A Call for Standardization

[frephraim]

I just now received the book in English Byzantine Ecclesiastical Music by Basilios Psilacos. He has done an excellent job, and I highly recommend his work to all.

After flipping through it, it dawned on me how problematic the lack of standardized terminology in English must be for beginners of Byzantine music. For example, when they see in one book the term "Grave Tone," in another: "Varis Mode," and in others: "Varys" or "Barys Echos," it might take some time before they realize that all those different terms in English refer to a single term in Greek. The same problem exists for the names of individual notes: How will they know that the "continuous elaphron" (-N. Apostola) is identical to the "adjoined ἐλαφρόν" (-Boyer), which is identical to the "running elafron" (-Psilacos), which is identical to the "syneches elaphron" (-me) ?

Each of these terms certainly has its own advantages and disadvantages, so it won't be easy to make people reach a consensus (especially considering how opinionated we chanters can be ). But I think that the advantages of one using term over another are minimal in comparison with the disadvantages of having a plethora of redundant and confusing terminologies. If you agree with me, what do you think would be the best way of going about reaching a standardized terminology for Byzantine music in English? Or is it already too late and not worth the effort?

 

[saltypsalti]

I just now received the book in English Byzantine Ecclesiastical Music by Basilios Psilacos. He has done an excellent job, and I highly recommend his work to all.

After flipping through it, it dawned on me how problematic the lack of standardized terminology in English must be for beginners of Byzantine music. For example, when they see in one book the term "Grave Tone," in another: "Varis Mode," and in others: "Varys" or "Barys Echos," it might take some time before they realize that all those different terms in English refer to a single term in Greek. The same problem exists for the names of individual notes: How will they know that the "continuous elaphron" (-N. Apostola) is identical to the "adjoined ἐλαφρόν" (-Boyer), which is identical to the "running elafron" (-Psilacos), which is identical to the "syneches elaphron" (-me) ?

Each of these terms certainly has its own advantages and disadvantages, so it won't be easy to make people reach a consensus (especially considering how opinionated we chanters can be ). But I think that the advantages of one using term over another are minimal in comparison with the disadvantages of having a plethora of redundant and confusing terminologies. If you agree with me, what do you think would be the best way of going about reaching a standardized terminology for Byzantine music in English? Or is it already too late and not worth the effort?

Byzantine chant in English is still very young and is still in the "wild, wild west" phase of development, and I am sure, as gleened from the various exchanges, the source of many and sundry disagreements, debates, etc. Add to that the "jurisdictional" thing, the lack of a cohesive school in the States and the Old/New Calendar divide, and it only gets more.... interesting.

I am sure that these sorts of things may get ironed out, but for the time being I am sure teachers will be cross translating others work with "well, you know what I mean". LOL

I am still waiting for my diocesan grant for the book, so I have not seen in toto.

JPP

 

[Nikolaos Giannoukakis]

Dear Fr. Ephraim,

John P's points are very relevant. I believe that as a group in the US we can get together and standardise terminology for the things we all agree on.

However, the Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians and.....the Greeks in Greece can come back and bring down any consensus we arrive at.

Last, any consensus we can arrive at among us has to be ratified at an ecclesiastic level. After all, this is music that is jurisdictionally-guided and sanctioned.

As John P writes, even if, say the Ecumenical Patriarchate ratifies a compendium of standard terminology, will the other non-EP jurisdictions follow?

Personally, I don't have a problem with adopting the phrase "continuing elafron" or "adjoined elafron" or "name your prefix-elafron". They all point to one activity.

My problem, and that of the consensus, lies elsewhere and a more general level....

NG.

 

[frephraim]

Based on the way other things have been standardized in the past, it seems to me that something like this would open a successful path to standardization:

1. Someone who would like to spearhead this project could form a committee by finding a few reputable experts in Byzantine music whose native language is English who would like to volunteer for it. They could give themselves an impressive-sounding title, such as "The International Committee for Byzantine Music in English."

2. As many parties as possible that are involved with writing or teaching Byzantine music in English worldwide should be contacted by this committee, presenting the problem and stating their purpose of standardizing all terms in English in regards to Byzantine music, and asking if they would be willing henceforth to write and teach Byzantine music in English using the terminology agreed upon by their committee. If they are not, they should be asked if adding or removing any particular members to the committee (or even joining the committee themselves) would make them more likely to accept its decisions.

