Chanting in American English but not imitating Greek singing

zinoviev

Μέλος
First, I'd like to say something about St. Ephraim using the music of Bardesan. As far as we know at the time of St. Ephraim the music of the whole region - from contemporary Syria to Iran used the same principle - there were several modes and 360 classical melodies that the musicians had to know by hearth. Every musical performance was improvisation using musical fragments from these classical melodies. This can explain why the Byzantine music is also based on using formulae (this is not entirely true for the contemporary Byzantine music but it was true for the classical Byzantine music, 12th century and earlyer). This means that we can not say that the heretics were using music that was different from the music of the whole region.

However, if we compare the Byzantine Octoechos and the Octoechos of the Syriac Church (Nestorian) we will see that two of the Syriac modes are not used in the Byzantine Octoechos. Considering that the Syriac Octoechos predates the Byzantine Octoechos we can ask about the reason for this change. In think that if we look at the ethos of these unused modes the reason becomes clear. The first unused mode is maqam Huzam which expresses acute/violent passion and/or love and the second unused mode is maqam Saba and it expresses weeping, agony, repentance or extreme joy for something. This means that discernment is required when using non-Orthodox music in the Church.

Regarding the polyphony in the Church. It is not difficult to find on the Russian web-phorums several discussions about the polyphony - several of the people in Russia feel that the polyphonic music does not serve the pray well. And there is one rather interesting comment by one Russian saint (St. Ignatius Brianchaninov) who says that this new polyphonic music is foreign to the spirit of the Church. St. Ignatius doesn't speak against the polyphony in general but only to this particular form of the polyphony that was used in the Russian Church in his time. He says that the music of the church has to be made by saints and he gives the following verse from the Bible as argumentation: "How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?" (Ps 136:6). The song of the Lord can not be sung in the "strange lang" (by people who are not saints, having the Holy Spirit). According to the saint to modernize the old Russian Znamenny chant it is the same as if someone who knows perfectly some foreign language but doesn't know mathematics tries to translate a mathematical book. Unfortunately it is too difficult for me to translate from Russian to English (neither of these languages I know well) but here is one quotation:
Not only the son of this world in incapable to sing this song [the song of the Lord], but even the very pious christian who is not yet free from the slavery of the lust in his heart. His heart doesn't belong to him because it is enslaved by the sin. Also even if someone walks on the path of feat for the Christ and goes mourning all day long (Ps 37:7), i.e. who is still always contemplating his sin and weeping about it, who still doesn't hear inside the joyful voice which is heard in the spiritual dwelling-places of the righteous men - even he is unable to sing the song of the Lord. Then who can sing it? Whose soul can give birth to this song for comfort and enjoyment of the whole Orthodox Church?

On the other hand it is simply not true that the Orthodox Church doesn't accept the polyphonic music in any form and a good example for this is the Georgian Church. The Georgian polyphony is very old (maybe even the oldest in the world). Several saints participated in the creation of the Georgian Chant and there were some saints who made analogy between the three singing voices in the Georgian Orthodox chant and the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity. After all it is all matter of holy tradition - the polyphony is not accepted in the Greek Churches but at the same time a decision of the Holy Synodos of the Georgian Church forbids any chant (Russian, European or Byzantine) other than the traditional Georgian chant.
 

saltypsalti

Παλαιό Μέλος
I agree that the skills are acquirable but for someone to acquire them to the degree of a master they will need to be immersed in the culture (any culture) for a significant period of time. Relevant topic Can a Western-trained musician perform accurately the microtones of Byzantine Music?. Technically, anybody should be able to perform Byzantine music accurately provided they receive and partake in the cultural musical (and social?) heritage that comes with it. Whether people of non-Greek cultural background should feel the necessity to acquire such skills is a philosophical question that I cannot answer with certainty at the moment. And the other question is, is there a commonly accepted definition of "American singing" that potential psaltai should imitate instead of the Greek? My apologies if these have been mentioned or answered already, haven't followed all the discussion. Thank you and chronia polla.

