the same beautiful tradition was practiced organically and homogeneously as Nafpliotis himself would deem fit. The spread of polyphony and Sakellarides-style choirs was becoming widespread. There is still evidence of this, even today, as many churches in the Greek islands of the Adriatic to this day use Italianate-style music and organs in their Churches. I witnessed this myself when I visited several of these islands and churches in 2006.

On top of this, you had chanters going completely wild with untraditional and fantastical Leitorgika compositions and in many regions of Greece a complete breakdown and borderline destruction of any traditional approach to traditional Communion hymnology. Such proof of these compositions are widely available for download from CMKON.ORG. Even those who were supposed (and did in 99% of instances) to safeguard this sacred tradition itself, such as Priggos and Stanitsas, would perform (a choose "perform" on purpose in this instance) the Anaphora in non-traditional maqam influenced compositions with the rationale that it was what the people wanted to hear. In many ways at this time, nobody was Watching the Watchmen. This was what Karas was reacting to.

And frankly, out of reaction to Karas, the traditional chanting community has found its center and returned to many traditions that had been either lazily fallen by the wayside or openly disregarded for several decades. In a similar way that the Arian heresy forced the Church Fathers to lay down Church vocabulary and declare what IS dogma, ultimately culminating in the Nicaean Creed, so as to condemn Arian teachings as NOT dogma, Karas and his teachings have forced a whole generation of psaltis to lay down and declare what is true psaltic tradition to be able to point out what is not psaltic tradition.

Respectfully, Dr. Giannoukakis, while I admire that you were brought up under a traditional teacher of Byzantine Chant and have pushed so hard to pass this on in many ways, to assume this was how it was everywhere is a little too idealistic and not the complete truth. These issues never are so black and white when they sit on a shifting foundation of political upheaval, European colonial and cosmopolitan influences, World War II, Civil War, and so many other factors. We see the visual proof in the iconography of the time and the following trend of returning to Byzantine style iconography. However in iconography we have visual proofs of exactly how it looked in more stable and traditional times dating back centuries. Music, even with notation, is not so simple. Karas, I feel, was a failed attempt to try and rediscover this in the same way iconography has rediscovered its roots. I know your response will be to say it did not need to be rediscovered. I would agree with you. To cure the problem correctly would have been to go where traditional psaltis were and study under them for several years before returning. However, in many areas a rediscovery was needed and to deny this is to ignore the true situation as it stood in the psaltic world.

I personally admire the attempt (the road to Hell may be paved with good intentions, but God also honors the good intent), and as I have said his work has led, in a different way than he intended, into the re-evaluation of what was being done by psaltis everywhere and a re-discovery on a wider scale of what is and isn't traditional chanting.

In regards to your historical commentary and analysis, your thoughts correspond closely to my own experience and understanding as well as to the following bold statement by Ioannis Arvanitis. (A kind of definitive statement that Mr. Arvanitis rarely makes due to what I gather to be extreme scholarly integrity and careful thought.)

"Η διδασκαλία και το έργον του Διδασκάλου Σίμωνος Καρα είναι ιστορικώς η πρώτη σοβαρά αφορμή δια την επάνοδον εις το 'αρχαίον κάλλος' και την πρόοδον της καθ' ημάς εκκλησιαστικής μουσικής."

"The teachings and the work of the Teacher Simonos Kara is historically the first serious impetus for the return to the "ancient beauty" and the progress of our very own ecclesiastical music."

. . .
 

Attachments

  • Ypomnema pros Arch. Christodoulon (2).pdf
    165.6 KB · Views: 19

greek487

Tasos N.
This is partially true, but you seem to ignore an important fact: the cantors that follow Karas' theory and practice are deeply convinced that this is the real traditional way and they are by no means willing to change their views. Which is really problematic.

On some issues, 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.) and ought to be emulated.

On others, 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.)

Dogmatism on all issues isn't something that I can say I've seen or experienced.

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".

You mentioned certain deviations from the tradition, even by its most important servants (the former Patriarchal psaltai). The deviations are absolutely natural in every musical culture, even the most conservative one. But no one would claim that a makam-oriented Axion estin or a Sakellarides Cheroubikon is really "traditional". Everyone knew that this was something "different" (even if they thought it was "better").

I'm not sure if the distinction between 'traditional' and simply 'different' was (or is) always clear. When some masters claim, "Whatever I say is good." and "I am the tradition." do their students really know (or even care) what is traditional?

