Ἰβὰν Καϊκὸβ, Πρωτοψάλτης τῆς Βουλγαρίας (1874-1965)
- Thread starter Daidalos
- Start date
evangelos
Ευάγγελος Σολδάτος
Αυτό είναι ψαλτική. Μακάρι να ακουστεί κάποτε η σωστή ψαλτική ξανά στην Βουλγαρία και να μη χαθεί εντελώς στην Ελλάδα. Αν συνεχίσει η παρακμή και στην Ελλάδα θα ελλείψει η αρχαία μουσική όπως έχει γίνει σε όλα τα υπόλοιπα Βαλκάνια. Για να μη συνεχιστεί η καταστροφή, εμπιστευτειτε μόνο τα αυτιά σας κι όχι τα θεωρητικά του 20ου αιώνα.
Daidalos
Μέλος
The Bulgarian version of psaltic art was created during the 19th century, by Ivan Rilski for instance, who was a Phanariot and a student of Konstantinos Vyzantios (most definitely not a friend of the New Method). He made an Old Slavonic version of Konstantinos' edition of the Typikon of the Great Church, and at the same time he established the first seminaries in the territory of Bulgaria whose staff did teach in Bulgarian and not in Greek, as it was still custom in large parts of the country which was still part of the Ottoman empire. Expecting a living tradition rooted in the 18th century, it is the Greek tradition, most definitely around Plovdiv, known as the Greek Polis of Philippopolis (it still had a living tradition rooted to the old sticherarion until the 19th century). East Bulgaria is full of architectural monuments close to the Constantinopolitan style.
But there was a rural Old Slavonic tradition as well like in Macedonia and Serbia, but these manuscripts have no musical notation. It was an oral tradition which can be followed by fieldwork until the 18th century:
https://independent.academia.edu/OliverGerlach/Teaching-Documents
But there was a rural Old Slavonic tradition as well like in Macedonia and Serbia, but these manuscripts have no musical notation. It was an oral tradition which can be followed by fieldwork until the 18th century:
https://independent.academia.edu/OliverGerlach/Teaching-Documents
Last edited:
Δούναβις
Ἡ πεῖρα μοῦ ξέμαθε τὸν κόσμο... Ὀδυσσέας Ἐλύτης.
Referring to the state of Skopje (F.Y.R.O.M.) as "Macedonia", apart from all others, will lead to the wrong conclusion that supposedly exists a "Macedonian" psaltic school. I read such nonsense somewhere lately…
So, please, let’s better be precise.
Daidalos
Μέλος
I was...
Or do you believe that psaltic art existed as a rural tradition?
For the particular and also crucial role of monasteries outside Constantinople during the Byzantine past you might have a look at the earlier units (3 and 4). My concept was anti-chronological to begin with the living tradition, and it proved somehow useful...
You might ask, if there is a Bulgarian school of psaltic art? I would rather regard it as a reception, similar to many areas in Greece.
The Rila school widely integrated contemporary composers of the New Music School of the Patriarchate (sometimes with own exegeseis due to the decision to establish Old Church Slavonic as liturgical language), but there were some local compositions as well (made for local needs like the feast of Ioan Rilski, the patron of the monastery) and they contributed with own compositions made over popular models (such as heirmoi kalophonikoi by Petros Bereketis and Balasios the Priest). Nevertheless, they sound very different, since traditional singers in Constantinople stick rather to the trochos system than to the New Method (this is also something which only a few singers in Greece do understand and depending on local schools)! Bulgarian singers also did (and do) not understand certain elxeis which are influenced by an exchange with makam music, especially if they did not share the cultural background of the Phanariotes. But these challenges showed rather productive...
I can only tell you from fieldwork in Bulgaria. Important singers like Otec Stiliyan or Neofit, the current Patriarch, have been highly respected as singers, not only in Bulgaria, but also in Romania and in Greece. Also young singers from Greece came and come to learn from them, like young Bulgarian singers do visit Greece to improve their skills in psaltic art. This attitude is quite common and reveals a reciprocal respect and the need to learn from different schools.
Or do you believe that psaltic art existed as a rural tradition?
For the particular and also crucial role of monasteries outside Constantinople during the Byzantine past you might have a look at the earlier units (3 and 4). My concept was anti-chronological to begin with the living tradition, and it proved somehow useful...