Dimitri --Thank you for your input --what is commonly thought of as American singing is usually western 12 tone intervals, western notation and I think exactly the thing we don't need to carry our art into the New World. THe thing I find troubling is that transitioning Byzantine music into a western musical mentality is that something very rich gets watered down and eventually lost. Photios Kontoglou of blessed memory often spoke of tradition in much the same way as a tapestry --you keep pulling on one thread long enough and the entire tapestry unravels. Just saying that all this is "jsut for the Greeks and the xeni will never get it" is a cop out. It is a mentality that both my local hierarch and I have been fighting for some time and to an extent have been fighting an entire musical culture that has been watering down the musical tradition for some time.

I agree --it does take time, but it needs to be done. :)

To all the Orthodox on the Julian Calendar who celebrate with me, ---Merry Christmas --Christ is Born!

JPP
 

Dimitri

Δημήτρης Κουμπαρούλης, Administrator
Staff member
John, I think I understand your point and I still haven't read all previous messages but I think the fundamental philosophical question here is whether this tradition isn't actually a tradition for Americans as it is -say- for Greeks (so in a sense Americans would not have to carry anything on because they did not have it in the first place to lose it or water it down etc.). I am just trying to clarify the argument here for myself. I don't have a clear answer. I am aware of the issue of some Americans calling "Byzantine Music" the westernized arrangements (notation, intervals, expression) and the controversy surrounding the use of the term in that case.

The picture becomes more blurry when talking about Greek-Americans, Arab-Americans and others who have traditionally used Byzantine music in their old countries. Should they feel obliged to uphold the tradition of their ancestors? My personal opinion is that they should and we have examples of people that struggle to keep as much as they can in their respective countries. Would it be desirable for all Americans to be familiar with Byzantine music and use it not only for chant but also in their secular music? Personally I say, yes, very much so, but it will need to come from the people themselves. History will show. There is currently a growing interest in Byzantine music worldwide and there is a lot of study material available for free on-line.

Btw, the case applies to Australians too and other peoples as well. There are (admittedly few of non-Greek ancestry) Australian orthodox people thirsting to learn Byzantine chant and loving it. They should be encouraged in my opinion. If that results in a new genre of music in the next couple of centuries, so be it. It may not be called Byzantine music, it may be called something else. I still believe though that whoever says they are doing Byzantine Music today they should strive to do it properly, as it is meant to be performed and as it was received from the older masters.
 

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
and there were some saints who made analogy between the three singing voices in the Georgian Orthodox chant and the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity.

I'm not sure to which Saints you are referring to here. I know the text you have in mind, but it's not written by a Saint and it's not clear to me he talks about chant there.

a decision of the Holy Synodos of the Georgian Church forbids any chant (Russian, European or Byzantine) other than the traditional Georgian chant.

The very first church where the prohibition is not observed is the Patriarchal Cathedral, where they often chant various compositions by Patriarch Ilia which are clearly not the traditional Georgian chant. This is the Nativity liturgy, where his "Kyrie eleison" is chanted (during the communion of the clergy, it seems):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65q0R_bqp1c&NR=1
 

zinoviev

Μέλος
I'm not sure to which Saints you are referring to here. I know the text you have in mind, but it's not written by a Saint and it's not clear to me he talks about chant there.
Then I can be wrong about this.
The very first church where the prohibition is not observed is the Patriarchal Cathedral, where they often chant various compositions by Patriarch Ilia which are clearly not the traditional Georgian chant.
I am referring to a decision of the Holy Synod of the Georgian Church on 18 August 2003. I found a Russian translation at http://drevo.pravbeseda.ru/index.php?id=2193 and according to the footnotes on this web-page, the Russian translation is official - from the web-site of the Georgian Orthodox Church. (At present there is no Russian translation at www.patriarchate.ge.)