The classical chant editions and the music heard e.g. inside the Patriarchal cathedral have always been a safe guide about what is traditional and what not.

I would agree in general.

But now we have a new reality: a "different" way of chanting and teaching (a "reconstruction", if you like), which is deeply believed to be absolutely traditional!

Or simply 'better' than traditional? :D

On the other hand, I am not so sure that Karas' efforts was the primary cause for the renewal of interest for traditional chanting (it was rather the beginning for the development of a new chanting style, which would be welcome, if presented as such).

Might be welcome by you because you may be tolerant. But I'm not sure it would be welcome by many, ANY way it was presented.

In my opinion, to say that all of the Karas-influenced scholars, choirs, and chanters are conventional would be inaccurate. But 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. Especially in our centuries-long tradition, there is written tradition also. So Karas is so controversial because his project critiques current practices on so many different levels. Some of Karas' critiques were successful and legitimate, and others perhaps not, as Mr. Arvanitis points out as well. But to throw the baby out with the bathwater doesn't help the tradition, nor does it acknowledge the debt of gratitude every current practioner owes to Karas, friend or foe.

Samuel articulates this nicely here ...

And frankly, out of reaction to Karas, the traditional chanting community has found its center and returned to many traditions that had been either lazily fallen by the wayside or openly disregarded for several decades.

My impression is that the presence of certain Patriarchal psaltai in Greece (especially Pringos and Stanitsas) as well as the decline of the polyphonic movement after WWII have been by far more significant. Another important factor is also the awakening of chant scholarship in Greece from the 90s, connected with the establishment of music departments in universities.

See my previous post re: historical commentary and analysis. I think that Karas' critique turned the world of byzantine chant on its head and people had to scramble to better represent their craft. Acknowledging Karas' seminal role doesn't necessarily mean that everything he said was 100% correct. But just look at how much attention Karas still gets in the current world of byzantine chant and on this very forum day-in and day-out? His influence is still felt!

There are no "Greek islands of the Adriatic", but simply "Ionian Islands" (Ionian Sea is not a part of the Adriatic Sea, even if it forms the southern extension of it)... Most of these islands belonged to the Venetian-ruled Greek territories and developed a distinctive style of church music. The harmonium was introduced in the 1920s in Corfu (only) by the then Metropolit (later Patriarch of Constantinopel) Athenagoras.
I don't know exactly what you heard, but the most common style in Corfu nowadays (regarding the choral practice) is Th. Polykrates' music (which is rather "Russian" than "Italianate"). I don't believe you were so lucky to hear the real local chanting of Corfu, Zante and Cephalonia, which is nowadays rare...

Interesting.

Perhaps we need at last our own Karas here...:D

And in America perhaps as well ... :D


. . .
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
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
 
Last edited:

David Walker

Νέο μέλος
Mr. emakris (E. Makris?)

Regarding this quote, I am curious on a purely western musicological basis about this composer/style. I don't mean to hi-jack the original efforts of this thread, so if this needs to move somewhere else, that's fine.

I don't know exactly what you heard, but the most common style in Corfu nowadays (regarding the choral practice) is Th. Polykrates' music (which is rather "Russian" than "Italianate"). I don't believe you were so lucky to hear the real local chanting of Corfu, Zante and Cephalonia, which is nowadays rare... Perhaps we need at last our own Karas here...:D

While it is geographically difficult for me that Polykratis or music of Corfu would be more "Russian" than "Italianate" given its location, this particular link definitely draws certain influences from the folk-like adaptations of the Russian Five. From your experience, is this a representation of his music on a whole? I mean no disrespect, especially to the departed Orthodox, but compositionally (even from a Western prospective) this piece is an odd amalgamation and quite nauseating. From a Byzantine perspective, well, we need not say more.
 
Last edited:
E

emakris

Guest
While it is geographically difficult for me that Polykratis or music of Corfu would be more "Russian" than "Italianate" given its location, this particular link definitely draws certain influences from the folk-like adaptations of the Russian Five. From your experience, is this a representation of his music on a whole? I mean no disrespect, especially to the departed Orthodox, but compositionally (even from a Western prospective) this piece is an odd amalgamation and quite nauseating. From a Byzantine perspective, well, we need not say more.