You might ask, if there is a Bulgarian school of psaltic art? I would rather regard it as a reception, similar to many areas in Greece.
The Rila school widely integrated contemporary composers of the New Music School of the Patriarchate (sometimes with own exegeseis due to the decision to establish Old Church Slavonic as liturgical language), but there were some local compositions as well (made for local needs like the feast of Ioan Rilski, the patron of the monastery) and they contributed with own compositions made over popular models (such as heirmoi kalophonikoi by Petros Bereketis and Balasios the Priest). Nevertheless, they sound very different, since traditional singers in Constantinople stick rather to the trochos system than to the New Method (this is also something which only a few singers in Greece do understand and depending on local schools)! Bulgarian singers also did (and do) not understand certain elxeis which are influenced by an exchange with makam music, especially if they did not share the cultural background of the Phanariotes. But these challenges showed rather productive...
I can only tell you from fieldwork in Bulgaria. Important singers like Otec Stiliyan or Neofit, the current Patriarch, have been highly respected as singers, not only in Bulgaria, but also in Romania and in Greece. Also young singers from Greece came and come to learn from them, like young Bulgarian singers do visit Greece to improve their skills in psaltic art. This attitude is quite common and reveals a reciprocal respect and the need to learn from different schools.
Last edited:
n_antonov
Nikola Antonov
Thank you for reminding us of this great Bulgarian psalt from the past. Unfortunately, we have only a few documentary records of his performances. They remind me of the great Nafpliotis. The Bulgarian Psaltic tradition is old, much older than the New Method. It did not start with the New Method and Neofit Rilski. When the New Method enters, this tradition is already known among the Bulgarians. Unfortunately, today the situation is not at all good. We have lost the performance practice, and we have to learn to perform it again from the very beginning theoretically and practically (especially τα διαστήματα, ύφος, ornaments etc.).
n_antonov
Nikola Antonov
Εχετε δίκαιο! Κρίμα, ο Καικοβ ήταν τελευταίος. Τώρα στη Βουλγαρία όλοι ψάλλουνε με Ευροπαικα διαστήματα και έτσι μαθαίνουν. Εμείς δε ξέρουμε την δική μας παράδοση.
n_antonov
Nikola Antonov
Maybe you are talking about the current situation. In the past it was not like now (check Kaikov). See Angel Sevlievets, Nikola Trendafilov, they knew this music very well and followed strictly the tradition of Constantinople. Constantinople has always been the main source. We can talk about how the change happened in 20th century. It is not true that makams are Ottoman influences. We have suffered from the Ottomans, we have fought against them. It is unthinkable to claim that we have adopted their music. Rather, it was the opposite. These makams have been known in our lands since ancient times. They are much older than the Ottoman Empire.
The comparison between these 2 performances of Kaikov and Nafpliotis is obvious. It may show that the tradition is the same, only the language is different:
Let me show you something interesting about the makams in the Bulgarian psaltic tradition.
In his "Anastasimatarion" (Воскресник) Angel Ivanov is explaining the difference between "bestengiar" and "segiah", because many psalts does not make the difference and chant the diatonic varys as far as legetos. He uses the τροχός system, which is logical and normal for this music. This is in the 1850s and Angel is not "фанариот".
Since 1872 the Bulgarian church is in isolation and schizm. Despite that, the Bulgarian psalts like Zheko Pavlov (1907) still follow the Constaninopolitan style in the terms of music. The Bulgarian and Greek people become strong enemies in the II Balkan War, WWI and WWII. Ilia Atanasov published a book (1940s) following strictly the tradition of Constantinople.
The Bulgarian psalts still follow Constantinople even the church is in schizm and Bulgarians and Greeks are enemies in 3 wars!!!
This is very strong, and this connection on musical basis is for centuries on the Balkans.
Best regards,
Nikola
Last edited:
Δούναβις
Ἡ πεῖρα μοῦ ξέμαθε τὸν κόσμο... Ὀδυσσέας Ἐλύτης.
Obviously you did not understand...