During the many-centuries long history of the Georgian Church nobody doubted the canonicity of the polyphonic chant. This tradition was brought to us in living form by the bishops Gabriel (Chachanidze) and Alexander (Okropiridze), the clergymen Gregory, Basil, Polyeuctus and Philemon Kerbelashvili, Razhden Hundadze, Euthimius Kereselidze, the civil people saint Elijah the Righteous, Philemon Koridze, Anton Dumbadze, Artiom Erkomaishvili and others and also the Catholicos Patriarch Saint hyeromartir Kirion II, the Georgian monks, among them archimandrite John Maisuradze, who was 17 years on Mount Athos and then returned in Georgia and served in Betany.
[...]
The Georgian ecclesiastical chant has important place in the ecclesiastical and the civil life and determines its spiritual, moral and cultural development. For many people the ecclesiastical chant, as well as the ecclesiastical language, are important means to express authenticity. Being based on this and relying on the historical tradition, we state that in the Georgian Orthodox Church the polyphonic traditional chant was and is canonical. Its implementation is obligatory in all Georgian churches and everywhere during any God-service in Georgian language. We give our blessing to the ecclesiastical choirs for 6 months to switch from (for example) the Russian, European and Byzantine chant to the canonical Georgian polyphonic chant. The Patriarchal chant-center has to oversee this change.
 
Last edited:

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
Then I can be wrong about this.
I am referring to a decision of the Holy Synod of the Georgian Church on 18 August 2003.

Yes, I know this decision, but the point is that it is not observed already in the Patriarchal Cathedral (here is another example, Holy Friday Epitaphios from 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NcHmcQRIJ0 ), or better to say it is observed as far as the ban on the Byzantine chant is concerned, but not on other styles of chant.

P.S. Fwiw I found a video of the Georgian liturgy in Greece from 2007. Must be St. Panteleimon's church in Acharnes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qjDT6yhgIA

It is a litany for the departed which in the Russian tradition is inserted into the liturgy, but which is unknown in Greek tradition. The melody has nothing to do with the traditional Georgian polyphony. A similar video from Batumi, Georgia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBfdAGA3rOg
 
Last edited:

saltypsalti

Παλαιό Μέλος
Btw, the case applies to Australians too and other peoples as well. There are (admittedly few of non-Greek ancestry) Australian orthodox people thirsting to learn Byzantine chant and loving it. They should be encouraged in my opinion. If that results in a new genre of music in the next couple of centuries, so be it. It may not be called Byzantine music, it may be called something else. I still believe though that whoever says they are doing Byzantine Music today they should strive to do it properly, as it is meant to be performed and as it was received from the older masters.

Amen! I don't think we have the excuses we had 30, 40, 50 years to water down the chants, in that with the advent of recorded technology and the internet (with wonderful resources like this website and discussion group). We CAN actually go and listen to proper Byzantine music, rendered by skilled psaltai of past and present, and benefit and learn from them. We have wonderful sites, such as St. Anthony's Monastery, soon my Metropolis' website (www.orthodoxmetropolisportland.org), and many others that are promoting Byzantine notation, Byzantine yphos in ENGLISH. My teacher John Boyer also added an interesting demographic -that the largest age groups that are the most interested in real Byzantine Liturgical Music are the youngers -teens, 20's and 30's. And loving it! Conversely the advocates of westernization (whether it is watered down westernized Byz chant in my own jurisdiction, or Sakellerides, Desby, organs, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh et al) all seem to be in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Just my two sheckles for what they are worth.

John
 

agrippas

Μέλος
After having listened to *many* english speakers trying to chant, I have to disagree with many of you guys. I don't think byzantine music works well on the English verse. Don't get me wrong. The music and notation are just tied to the greek vowels in the same way that Gregorian music is tied to the Latin. The music was *created* for the qualities of THAT language and only. Any other attempt will only be an "imitation" of the original.

I believe a new type of music must be invented to go with the English translation which will take account of the pronunciation, the metrics and also (and most importantly) the acoustics of the language.
 

zinoviev

Μέλος
I believe a new type of music must be invented to go with the English translation which will take account of the pronunciation, the metrics and also (and most importantly) the acoustics of the language.

I had a great hesitation about whether I should give my opinion about this matter or not. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough. On the other hand I am from a non-Greek country that uses this kind of music for centuries and this gives me (I think) a different perspective. The following are only some random thoughts.

First, I completely agree that the music used for the services should respect the acoustics of the language. The specific form of the music is not as an end for itself, the music is to serve the pray. On the other hand I believe that this music can be adapted with changes to any language and any culture (because it is not only the language that matters).