OK, sorry, sometimes I speak with plain "keywords", forgetting that they may not mean so much to every person... Let me explain it better.
1) Themistoklis Polykratis (1863-1926) had absolutely no relation to Corfu or the Ionian tradition. He lived and worked in Athens, continuing the work of his teacher Alexandros Katakouzinos (1824-1892). Katakouzinos introduced in 1870 a Russian-like church music into the royal chapel of Athens, following the wish of Olga Constantinovna of Russia, the queen consort of King George I of Greece.
2) The music of Polykratis and other minor composers, mostly Russian-oriented but in a very simple manner (nothing to do with the inspiration of Bortniansky or other important Russian church composers) was widely disseminated in the first half of the 20th century. It came also to Corfu, replacing the local tradition in many churches.
3) This music is written for a cappella men's choir. The example you give is an adaptation especially for that concert. And it is really "nauseating" (thank you for putting it so gently...). Are the performances in our churches more appropriate? No, they are even worse, because of the bad choirs and the harmonium accompaniment. This is unfortunately the outcome, when a tradition gives its place to a pseudo-tradition... (Otherwise this music can be even tolerable).

Mr. emakris (E. Makris?)
Eustathios Makris.
 
Last edited:

saltypsalti

Παλαιό Μέλος
...., 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.

Would someone be kind enough to bring up to speed on this "diatonic second" reference? I see no evidence of this in rec'd practice other than speculations by musicologists on medieval Byzantine music, and other than the archival western notated practice of Holy Transfiguration Monastery of Boston.

Thank you.

JPP
 

greek487

Tasos N.
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
When a scholar, composer, chanter, and choir director of the highest caliber states the following ...
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

... far be it from me to enter the whirlwind of circular reasoning where the reasoner begins with what he is trying to end up with - quite a strange loop indeed.

P.S. Happy Independence Day (USA) 2012!!

 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Taso mou,

You apparently missed, or you avoid considering this: http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147009&postcount=32

Read it first.

In the end, you have some soul-searching to do (if you are still part of an ecclesiastic jurisdiction that belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate):

Do you agree with the Decision of the Holy Synod of the EP, or do you not agree with it? Will you follow its guidance or will you reject its guidance?

Happy 4th of July!

NG.
 
Last edited:

greek487

Tasos N.
Taso mou,

You apparently missed, or you avoid considering this: http://analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147009&postcount=32

Read it first.

Mr. Giannoukakis,

I would appreciate if you do not refer to me as "Taso mou". You are not my friend, nor my teacher.

[Moderator's note: Personal comments removed]


Nothwistanding, I did write the following regarding my lack of interest in verbally engaging with you . . . "When a scholar, composer, chanter, and choir director of the highest caliber states the following ...
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

... far be it from me to enter the whirlwind of circular reasoning where the reasoner begins with what he is trying to end up with - quite a strange loop indeed."

Did you not read this? I do read all posts of interest, but as Dr. Arvanitis and others believe, I see little benefit in your posts or in verbally engaging with you.

In the end, you have some soul-searching to do (if you are still part of an ecclesiastic jurisdiction that belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate):
According to whom? Tend to your own soul, sir. If you are considering converting to a different religion or a different ecclesiastical jurisdiction, you are free to do so. As Orthodox Christians, we tolerate differing viewpoints and do not impose our views on each other through verbal manipulation and browbeating.

Do you agree with the Decision of the Holy Synod of the EP, or do you not agree with it? Will you follow its guidance or will you reject its guidance?
Did you not read my thoughts on the announcement? Moreover, this post from the Greek section expresses many of my views. Why are my opinions of so much interest to you?

Oh, and btw, you do not represent the Ecumenical Patriarchate, you do not represent tradition, and you do not represent byzantine chant, so you are way out of line in attempting to be the 'enforcer' of what you perceive as divine law. Your bullying doesn't work with me nor with anyone else.

Happy 4th of July!
Same to you! Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness! :)

. . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

phokaeus

Παλαιό Μέλος
Would someone be kind enough to bring up to speed on this "diatonic second" reference? I see no evidence of this in rec'd practice other than speculations by musicologists on medieval Byzantine music, and other than the archival western notated practice of Holy Transfiguration Monastery of Boston.

Thank you.