Μy only objection has to do by naming someone the state of the Skopje (F.Y.R.O.M.) as ““Macedonia”” and that's because the corresponding chant school would be called ““Macedonian”” (which is wrong from any point of view) while, in my humble view, the Skopian psaltic tradition is the really important Bulgarian school of chanting itself!
In conclusion: there is not a ““Macedonian”” psaltic school and…
“It is not true that makams are Ottoman influences. We have suffered from the Ottomans, we have fought against them. It is unthinkable to claim that we have adopted their music. Rather, it was the opposite. These makams have been known in our lands since ancient times. They are much older than the Ottoman Empire.” like n_antonov (respect) says.
Otherwise, your post is wonderful with very useful information and we thank you for it!
Daidalos
Μέλος
Thank you that you made this thread so rich!
Please allow me another longer answer just to avoid misunderstandings, and do not hesitate if you still believe that I am wrong. So far I said too few that really everybody can understand it.
I think the main problem is that national concepts of historiography do not really help to understand the great diversity which can be found in the territory of present-day Bulgaria which has so many ethnic groups, religions and customs. Behind this diversity there is a very long and complex history which does not fit well to the concept of any nation which is rather a pragmatic in order to establish a government.
The fact is that psaltic art (at least in Bulgaria, in the Northern part of Romania it was different, since it was outside of the Ottoman empire) was a Greek domaine, but not so much in an ethnic sense, although many Greeks lived and still do live there, than in the ecumenical sense defined at Fener (Phanar), the Constantinopolitan district near the Golden Horn where the Ecumenical Patriarchate is located.
There you find the famous schoolhouse of the "Great Patriarchal School of the Nation" (πατριαρχική μεγάλη τοῦ γένους σχολή) whose construction was finished in 1883. Unfortunately, it is still empty and no longer in use due to the long history of conflicts between Greece and Turkey (Cyprus crisis etc.), but also due to Atatürk's concept of secularisation which left Turkey with many blind spots concerning its own history (mainly because Greek, Arabic and Persian were excluded from the universities). "Nation" (τὸ γένος) did not mean the concept of Greece as a nation which was ethnic, it was ecumenical (both words do not need to be explained to Greeks, because as loanwords they derive from their language).
The first Old Church Slavonic translation of Greek hymnography dates back to a period which was much earlier than the history of psaltic art itself, this translation activity was motivated and supported by Boris I of Bulgaria who wished to adopt Christianity as state religion within his empire. During the 10th century (let us say the generation of Naum of Preslav, Kliment Ohridsky, and the Calabrian Joseph the Hymngrapher, the second generation after Theodore the Stoudite and his brother Joseph) two literary schools developed within the Bulgarian empire: Ohrid (for this very reason it was necessary also to mention Slavonic sources in Macedonia and Serbia, Skopje must be only mentioned since most of these manuscripts are now preserved at the National and University Library and many have been uploaded as pdf at wikimedia) and Preslav. They still used the Glagolitic and introduced soon the Kyrillic alphabet, and the earliest translations of the hymns were not so close to Greek hymns, because the translators tried to keep the complex system of melodies intact (especially the relationship between avtomela and prosomoia or heirmoi and akrosticha, the more complex idiomela which had been also used to compose stichera for the triodion etc.).
But also in Greece the kondakars written by scribes of the Kievan Rus' should be known much better as they actually are, since these are the oldest sources (of the own notation system which belongs to the cathedral rite) which have survived until the present day (the only Greek source is the Asmatikon of Kastoria, but it was written much later). These sources clearly belong to a reception history, but this is also true for the later Greek asmatika and kontakaria, since they were all written in monastic scriptoria outside Constantinople, but notated with the oktoechos notation of the sticherarion (note that Middle Byzantine notation developed after 1204, when the tradition was expelled from Constantinople). For this very reason, they did provide the fundament of the later mixed rite and the evolution of psaltic art. The synthesis actually started in these monastic scriptoria, some decades before the Palaiologan dynasty and the school of Michael Aneotos and Ioannes Glykys.