3. The committee will then evaluate and act upon any suggestions for adding or removing members to their committee.

4. Once a significant number of parties have expressed their consent and the final list of members of the committee has been decided upon, the committee will come to an agreement on the general criteria for their decisions (e.g., if terms should transliterated based on their modern Greek pronunciation or on their spelling). Then they could compose a list of all terms in Greek. Beside each one will be listed the corresponding English terms that are already being used, with a number beside each one that represents how many sources use it. Then they will discuss the merits of each one and vote for the one they think is best.

5. When they have finished, they will announce their conclusions to several ecclesiastical authorities in various jurisdictions for their approval. I would expect the vast majority of them to give their approval and not object, especially if the members of the committee have good credentials. Besides, the English terminology for the minuteae of Byzantine music is a matter of considerably less importance than the other more serious matters they are dealing with.

6. Finally, the committee will present their results to all those parties. They will also present to them a list of all the ecclesiastical authorities that have approved it and a list of all the parties that have already expressed their prior intent to follow those results.
​

This is, of course, a very rough plan (and maybe even a naive one), and I'm sure that several of you could improve on it. But even as it is, if something along these lines is implemented, I predict that a significant majority will comply with the committtee's decisions. Of course, I would expect that several parties would refuse to comply. But even though there probably won't be 100% compliance, having the majority agree will be a significant accomplishment, and the terminology it decides upon is likely to prevail all the more as time passes.

P.S. To be honest, now that I have composed this list of steps, I can see that it will be such a time-consuming project that I question whether or not the result is even worth all the effort.

 

[Nikolaos Giannoukakis]

Dear Fr. Ephraim,

On an academic level this could be possible. But who will spearhead the project? On what credibility? And then, who will be called? On what criteria?

I fear that, given the additional ecclesiastic nature of such a project, it must come from ecclesiastic authority just like the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople commissioned the 1881 group for a task. Given the uncertain times, anything that does not have the prior blessing or permission of the church, may possibly create bigger problems than originally conceived.

I equally fear that, although one jurisdiction could approve, what about the other(s)? Any committee getting together, even if they are all congruent on the translations, could be ostracised by other jurisdictions.

Perhaps, an alternative and more prudent approach could be the following:

Given that you are considered a point of contact for many of us under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, you could write a letter to the Patriarchate proposing such a project and offering your good services to approach a group of people, who along with a representative of the EP, would compile such a work. The working group would then submit the work to the EP which would then offer its blessing. Then, such a work could be offered to the other sister Patriarchates for their consideration.

This is, I feel, the best, most honest and most prudent approach.

Anything else may not find the good graces of the church-especially since a number of metropolitans in the EP diaspora are English-speaking and musically-capable and could quite well disagree with a "grass roots" and unsanctioned approach.

That is my feeling.

NG

 

[frephraim]

Thank you, Nick, for your trust in me and your prudent advice.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this would be a project in which the time spent would be disproportionately large in comparison to the benefit it produces. (I suppose I should have thought of that before beginning this thread in the first place!)

 

[saltypsalti]

Given that you are considered a point of contact for many of us under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, you could write a letter to the Patriarchate proposing such a project and offering your good services to approach a group of people, who along with a representative of the EP, would compile such a work. The working group would then submit the work to the EP which would then offer its blessing. Then, such a work could be offered to the other sister Patriarchates for their consideration.

This is, I feel, the best, most honest and most prudent approach.

Anything else may not find the good graces of the church-especially since a number of metropolitans in the EP diaspora are English-speaking and musically-capable and could quite well disagree with a "grass roots" and unsanctioned approach.

That is my feeling.

NG

As much as I hate "magic dates", whether its 1054, 1923, or whatever (mainly because I think they give a slightly distorted bent on history, and as to how things actually happened), they do have a unifying benefit of pointing to periods of time we can accept as commonly authorative.

Two of the talking points I have used throughout my dialogue with people within my own jurisdiction has been when discussing zealots of our own accepted local custom of westernized notation and intervals:

1) Regardless of certain individuals ideosyncratic opinions (too nasal/too eastern/too Turkish), we can all point to the Chrysanthine reforms and method, and the 1881 Committee as occuring during a period that the Old and New Cal's can accept as commonly authorative, and
2.) That the Patriarchal chanters, for whatever one may or may not think of the ecclesiastical activities of the Patriarchs over the past century, have been fairly reliably conservative bellweathers in their application of this liturgical art, most notably in the early part of the 20th Century.