JPP

That is exactly what it is - a musicological theory. I am in no place to comment on its accuracy, but I just thought I would point out that there certainly cannot be any recorded (audio) evidence of this, as it would have been an ancient practice.
 

apostolos

Απόστολος Κομπίτσης
Taso,

You are so way out of line, you don't even know what you are saying! Your postings continue to annoy me, yet I barely know you! "Converting to a different religion"? "Tolerating different different viewpoints"? Are you KIDDING me?? If my "viewpoint" is to bring a baglama to the Analogion with me and use it to accompany the Doxastiko, should that viewpoint be tolerated?? I would be thrown out on my you-know-what by the priest and the people! But why SHOULD I be thrown out? According to you, that's my VIEWPOINT which should be tolerated, right? Just as Mr. Karas has his VIEWPOINT, right? Because, after all, Mr. Karas' "epiphany" of music is exactly that: a VIEWPOINT. With absolutely no basis and no proof. (We BEG you: PLEASE provide it, if it exists...)

As for Mr. Giannoukakis, AND myself, AND our teachers, AND the countless other psaltai who HAVE been following the paradosi, the tradition, of the Great Church of Christ, we DO, in fact, represent the Ecumenical Patriarchate, tradition, and Byzantine Chant!! Why? It's very simple, but allow me to spell it out for you: because we HAVE been following the traditional music for which we have DOCUMENTATION, both WRITTEN and AUDIO. Just because Mr. Karas had a fantasy one night in a dream about silly scales and symbols that no longer exist does not mean the rest of us have to follow them. And that CERTAINLY does NOT mean that his "epiphany" is the afthentia, the authenticity, as far as Byzantine Music is concerned. With all due respect to Mr. Karas's work as a researcher of DEMOTIC and traditional Greek music, I, for one (again, as are countless others) am not influenced in the least bit by his "work" (and yes, I put that in quotes) in Byzantine Music.

The hundreds of posts of this issue have laid it all out, and there is nothing new that I can offer here. Again, it's very simple: if you continue to chant like Karas, you are going AGAINST the decisions of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and, subsequently, the Great Church of Christ and its traditions. And you ask "according to whom?" Again, simple: according to the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate. (I mean, jeez, Tasso, how much simpler can I get??)

I, for one, am content and confident in knowing that the Analogia of the Patriarchate will NEVER be bastardized by someone who chants using the theory, scales and sharps/flats (yfesodieseis) of Mr. Karas. That would never be allowed. That, ALONE, should be SOME food for thought for you. (That is, after you put your ego to the side...)

Apostolos
 

Dimitri

Δημήτρης Κουμπαρούλης, Administrator
Staff member
[Moderator's note] After repeated warnings about avoiding unsupported personal attacks in conversation from the moderators, I removed once more offending comments and gave Mr Nassis a symbolic (3 day) penalty in hope that he will change his way of approaching the conversations in Psaltologion. His musical opinions are respected like everybody else's but it is important that all members show sensitivity especially in public dialogue and abide by the rules of the forum and moderators' warnings.

On a more general note, it seems this topic has been exhausted and I recommend that it stops here unless something needs to be added that has not been heard already.
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Dear Mr. Theodore,

Whether you choose to follow interpreting Byzantine Chant in the "Karas Manner" is your choice and yours alone. There are hundreds if not at least a thousand individual analyses of the problems of the said method and approach of chant inside Psaltologion that will appropriate days of your reading time. I suggest you take the time to read through them. This particular thread is only one. You may agree or disagree with the individual comments of the participants. Again, your choice.

What matters *functionally* and *ecclesiologically* is that as a *serving chantor* in a church under the spiritual aegis of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the guidance (edict, I would say) issued by the EP a few years ago is very specific, irrespective of what Mr. Arvanitis, or any other proponent of the Karas Method and Interpretation would like to argue.

I would add that, I *believe* (although I might be in error), that not only Mr. Arvanitis, but a certain number of former key supporters of the said Method have distanced themselves from at least its most sensational theories and interpretations.

If I am not mistaken, the interview you posted is very old and much has changed since that time. Unless there is reason to continue this discussion on *NEW FINDINGS*, it is best the leave it alone. We don't need another thousand pages on a matter that has been discussed to death (no pun intended) in Psaltologion.

Respectfully,
NG
 
Last edited:

Daidalos

Μέλος
This is the funniest and most absurd discussion I came across in whole Psaltologion.