Second, even when the language shares common or similar acoustics with Greek it is not an easy task to make good translations. I can say about the book we use in Bulgaria (but this is only my personal opinion) that they can be separated in two categories - books with old compositions and books with new compositions. The old compositions were created in the middle of 19 century (almost simultaneously with the popularization of the musical notation in Greece). The scale of this enterprise and the number of the people who participated is impressive. Although most of the compositions are anonymous (because they were created by monks in Rila monastery) there are still so many other authors that one has the impression that the publishers of the books were able to choose the best compositions from many that were circulating in manuscript form. Another thing that contributed for the good quality of these compositions is the fact that at the time bulgarians were not accepting this music as something new and unknown. Even some of the chanters in the great church in Constantinople were bulgarians (for example Nikolas Stogiannis Byzantios was one of the teachers of Iakovos Nafpliotes). The most popular version of the Anastasimatarion reproduces good old compositions and is (in my opinion) a good example for translations in non-Greek language. On the other hand the books with later compositions are not so good. For example in the psaltic Menaion not only the traditional musical formulas were not followed but in some occasions even the dominant tones of the modes are not correct. If this degradation happened in a place with living tradition, then how much more difficult it would be to translate properly in English where there is no tradition at all!

And third, it is not only the language, but the culture also that matters. Russian is one language which permits (as far as I can tell) to use the original psaltic formulas with no changes. But I realy can not imagine Greek-style chanting in a Russian church with all traditional nasal embelishments!

At present in Bulgaria we have two psaltic traditions that coexist peacefuly (and sometimes not so peacefuly :) ). The followers of one of the traditions use very few embelishments and it is not difficult to find examples in Internet. Their chant is very different from what one usualy hears in Greece. The followers of the other use what I would call Greek-style. For good or bad, they do not make professional recordings and it is very difficult to find good examples in Internet. I suppose for the participants in this forum it will be interesting to hear the following (it is the Slavonic "Ton despotin" in more-or-less Greek style): http://vbox7.com/play:02c4e6ea Now considering that in Bulgaria we have two very different styles of chant (and we are more or less homogeneous people) I can not imagine that only one style will suffice for all English speakers all over the world.

EDIT: On second thought, it seems I am not entirely true correct about what I write about the division of old (=good) and new (=bad) compositions. The first use of the new musical notation in Rila monastery is only three years after its introduction by the Three teachers. Initially the compositions were distributed in manuscript form and even later, when this was no longer enough, for some reasons (financial and political) these compositions were not printed. The first Bulgarian printed neumatical book (Anastasimatarion) is printed many years years later (1847). So maybe the good quality of the compositions in the Anastasimatarion I cited before (1914 reprints compositions from a book from 1859) is not because it contains early compositions. Yes, the compositions are old but due to the fact that it was impossible to print them in time, it was possible to polish and improve them many times in Rila monastery. On the other hand, the compositions in the psaltic Menaion (1921, most compositions are from a book from 1869) are not only later but (maybe more importantly) they are used less often in the services (only once per year) so maybe the incentive to improve them was not that big.
 
Last edited:

Shota

Παλαιό Μέλος
After having listened to *many* english speakers trying to chant, I have to disagree with many of you guys. I don't think byzantine music works well on the English verse. Don't get me wrong. The music and notation are just tied to the greek vowels in the same way that Gregorian music is tied to the Latin. The music was *created* for the qualities of THAT language and only. Any other attempt will only be an "imitation" of the original.

I believe a new type of music must be invented to go with the English translation which will take account of the pronunciation, the metrics and also (and most importantly) the acoustics of the language.

Time will show. The fact that Petros Lampadarios himself, as well as an eminent Athonite composer and exegete Nikolaos Docheiaritis, did adaptations in a foreign language (Slavonic, in this case) deserves some attention.

Concluding this post, here is some material for thought: a song "Aman doktor" sung by Spyridon Maidanoglou

http://www.houpas.net/music/AmanDoktor_Maidanoglou.ra

and Αμάν γιατρέ by Marika Papagika

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-oaNUCxSMg
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
After having listened to *many* english speakers trying to chant, I have to disagree with many of you guys. I don't think byzantine music works well on the English verse. Don't get me wrong. The music and notation are just tied to the greek vowels in the same way that Gregorian music is tied to the Latin. The music was *created* for the qualities of THAT language and only. Any other attempt will only be an "imitation" of the original.