Unfortunately, the long tradition of Slavonic chant in the Balkans has only very few sources with musical notation. Today the earliest notated sources are usually preserved in Russian archives and libraries (provided with znamennaya notation), and only linguistic evidence reveals that some of the early manuscripts had been copied from scribes in the Balkans. These Northern copies had been adapted to local customs of the Kievan Rus'. Thus, Slavonic chant went through many transformations in a very huge geographical territory. Later translations which tried to come closer to the Greek hymns, finally did change the melodies. But these changes are almost impossible to study during the centuries, since it was an oral tradition (therefore local) which included forms of multipart singing. You might compare certain simplifications to those of the hyphos. They appear to be much less sophisticated, because this tradition mainly survived in rural areas where the ecumenical concept of protopsaltes did not exist.
The community itself was the singer, sometimes even the priest (in certain communities of Old Believers whose oral and written tradition is a source by itself, because it resisted many reforms). After the foundation of the Bulgarian state defined by the institution of an autocephalous patriarchate, their heritage (especially in Ukraine, Elena Tončeva was explicit about it) was declared as "Bulgarian rospev", then there was the academic way of polyphony (established by Dobri Hristov and Petĕr Dinev the counterpart to Russian academics like Kastalsky etc.), and the hyphos called "psaltikia" and distributed by print editions of the New Method. The official edition of psaltic chant books by Manasiy Pop Todorov is the most common today. Some also have Sarafov's rare edition which has an anthology of compositions ascribed to Ioan Kukuzel. You find both here at Analogion.
But these official versions organised by academic institutions and the patriarchate itself should not prevent anyone to study older manuscripts (whether with or without notation) and to do fieldwork concerned with the living local traditions and their own long history.
Before the Bulgarian patriarchate was established many Orthodox communities at the Western coast of Black sea and in the North of Thessaloniki had celebrated in Greek and Greek was the common language of teaching and praying for the seminaries which were connected with the ("Bulgarian") phanariotes of Constantinople. As well in Bulgaria as in Albania there are Greek sticheraria with Old and Middle Byzantine notation, but its notation was written in red ink. Orthodox Christians whether Greeks, Slaves, Romanians, Aromanians/Vlachs or Albanians went as well to churches which celebrated the Greek rite as to those which celebrated the Slavonic rite. The language did not really matter within the Ottoman empire, just the religion which was the Orthodox faith as it was represented by the Ecumenical Patriarchate within the Ottoman administration. The national concept was to found the Bulgarian state (by establishing an autocephalous patriarchate) and Neofit Rilski's concrete contribution was to organise the seminaries as a national education system, but as a student of Konstantinos Vyzantios he appreciated the living tradition of the Constantinopolitan hyphos and also his master's efforts to study the old cathedral rite and the cherouvikon asmatikon in plagios devteros.
Since the new-born Patriarchate prescribed Old Church Slavonic as the only liturgical language, the only way to preserve this cultural heritage was to adapt the psaltic chant to the Old Slavonic language by the print editions of the exegeseis of the New Method. But it does not mean that this adaption was a project of the 19th century. Already the kingdom in the Northern part of present-day Romania established Old Church Slavonic liturgies which did not exclude the tradition of psaltic art (just think of the Putna school during the 16th century).
Thank you, Nikola, for these beautiful recordings. I must admit that I did not know anything about Ivan Kaikov before you published these very interesting recordings. I agree with you that the influence of Nafpliotis' school is very evident. I did not find anything about his life. Was he in fact a student of Nafpliotis or at least did he learn from one of Nafpliotis' numerous students?
Please allow me another longer answer just to avoid misunderstandings, and do not hesitate if you still believe that I am wrong. So far I said too few that really everybody can understand it.
I think the main problem is that national concepts of historiography do not really help to understand the great diversity which can be found in the territory of present-day Bulgaria which has so many ethnic groups, religions and customs. Behind this diversity there is a very long and complex history which does not fit well to the concept of any nation which is rather a pragmatic in order to establish a government.
The fact is that psaltic art (at least in Bulgaria, in the Northern part of Romania it was different, since it was outside of the Ottoman empire) was a Greek domaine, but not so much in an ethnic sense, although many Greeks lived and still do live there, than in the ecumenical sense defined at Fener (Phanar), the Constantinopolitan district near the Golden Horn where the Ecumenical Patriarchate is located.