Since Karas was not mentioned with his name by his grace (and why should he mention him?), I fear all the polemics here are based on a guess. But for sure he mentioned “theory”... Now, that sounds very familiar to similar discussions among semeologists, who are even polemic against medieval authors of music theory relying (in an ahistorical way) on an current antagonism between theory and practice (which did not exist in medieval times, since those Latin authors who chose the form tonary, had been all cantors and were as such experienced with the oral teaching of chant as well as with the written transmission). These treatises were not like treatises of harmonics, although the separation was not so strict like the Greek one between Hagiopolites or Papadike on the on side and those of harmonics on the other side (which had never been of any concern for the Patriarchate). Certain precentors (soloists) might have been reduced to the oral transmission (because the written one was an exclusive exchange among cantors also between different generations), but their position was subjected to the one of the cantor (some liked to mention here existing hierarchies).

I can understand a lot from the attitude to the sources of the own tradition, if someone within a tradition feels secure or insecure. Somebody who is secure, has nothing to fear by a study of its sources... The roots of the living tradition are already so complex (Iakovos or Petros?, the New Method or Konstantinos Vyzantios?, the Old or the New School? etc.), that such a short letter written in such a subjective tone can hardly achieve anything more than a great confusion. And here we are (many thanks for this great experience and the inofficial English translation)!

Nevertheless, I remember that somebody during a conference once read aloud a medieval canon law which said that singers should sing with a strong and male voice and not too soft and too high-pitched (words which made many participants smile thinking of the current practice). There was obviously a fashion to imitate Byzantine chant with its Eunochs (especially in Naples, where it could even establish the opera fashion of castrato sopranos during the 18th century). On the other hand, we have medieval Latin chroniclers writing about their impression of Constantinople and they mention the great strength and virility of Eunoch voices which softened the hearts of the Frankish. Quite obviously, these are eternal subjects whenever the right way to sing was treated.
 
Last edited:

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Dear Daidalos,

The subject has been argued down to its essential arithmetic over the past 10 years. Even the major living proponents of the Karas Theory and Method have since accepted its flaws and errors, and departures from the accepted tradition. The matter is now part of history.

However, since you appear to want to ressurect endless debates, and in the interests of clarification (for you), would you please submit a question of clarification to His All-Holiness (Greek Orthodox under the Ecumenical Patriarchate refer to Bartholomew I as "His All-Holiness" and not "His Grace") and the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate on precisely ***what theory the decision refers to***, and ***who (name of the person) the theory is sourced from***?

Then, please post His ***All-Holiness' *** response for all to consider.

Have a blessed Lent!

NG


This is the funniest and most absurd discussion I came across in whole Psaltologion.

Since Karas was not mentioned with his name by his grace (and why should he mention him?), I fear all the polemics here are based on a guess. But for sure he mentioned “theory”... Now, that sounds very familiar to similar discussions among semeologists, who are even polemic against medieval authors of music theory relying (in an ahistorical way) on an current antagonism between theory and practice (which did not exist in medieval times, since those Latin authors who chose the form tonary, had been all cantors and were as such experienced with the oral teaching of chant as well as with the written transmission). These treatises were not like treatises of harmonics, although the separation was not so strict like the Greek one between Hagiopolites or Papadike on the on side and those of harmonics on the other side (which had never been of any concern for the Patriarchate). Certain precentors (soloists) might have been reduced to the oral transmission (because the written one was an exclusive exchange among cantors also between different generations), but their position was subjected to the one of the cantor (some liked to mention here existing hierarchies).

I can understand a lot from the attitude to the sources of the own tradition, if someone within a tradition feels secure or insecure. Somebody who is secure, has nothing to fear by a study of its sources... The roots of the living tradition are already so complex (Iakovos or Petros?, the New Method or Konstantinos Vyzantios?, the Old or the New School? etc.), that such a short letter written in such a subjective tone can hardly achieve anything more than a great confusion. And here we are (many thanks for this great experience and the inofficial English translation)!

Nevertheless, I remember that somebody during a conference once read aloud a medieval canon law which said that singers should sing with a strong and male voice and not too soft and too high-pitched (words which made many participants smile thinking of the current practice). There was obviously a fashion to imitate Byzantine chant with its Eunochs (especially in Naples, where it could even establish the opera fashion of castrato sopranos during the 18th century). On the other hand, we have medieval Latin chroniclers writing about their impression of Constantinople and they mention the great strength and virility of Eunoch voices which softened the hearts of the Frankish. Quite obviously, these are eternal subjects whenever the right way to sing was treated.
 
Top