I believe a new type of music must be invented to go with the English translation which will take account of the pronunciation, the metrics and also (and most importantly) the acoustics of the language.


It depends if the English speakers you heard chanting had any idea about what they were doing and if they possessed the depth of knowledge and EXPERIENCE in Greek Byzantine Chant to successfully adapt, especially, the intersyllable transitions in a manner that is crisp and musical. If you are in the USA, there are very few people (probably less than ten!) who can successfully accomplish this. There are very few trained chanters in the USA who were taught to great depth by chanters with decades of experience and deep knowledge. This is the first problem.

Fr. Ephraim at St-Anthony's Monastery and Fr. Serapheim Dedes are incessantly crafting a work in progress that will take many years to "perfect" to adapt English for Byzantine melody. What they have accomplished thus far is short of a miracle.

Their material, executed by well-trained chanters who also speak excellent English and understand the grammar and phonetics of the English language, is very inspiring and, well, uplifting.

You advocate a new music: Who will decide what is ecclesiastically-appropriate? Who will decide HOW to compose the new music? Which of the thousands of troparia will be translated? The eirmologic? the stichiraric? the papadic? This task would be more monumental than what (mainly) Fr. Ephraim and Serapheim have already accomplished (even if we were to conisider their works in their current form as the First Edition of what will be many editions).

Will this new music be in the spirit of the Apostolic traditions (i.e. "ieroprepeia") or will it be not too unlike the (very sad) situation of multi part harmony made in the USA? Indeed, the Desbys and the Zes and the Lawrences and the Gallos (I refer to the US alone) all tried (in good faith and honesty) to use multi part harmony but those melodies FAIL. Those composers simply had no idea about what is considered "ieroprepes" in a church setting. They composed outside the Apostoloc traditions and composed music for the sake of music.

Is this the new music that you refer to?

NG
 

agrippas

Μέλος
What I see in most attempts to preserve the byzantine musical phrases, is a well meant zeal but that won't do much for the feeling. There will always be one "triadi" in the cherubiko and you can't translate that into "trinity" for the simple reason that those musical phrases work perfectly well with the greek vowel alpha and not with the short i in "trinity".

Harmony won't work either because it will confuse or will be mistaken as an attempt to copy the Catholics. I'm speaking about an entirely *new* genre of music that will emerge from the need to express the spirit and not the opposite.
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
What I see in most attempts to preserve the byzantine musical phrases, is a well meant zeal but that won't do much for the feeling. There will always be one "triadi" in the cherubiko and you can't translate that into "trinity" for the simple reason that those musical phrases work perfectly well with the greek vowel alpha and not with the short i in "trinity".

Harmony won't work either because it will confuse or will be mistaken as an attempt to copy the Catholics. I'm speaking about an entirely *new* genre of music that will emerge from the need to express the spirit and not the opposite.

One solution will be to keep certain hymns in their original Greek (papadika and Doxastika Idiomela are the most obvious). People can read the translations side by side. An unfortunate outcome of all well-meaning translations is that people begin to replace the Orthodox basic tenet of liturgical mysticism (listening, watching and smelling) with pietism where everything must be understood and measured (if I can't understand the meaning and can't measure it I do not believe). Pietism can be considered a modern day heresy and has no place in Orthodox Christianity. In America, we see more and more of a move towards pietism that is unfortunately being cultivated by those who do not understand Orthodoxy or who would rather chisel away the parts they do not like and add the elements that are "American".

I understand your dilemma, but you still have not answered some questions I raised earlier:

1) Who will be the arbiter of what is ecclesiastically-acceptable and within the bounds of the Apostolic Tradition. Orthodoxy works along those lines, period. It is not a club of majority rule or "anything goes because I like it".

2) Who will create this new music? What will serve as its system?

3) Will it have a system or will it be "composers are free to do whatever they want" so long as the English is emphasised phonetically and grammatically? If so, then one needs to look at Question 1 above.