There you find the famous schoolhouse of the "Great Patriarchal School of the Nation" (πατριαρχική μεγάλη τοῦ γένους σχολή) whose construction was finished in 1883. Unfortunately, it is still empty and no longer in use due to the long history of conflicts between Greece and Turkey (Cyprus crisis etc.), but also due to Atatürk's concept of secularisation which left Turkey with many blind spots concerning its own history (mainly because Greek, Arabic and Persian were excluded from the universities). "Nation" (τὸ γένος) did not mean the concept of Greece as a nation which was ethnic, it was ecumenical (both words do not need to be explained to Greeks, because as loanwords they derive from their language).
The first Old Church Slavonic translation of Greek hymnography dates back to a period which was much earlier than the history of psaltic art itself, this translation activity was motivated and supported by Boris I of Bulgaria who wished to adopt Christianity as state religion within his empire. During the 10th century (let us say the generation of Naum of Preslav, Kliment Ohridsky, and the Calabrian Joseph the Hymngrapher, the second generation after Theodore the Stoudite and his brother Joseph) two literary schools developed within the Bulgarian empire: Ohrid (for this very reason it was necessary also to mention Slavonic sources in Macedonia and Serbia, Skopje must be only mentioned since most of these manuscripts are now preserved at the National and University Library and many have been uploaded as pdf at wikimedia) and Preslav. They still used the Glagolitic and introduced soon the Kyrillic alphabet, and the earliest translations of the hymns were not so close to Greek hymns, because the translators tried to keep the complex system of melodies intact (especially the relationship between avtomela and prosomoia or heirmoi and akrosticha, the more complex idiomela which had been also used to compose stichera for the triodion etc.).
But also in Greece the kondakars written by scribes of the Kievan Rus' should be known much better as they actually are, since these are the oldest sources (of the own notation system which belongs to the cathedral rite) which have survived until the present day (the only Greek source is the Asmatikon of Kastoria, but it was written much later). These sources clearly belong to a reception history, but this is also true for the later Greek asmatika and kontakaria, since they were all written in monastic scriptoria outside Constantinople, but notated with the oktoechos notation of the sticherarion (note that Middle Byzantine notation developed after 1204, when the tradition was expelled from Constantinople). For this very reason, they did provide the fundament of the later mixed rite and the evolution of psaltic art. The synthesis actually started in these monastic scriptoria, some decades before the Palaiologan dynasty and the school of Michael Aneotos and Ioannes Glykys.
Unfortunately, the long tradition of Slavonic chant in the Balkans has only very few sources with musical notation. Today the earliest notated sources are usually preserved in Russian archives and libraries (provided with znamennaya notation), and only linguistic evidence reveals that some of the early manuscripts had been copied from scribes in the Balkans. These Northern copies had been adapted to local customs of the Kievan Rus'. Thus, Slavonic chant went through many transformations in a very huge geographical territory. Later translations which tried to come closer to the Greek hymns, finally did change the melodies. But these changes are almost impossible to study during the centuries, since it was an oral tradition (therefore local) which included forms of multipart singing. You might compare certain simplifications to those of the hyphos. They appear to be much less sophisticated, because this tradition mainly survived in rural areas where the ecumenical concept of protopsaltes did not exist.
The community itself was the singer, sometimes even the priest (in certain communities of Old Believers whose oral and written tradition is a source by itself, because it resisted many reforms). After the foundation of the Bulgarian state defined by the institution of an autocephalous patriarchate, their heritage (especially in Ukraine, Elena Tončeva was explicit about it) was declared as "Bulgarian rospev", then there was the academic way of polyphony (established by Dobri Hristov and Petĕr Dinev the counterpart to Russian academics like Kastalsky etc.), and the hyphos called "psaltikia" and distributed by print editions of the New Method. The official edition of psaltic chant books by Manasiy Pop Todorov is the most common today. Some also have Sarafov's rare edition which has an anthology of compositions ascribed to Ioan Kukuzel. You find both here at Analogion.
But these official versions organised by academic institutions and the patriarchate itself should not prevent anyone to study older manuscripts (whether with or without notation) and to do fieldwork concerned with the living local traditions and their own long history.