I cannot speak in this matter directly for HOCNA or the Metropolis I serve, but my thinking is as long whatever committee consistantly and concisely refers back to these commonly accepted authorities, I would have little problem accepting in principle their findings. We can all proceed from there. That is my humble, perhaps underqualified opinion. Until then.... "Well.... you know what I mean".

I yield the balance of my time.

JPP

 

[basil]

Personally, I hope that people will come to consensus about these terms over time. Your plan for standardization sounds reasonable, but I agree that our collective time could be better spent on other tasks at present. We're being crippled not by the lack of standardization of neume terminology, but by the lack of standardization of English translations, by the lack of consistent quality in the compositions that are in use (many of which do not rigorously adhere to the formulaic rules), and by too many inconsistent and idiosyncratic approaches to the theory and practice of Byzantine music (often being espoused by individuals or institutions without the proper credentials). In this light, I don't believe that it would be constructive to worry about unified neume terminology at the present time.

 

[Nikolaos Giannoukakis]

As Basil writes:


"......to the theory and practice of Byzantine music (often being espoused by individuals or institutions without the proper credentials)"

Much emphasis on the "self-taught", who are corrupting young minds.......

NG

 

[saltypsalti]

As Basil writes:


"......to the theory and practice of Byzantine music (often being espoused by individuals or institutions without the proper credentials)"

Much emphasis on the "self-taught", who are corrupting young minds.......

NG

This creates an interesting problem then, because there are NO avenues credentialling in the US that I am at all aware of.

 

[Nikolaos Giannoukakis]

Indeed it does create a MAJOR problem.

If one want to consider who is objectively credible, the only (currently) objective means of evaluation are::

1) Was the person taught by a reputable chanter (i.e. someone in Greece, Syria, Lebanon, or the Diaspora who is respected and renown in Greece, Syria, Lebanon, etc... by their PEERS). For example, there are folks who have been trained by Karamanis and for whom Karamanis can vouch. Those people are credible.

2) Evidence of a diploma and certificate of completion of a five year course in any of the respected and accredited conservatories that offer Byzantine music as a 5-year program (Lebanon and Syria offer similar structures). Greece has many such conservatories.

In North America, there is no such structure. Even the Orthodox seminaries do not have a chanter-targeted program.

So, there you have the major dilemma. There are some of us in the US, Canada, Australia and Europe who fulfill one or both of the above conditons (I know that some of you were personally trained by renown Protopsaltai in Greece and in the Middle East and others have diplomas/certificates by respected conservatories).

So where does this leave the other people who have learned on their own or have spent some time with respected psaltai in the US?

There are the self-taught who obviously are capable (i.e. if they were to go in front of a committee of renown psaltai to be tested, they would pass without issue) and they are VERY FEW and the remainder "self-taught" who THINK they know BM. This latter category has MANY people here in the US who go around pretending they know music and know what they are talking about. When confronted, their "sheepish" response is "well, I never claimed I was an expert-in fact I am learning".

NG

 

[Dimitri]

The issue of standardisation of Byzantine Music terms is important and will be important in the time to come. The key as with every standardization method is for a proposal to be agreed and accepted by a few organisations and people e.g. the Institute of Byzantine Musicology, the ASBMH, individual teachers and publishers of psaltic material in English etc. It would be great for representatives of most or all of the above organisations to come together and form a standardisation committee to come up with a proposal and submit it for approval by the church (Patriarchates, Archdioceses). Not everyone will follow the proposal, but it will provide a point of reference for anyone asking for some officially approved terminology. Alternatively, an online dictionary (thesaurus) could be compiled with all equivalent spellings of various terms e.g.

ήχος : mode, tone, echos, scale,

Perhaps there wouldn't be that many contentious ones to compile (haven't looked though). The dictionary could include the rationale for preferring a term over another when such a rationale exists. In some cases more than one acceptable official terms may exist.

And then, there is not only English in the world. We would need official terminology at least for French, Arabic, Romanian and in other languages used in Byzantine music. With God's help, it will happen one day.