I reiterate that well-trained chanters have the capacity to accomplish what you seek. Perhaps you have not had the opportunity to be in touch with the few (I am referring to the US only here) who can successfully accomplish this.

I fear however, that the question you (and others, mainly in the USA) raise is not one of how to assist in getting a better union between script (translation) and music but a subconscious desire to remove Byzantine Chant entirely from Orthodoxy outside of Greece (USA mainly). Either because of cultural reasons, or that the oriental sound of Byzantine chant is not to your liking.

It would help me (and perhaps others in this subforum) to know where you are located geographically. That way we can address your comments with a geographic, linguistic and socio-cultural sensitivity.

I am arguing from the perspective of a North American ecclesiastic environment. I cannot argue in the context of a Korean church envirnoment :)

NG.
 

zinoviev

Μέλος
There will always be one "triadi" in the cherubiko and you can't translate that into "trinity" for the simple reason that those musical phrases work perfectly well with the greek vowel alpha and not with the short i in "trinity". [...] I'm speaking about an entirely *new* genre of music that will emerge from the need to express the spirit and not the opposite.
I agree that the properties of the language have to be respected. English has long and short syllables, Greek doesn't. In English the words are forming nuclei with only one strong accent per nucleus, in Greek this doesn't happen (except for some short one-syllable pseudowords). The Greek accent is irregular, in English the length of the long syllables is often adjusted in order to make the distance from accent to accent more or less constant. The original Byzantine formulas often make the accentuated syllable longer, this is not always appropriate for English. English has falling, raising and fall-raising nuclear tone while the original Byzantine formulas use the same model for all accentuated syllables.

But it doesn't have to be an entirely new genre. It has to start from an existing Orthodox chant and make changes only when the language requires them. This is the traditional Orthodox method of doing art (not just music). The painter of an icon follows existing models even when the icon is for a new Saint. When st. John of Damascus was writing his great canon of Easter this was an entirely new genre. Did he write the canon arbitrarily? No, the number and the structure of the odes imitates the nine songs from the Bible that the ancient Matins had and the text of the canon follows the sermon for Easter of st. Gregory the Theologian.
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Regarding how St-John of Damascus and his contemporaries composed the eirmous of Canon, an even more difficult feat was accomplished:

They modeled the eirmous of almost all Canons along verses of ancient Hellenic poetry (metrically and rhythmically)!!! If they could accomplish this, I am sure, as Zinoviev writes, one could adapt specific "challenging" musical tracts of the original Byzantine chant to accomodate the English.

The word "Triadi" was mentioned. Well, does the musical passage covering this word have to be long? Why not extend other parts, where the syllables contain more vowels amenable to melody, of the Cherubic Hymn? Or the Koinonikon? The elongation of the cherubic hymn in terms of duration was made specifically to cover the clergy reciting the many prayers and the censing and not for the sake of music.

There are many wonderful Cherubic Hymns where the duration of "Triadi" is quite brief and other parts are elongated.

To invent a new music without ground rules that are universally-accepted (i.e. agreed upon by a Holy Synod and directed by special permission or decree and weaved by people with considerable depth in knowledge, experience and humilty) in the Church and that stray from Apostolic Tradition is no different than attempting to change the look of icons, to change the look of the clergy dress, to change the manner in which one takes communion etc.

Until that time, if and when a Holy Synod-in the case of America-of bishops and Patriarchs of a specific Patriarchate decree that a new music is to be used for non-traditional language (i.e. Greek, Arabic, Slavic, Russian), it is ecclesiastically safe to adapt existing types into the language of the people and where unable to do so, to retain the original melody in the original language. Note my note on pietism earlier in this subforum.

To begin adventurism without a guide and without any bounds is risking us, no matter how well-intentioned we may be, to position ourselves as outliers, essentially as heresiarchs.

Please note the phrase from the eirmos of Ode 9 of the second Canon of Christmas:

"For us it is easier in fear to love silence, for this is without danger, but it is hard indeed with love to weave songs harmoniously composed, O Virgin. [...]"
(Fr. Ephraim Lash, www.anastasis.org.uk)

Indeed, it is very difficult to weave hymns (especially from scratch and without a guide), no matter how much our enthusiasm and our good intentions......

NG.
 

frephraim

Παλαιό Μέλος
There will always be one "triadi" in the cherubiko and you can't translate that into "trinity" for the simple reason that those musical phrases work perfectly well with the greek vowel alpha and not with the short i in "trinity".

I don't understand what you mean by this statement. Do you mean that holding the short "i" sound inherently does not sound good? If so, I think this statement does not express a universal truth but it is an opinion that is very subjective. In particular, I think that people whose native language does not have that sound would indeed hold the opinion that holding the short "i" sound does not sound good. On the other hand, I think that people like me (whose native language does have that sound) do not perceive anything wrong with holding that syllable. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
 

frephraim

Παλαιό Μέλος
An unfortunate outcome of all well-meaning translations is that people begin to replace the Orthodox basic tenet of liturgical mysticism (listening, watching and smelling) with pietism where everything must be understood and measured (if I can't understand the meaning and can't measure it I do not believe). Pietism can be considered a modern day heresy and has no place in Orthodox Christianity.

This reminds me of a conversation I once had with the Byzantine musicologist Dimitri Conomos. We were discussing an article I had written about Byzantine chant. I had written something about the mystical nature of Byzantine hymnography, and he corrected me by saying (approximately): "Although there certainly is mysticism in some aspects of Orthodoxy, there is no mysticism in its liturgical texts. The hymns of the church were written with very precise and explicit concepts."

I'm not trying to say that we must understand everything in the services in order to pray. But the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 14:14-15 does emphasize the importance of understanding with the mind what is said in church and that praying and chanting with only the spirit is not enough. Although he did say this in the context of glossolalia, St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite in his commentary quotes one of the Church Fathers who applies these words of the Apostle Paul about speaking in a "glossa" in terms of speaking in a foreign language.

Here's the biblical quote I'm talking about:
"For if I pray in a tongue (glossa), my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive. What should I do then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will chant (psallo) with the spirit, but I will chant with the mind also."
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Indeed. One must understand the concepts and appreciate their meaning. The poetry is meant to inspire and to confer a portal of communication with the Lord through our soul.

The soul however need not be touched by the intellect (the mind, the rational process of reason), but can be inspired by the non-intellectual. How many times during Holy Week are we not touched by the musical progression of "Se ton ths Parthenou Yion" or "Se ton anavalomenon to fws" without focusing on each and every word of the poem? The rhythm, the cadences from low to high and back, the changes in genera, all serve to place us at the scene of what the hymn refers to, even though we may not intellectually grasp the precise literal meaning of every single word.

That is what I referred to earlier as pietism. That one absolutely has to grasp every single syllable and inflection to understand. And that understanding is an end instead of a series of means towards and end. An end of opening our souls first, even if the mind does not fully grasp the precise literal meaning of the word.

How many can profess such a deep understanding of the original Greek? Unless one was alongside the hymnographer and asks him/her exactly the state of mind and soul they were in, and the intended picture they were painting in poetry and music at the time they were composing, one cannot fully comprehend the poem, at least intellectually. That is why one is limited in interpreting a poem in a number of closely related ways in the original Greek that is contextual and not literal. If we face this challenge with the original Greek, imagine the challenge we face when we wish to translate a text that already has a lot of questions built in!

Now, to use arguments for a new Orthodox ecclesiastic music based on rationalisations that might derive from subjective likes and dislikes because of personal upbringing or socio-cultural environment is disingenious, and I mean this with love and humility.

Byzantine melody is adaptable to different languages when done by well-taught, well-trained and depth-in-knowledge-endowed (love and humility I might add) individuals.

The question is, are we as imperfect humans adaptable to live, learn and create inside the Apostolic traditions and what the church has agreed is appropriate?

NG
 

frephraim

Παλαιό Μέλος
English has long and short syllables, Greek doesn't.

Good point. (One of the hardest things for my American students learning Greek to do is not shorten the duration of unaccented syllables.) Nevertheless, for hundreds of years the non-Orthodox have been composing liturgical music in which the duration of syllables has been quantized, i.e., a single beat for each syllable. This is the same thing done with heirmologic melodies in Byzantine music. So I don't see why all of a sudden quantizing syllables in English should be problematic now that we're trying to set them to Byzantine music.

In English the words are forming nuclei with only one strong accent per nucleus, in Greek this doesn't happen (except for some short one-syllable pseudowords).
You are correct again, but even so, this is not really an issue. There are instances in hymns in Greek where there are two or even three consecutive accented syllables. When such syllabic patterns are encountered in heirmologic melodies, the Greek composers would usually use melodic formulae that are normally used for texts with more syllalbles. In particular, they would take a melody for a 10101 text (where 1=accented syllable and 0=unaccented syllable) and apply it to a 111 text. The same strategy can be applied when the same thing happens when setting an English text to Byzantine music. So that's why I say that this is not really an issue.

The original Byzantine formulas often make the accentuated syllable longer, this is not always appropriate for English.
If I'm not mistaken, this is equally awkward in both languages, simply because both English and Greek are essentially accent-based languages (in terms of their pronunciation). Perhaps it's not as noticeable for some well-known hymns in Greek, merely because the Greeks have become accustomed to hearing them like that.

English has falling, raising and fall-raising nuclear tone while the original Byzantine formulas use the same model for all accentuated syllables.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. Are you referring to the change of pitch used by people when they speak English? If so, I don't see how this is significantly different from the way people change pitch when they speak Greek, and what bearing this has on fitting texts to melodies.
 

basil

Παλαιό Μέλος
I don't understand what you mean by this statement. Do you mean that holding the short "i" sound inherently does not sound good? If so, I think this statement does not express a universal truth but it is an opinion that is very subjective. In particular, I think that people whose native language does not have that sound would indeed hold the opinion that holding the short "i" sound does not sound good. On the other hand, I think that people like me (whose native language does have that sound) do not perceive anything wrong with holding that syllable. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this.

I think that the point agrippas was trying to make is that while the Byzantine vocal style (laryngismos) is a natural fit for the articulatory phonetics of the Greek language, it is not necessarily a natural fit for the articulatory phonetics of other languages. Two questions I would like to ask are: (1) To what degree is the authentic Byzantine vocal style (laryngismos) compatible with the phonetics of the English language? (2) If there is a wide disparity between the Byzantine vocal style and the phonetics of a given language, how can the two be reconciled?

I was raised in the United States, and when I first began singing Byzantine melodies I employed a Western vocal style. Over time (after taking lessons with a classically trained chanter and by listening to numerous recordings), I have gradually absorbed more elements of the Byzantine vocal style and have been able to reproduce them to some degree in my own chanting. In other words, I went through (and continue to go through) a transition from a very Western vocal style to a more Byzantine vocal style. At the beginning of this transition, I noticed that it was sometimes challenging to clearly articulate English words while chanting with the Byzantine vocal style. I would sometimes find that while my speech organs were positioned in a way that was ideal for the Byzantine vocal style, that same position was not ideal for the clear articulation of English words. Bear in mind that I am a fluent English speaker. I was forced to gradually adapt and find new ways to use my speech organs that would facilitate both the Byzantine vocal style and the clear articulation of English words. These new ways did not always come naturally; I am told that during this early period of transition I did not sound very good.

I apologize in advance for the very imprecise and unsatisfying description of my experience in the paragraph above. Unfortunately, I am neither an expert in the Byzantine vocal style nor in English or Greek phonology; as such, I do not have the ability to clearly understand what was taking place and to describe it. I would be very interested in learning more about the phonological characteristics of the Byzantine vocal style from an expert. As Nikolaos Giannoukakis mentioned in this thread, there are very few people with knowledge of both (a) the Byzantine vocal style and (b) the English language; these people would have the best preparation to answer the questions which I posed above.

It is worth noting that the Arabic language is not exactly a natural fit for the Byzantine vocal style either. Nevertheless, over time the Arabs have been able to absorb more elements of the Byzantine vocal style and adapt to them while chanting in Arabic. Sometimes, this results in some very awkward lip and throat gestures! I suppose that the alternative to "adapting" would be to abandon some elements of the Byzantine vocal style in favor of a vocal style that is a more natural fit for the language. But this is a philosophical issue which I cannot answer with certainty at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Top