Before the Bulgarian patriarchate was established many Orthodox communities at the Western coast of Black sea and in the North of Thessaloniki had celebrated in Greek and Greek was the common language of teaching and praying for the seminaries which were connected with the ("Bulgarian") phanariotes of Constantinople. As well in Bulgaria as in Albania there are Greek sticheraria with Old and Middle Byzantine notation, but its notation was written in red ink. Orthodox Christians whether Greeks, Slaves, Romanians, Aromanians/Vlachs or Albanians went as well to churches which celebrated the Greek rite as to those which celebrated the Slavonic rite. The language did not really matter within the Ottoman empire, just the religion which was the Orthodox faith as it was represented by the Ecumenical Patriarchate within the Ottoman administration. The national concept was to found the Bulgarian state (by establishing an autocephalous patriarchate) and Neofit Rilski's concrete contribution was to organise the seminaries as a national education system, but as a student of Konstantinos Vyzantios he appreciated the living tradition of the Constantinopolitan hyphos and also his master's efforts to study the old cathedral rite and the cherouvikon asmatikon in plagios devteros.
Since the new-born Patriarchate prescribed Old Church Slavonic as the only liturgical language, the only way to preserve this cultural heritage was to adapt the psaltic chant to the Old Slavonic language by the print editions of the exegeseis of the New Method. But it does not mean that this adaption was a project of the 19th century. Already the kingdom in the Northern part of present-day Romania established Old Church Slavonic liturgies which did not exclude the tradition of psaltic art (just think of the Putna school during the 16th century).
Thank you, Nikola, for these beautiful recordings. I must admit that I did not know anything about Ivan Kaikov before you published these very interesting recordings. I agree with you that the influence of Nafpliotis' school is very evident. I did not find anything about his life. Was he in fact a student of Nafpliotis or at least did he learn from one of Nafpliotis' numerous students?
Last edited:
Daidalos
Μέλος
Allow me another comment about makamlar and the hyphos school:
The 18th-century makam music made about Greek texts was in fact a music tradition which belonged to the inner circle of the Patriarchate, but Arabic divans of the 12th century (long before the Ottoman empire!) made no secret about it, that the autochthone traditions of maqām'at (although the contemporary term was naġme) was created as a synthesis made of Persian and Byzantine music (actually the tradition of Damascus) during the 7th century. Hence, it does not make sense at all to argue about an “Ottoman influence”, because the history of exchange between musicians in the Orient is as old as the one of Islam itself...
During the 18th century Kyrillos Marmarinos, an alumnus of the Archon Protopsaltis Panagiotes Halacoğlu, wrote down seyirler of about 70 makamlar in Byzantine notation. It is the earliest evidence in history of something which belonged to an oral tradition. And also a very useful source for historians concerned with Ottoman music, since it offers an insight into this oral tradition (like Dimitrie Cantemir who was also a phanariot, or Ali Ufuki, the music teacher at the Serail who was a Polish war prisoner named Wojciech Bobowski).
What I meant, when I was talking about the different way of intoning the elxeis, was not that Bulgarian singers did not understand them (they have their own way like any other local school), but I thought of the end of the despotikon (you quoted it here). According to Todorov's edition whose notation is included at youtube, the end was "translated" as a kind of second glas transposed on γα (you will not find it in any Greek edition!). You can listen to the version of different singers here at Analogion, and you will find that some Archon protopsaltes use a kind of sabâ-like intonation in the final cadence on γα. The composition is definitely not by Ioan Kukuzel...
The 18th-century makam music made about Greek texts was in fact a music tradition which belonged to the inner circle of the Patriarchate, but Arabic divans of the 12th century (long before the Ottoman empire!) made no secret about it, that the autochthone traditions of maqām'at (although the contemporary term was naġme) was created as a synthesis made of Persian and Byzantine music (actually the tradition of Damascus) during the 7th century. Hence, it does not make sense at all to argue about an “Ottoman influence”, because the history of exchange between musicians in the Orient is as old as the one of Islam itself...
During the 18th century Kyrillos Marmarinos, an alumnus of the Archon Protopsaltis Panagiotes Halacoğlu, wrote down seyirler of about 70 makamlar in Byzantine notation. It is the earliest evidence in history of something which belonged to an oral tradition. And also a very useful source for historians concerned with Ottoman music, since it offers an insight into this oral tradition (like Dimitrie Cantemir who was also a phanariot, or Ali Ufuki, the music teacher at the Serail who was a Polish war prisoner named Wojciech Bobowski).
What I meant, when I was talking about the different way of intoning the elxeis, was not that Bulgarian singers did not understand them (they have their own way like any other local school), but I thought of the end of the despotikon (you quoted it here). According to Todorov's edition whose notation is included at youtube, the end was "translated" as a kind of second glas transposed on γα (you will not find it in any Greek edition!). You can listen to the version of different singers here at Analogion, and you will find that some Archon protopsaltes use a kind of sabâ-like intonation in the final cadence on γα. The composition is definitely not by Ioan Kukuzel...
Last edited:
n_antonov
Nikola Antonov
That's something else
I'm totally aware with everything you mentioned. Naturally, no one believes that St. John Kukuselis has written this piece of his own hands. In the Church, the question of authorship is of a different matter. The piece "Владыку" is in the style of older melodies such as "Ανωθεν οι προφήται" and others that we have inherited from the εξηγητές as a legacy of St. John Kukuzel. The same scheme, it can be shorter or longer depending on the situation (how much fast the Bishop gets ready). The version in the video is the shorter one. The cadence is not a part of the composition. This is the phrase we meet the Bishop and we chant it many times during the service. It just has been added to the piece somehow and nowadays in Greece they chant in the same way (sic!). There is another one version of "Владыку", translated by Angel Ivanov and there the cadence is different. This is a living tradition, it is a matter of musical synthesis on the Balkans for centuries. In the Bulgarian chanting tradition, we do not chant Turkish makams. It is forbidden (not literally, but the ear of the Bulgarian people couldn't accept it). It is mostly based on the classical authors and classical pieces.
Daidalos
Μέλος
Many say so, but in fact none of my students (neither in Greece nor in Turkey) did recognise Paikopoulos' quotation taken from the opening of the Mevlevi suite (Nâ't-i Mevlana is actually a composition by Buhurizade Mustafa Itrî), while he was performing the tritos cherouvikon.
But you are right, why should a makam sound strange or even unacceptable to a Bulgarian ear? Also some traditional music (even Jazz, and not only certain very original contributions by Yıldız İbrahimova) in Bulgaria is based on makam tunes. That is the way how I do understand your example taken from Angel Ivanov who was born too late to be a phanariot (his Patriarchate was already located in Sofia). Thank you very much for this very interesting quotation, I did not know this treatise either and it is very interesting to see, how Turkish makam names had been transliterated into Old Church Slavonic Cyrillic letters!
Talking about the classical authors, one of them was Petros Peloponnesios and no protopsaltis before or after him had contributed with so many makam compositions as he did. For the way, how the hyphos did change also the melopœia of church music just regard my essay about him. If it was Ottoman, one must admit that Orthodox chant was a very crucial part of it and musicians skilled in the oktoechos were highly regarded and appreciated among Armenian, Jewish and Muslimic musicians (whatever was their ethnic, religious and cultural background).
n_antonov
Nikola Antonov
You're welcome
I have many much more interesting things in that matter. I don't think these makams are Turkish, but anyway. Also about the "болгарский роспев". This music is not known in Bulgaria. This is not a Bulgarian tradition (IMHO). There are many attempts in the past to find some "original" Bulgarian chanting (after we have become enemies with all our neighbors). The psaltic tradition based on the Constantinopolitan tradition (including Agion Oros) and especially the New Method (and before) is the only "full-blooded" and living tradition in our Churches. The New Method is so well accepted in Bulgaria, because even before it, this music was known. The musical taste of the Bulgarian people has been carrying this music for centuries and cultivating it. The polyphonic music in Bulgaria is a new phenomenon (20th century). It is supported by some composers, it comes with the Russians and it has its own dignity. Petar Sarafov is the first who expelled the Greek intervals and accepted the European equal temperament. Petar Dinev has translated the psaltic tradition to a European notation, and then for decades, we have forgotten the previous dignity and beauty of this music. Now we have to study it again.
Last edited:
n_antonov
Nikola Antonov
Daidalos
Μέλος
Thanks again for the other recordings!
I agree in all the aspects you mention, makamlar from the very beginning of their history went beyond borders (whether they were defined by religion, by ethnic groups or by nations). It does not make sense to call them Turkish (even dervish brotherhoods are and were organised in international networks), since the Ottoman court was about a much larger territory than the one of the Republic of Turkey. Until today, they can be found all over the Mediterranean.
I do not know, whether there is a systematic fieldwork about chanters (especially in rural communities), but in Romania they did it since 1990s, in Italy even since the 1930s (among Orthodox singers and papàs of Italo-Albanian communities).
But in my experience, the musical traditions of Bulgaria were always full of unexpected surprises, whether it was liturgical chant, interferential diaphony, traditional music in little villages, professional folk music, Jazz, avantguard or even classical music.
Otec Stiliyan did more or less agree with the New Method (although not with the equal temperament of Epitrope), when he chanted psaltic repertoire. With respect to Constantinopolitan archon protopsaltes, his intonation did not seem to be very spectacular according to a first and superficial perception. But we also recorded monks at Bačkovo, when they sang parallel thirds and they did really sound weird, because their intonation was so deeply rooted in oktoechos modality that you could hear that their thirds were in fact not "parallel".
It is a very good approach that one can also listen to older generations of singers, because it opens the mind for a deeper understanding of the tradition.
I agree in all the aspects you mention, makamlar from the very beginning of their history went beyond borders (whether they were defined by religion, by ethnic groups or by nations). It does not make sense to call them Turkish (even dervish brotherhoods are and were organised in international networks), since the Ottoman court was about a much larger territory than the one of the Republic of Turkey. Until today, they can be found all over the Mediterranean.
I do not know, whether there is a systematic fieldwork about chanters (especially in rural communities), but in Romania they did it since 1990s, in Italy even since the 1930s (among Orthodox singers and papàs of Italo-Albanian communities).
But in my experience, the musical traditions of Bulgaria were always full of unexpected surprises, whether it was liturgical chant, interferential diaphony, traditional music in little villages, professional folk music, Jazz, avantguard or even classical music.
Otec Stiliyan did more or less agree with the New Method (although not with the equal temperament of Epitrope), when he chanted psaltic repertoire. With respect to Constantinopolitan archon protopsaltes, his intonation did not seem to be very spectacular according to a first and superficial perception. But we also recorded monks at Bačkovo, when they sang parallel thirds and they did really sound weird, because their intonation was so deeply rooted in oktoechos modality that you could hear that their thirds were in fact not "parallel".
It is a very good approach that one can also listen to older generations of singers, because it opens the mind for a deeper understanding of the tradition.
Last edited:
n_antonov
Nikola Antonov
Thank you for keeping the memory of Otec Stilian. He was a modest monk. This also affects his chanting style.
Do not get me wrong about the makams. If Petros reminds "sabah" in a cherubic hymn for 1-2 beats, it does not mean that we are chanting Turkish music in the Church and that the musical taste of the Bulgarians can bear a whole cherubic hymn to be composed in "sabah". This is the East, but in his liturgical compositions, Petros (and other classical composers) uses these instruments (makams as a part of the secular music) carefully and moderately. It is a creativity technique, it is carefully measured, and most often there is some theological meaning. In the same way, the church's Fathers have used the techniques of pagan philosophy to clarify important aspects of theology. This does not mean that our faith is polluted by pagan philosophy. Similarly, the moderate and creative use of secular motives (makams) does not mean that psaltic tradition is polluted by the Turkish music. There is a music for entertainment, the other is a music for prayer.
Do not get me wrong about the makams. If Petros reminds "sabah" in a cherubic hymn for 1-2 beats, it does not mean that we are chanting Turkish music in the Church and that the musical taste of the Bulgarians can bear a whole cherubic hymn to be composed in "sabah". This is the East, but in his liturgical compositions, Petros (and other classical composers) uses these instruments (makams as a part of the secular music) carefully and moderately. It is a creativity technique, it is carefully measured, and most often there is some theological meaning. In the same way, the church's Fathers have used the techniques of pagan philosophy to clarify important aspects of theology. This does not mean that our faith is polluted by pagan philosophy. Similarly, the moderate and creative use of secular motives (makams) does not mean that psaltic tradition is polluted by the Turkish music. There is a music for entertainment, the other is a music for prayer.
Last edited: