Nikolaos Giannoukakis
Παλαιό Μέλος
I actually agree with a good amount of this.
Dear Samuel,
Without going around in circles, and you apparently are aware of the issues, let me just provide some information that many (especially the younger generation) may not be aware of
The Patriarchate has not held up to any sort of standards against the Karas Method and style either, though.
Officially it has not. I would dare venture that the EC has not kept up and has not considered more important issues the church faces. That it has not offered official opinions or decisions does not invalidate earlier opinions and writings and Patriarchal practice. If we are to take the practice at the Patriarchal church of St-George as the "acceptable" if not gold-standard, then we must measure all newer or parallel developments according to this standard. You correctly outline the over-analysed cadences of the Karas-based practitioners. Is this in line with the accepted practice of the EC?
Angelopoulos is an Archon, I believe.
I can name you some Archons worldwide (who still have their offikia) who are in jail as convicted felons. This is an extreme example obviously. The EC has received official requests from mainstream chanters and bodies to re-examine this offikio.
Also, while I was with them in Greece we did a private concert for the Patriarchate and his "entourage".
In America, Bartholomew also presided over services with multi-part Western music (Gallos, Lawrence and many other composers). The EC condemned and issued official edicts against Western multipart harmony in the late 1800s-early 1900s. If Bartholomew is not compliance this reflects on him. Similarly, if he chooses to ignore the outliers being promoted vigorously by the Karas followers, that reflects on him and his level of understanding of the issues involved. It does not absolve Angelopoulos as it does not absolve the Wester choirs and those that vigorously promote them in the US
I am not saying whether this validates Angelopoulos or not, for if we relied solely on the words and titles of Bishops to maintain tradition then the Orthodox Church would not be Orthodox.
As you correctly allude to, the Orthodox church does not rely on titles for legitimacy. However, it relies on consensus. That is why synods are held and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the synod considers whether a new thought or interpretation is in line with the Apostolic Traditions and with the Tradition of the church as a whole. If it is, then it becomes mainstream. Otherwise it remains an interest, but outside the mainstream. Until a synod accepts that the Karas method is mainstream, it remains an interest. In contrast, the church has accepted the Chrysanthine system, officially, as the educational standard, and the chant practice at the patriarchal church as the guide. Other Constantinopolitan and Asia Minor styles exist, but together that are inside the mainstream relying heavily on the patriarchal practice.
But it should be pointed out that Angelopoulos has gotten Patriarchal approval
I'd like to see such a letter. The EC has issued an opinion that the Karas system is in line with the practices and norms of the Great Church of Christ? Please send me, or post on this list such a decision. It would be of interest to all.
When Karas/Angelopoulos began their work the world they stepped into was not one of great Patriarchal traditional chanting being spread everywhere and correctly.
This is factually incorrect. The problem of ecclesiastic chant existed until the time of Psachos coming to Greece. Slowly, and with the [sad] events occuring in Asia Minor forcing the exile of many Christians into Greece, much tradition entered Greece. Karas came into the picture much much later. As for "correct" patriarchal chanting, it would be instructive to have the evidence demonstrating that he was a student of any chantor of any level of traditional training and certainly patriarchal.
In fact, one of the reasons that Karas began his work was to try to correct the errors that were done by most of the chanters in his time.
Karas put it in his mind that something was wrong. It was his own perception. That is why he worked alone. Indeed, his preface offers an insight into his thinking. Simply looking at the reason why he even began his interest in ecclesiastic chant explanation is shocking [Original Greek from his preface: «Η κατά την 24ην Δεκεμβρίου του 1940, εκ τυχαίας χειρονομίας πτώσις του μουσικού παλαιογραφικού παραπετάσματος, ήτις επέτρεψε να φανεί το μέχρι τότε αγνοούμενον και σήμερον ακόμη αμφισβητούμενον παρά των αγνοούντων αυτό σύστημα της παλαιοτέρας μουσικής γραφής», δηλαδή βεβαιώνεται, ότι οι θεωρητικές μουσικές θέσεις του, δεν προήλθαν από μελέτη, αλλά από το απροσδόκητον γεγονός........».] (I contextually translate the important point of his opening argument): On the 24th of December 1940, a serendipitous movement of my hand led me to tear away the veil that had kept hidden, until now, the meaning and the system of old musical paleography....
This is not the way a researcher operates or even begins a discussion. He offered no references in his arguments and he offered no parallel or evidence supported by what was mainstream and traditional chant practice in his day (at that time, ecclesiastic chant was largely coherent among those who came to Greece from Asia Minor and there was a good consensus among them, even though egos often magnified the small and often trivial details).
Obviously, in many respects he missed the mark by a good distance. However, he also provided many useful and good reforms that have taken hold
Samuel, the only reforms ha managed were to divide the world of chant in Greece. Led by Angelopoulos, the fanaticism among his followers is incredible to the point of irrationality. Just try having an educated discussion with most of his followers to ask questions that make them uncomfortable. They will first raise their voice avoiding to answer the question, threaten violence and then walk away. I'm serious! Try it![/B
In fact, my specific reasons for going to him AND what I regard as very useful reforms that some "Patriarchal" chanters could learn from were this:
Samuel, I seriously doube any well-trained chanter would even consider anything from the Karas method as something other than one man's abberant thoughts :wink:
But, since you make a list, please permit me to answer. I hope you don't send a computer virus my way
- Systemization of Isokratima - Even if one does not like their double ison (which I do),
The double isokratima was never part of tradition anywhere in the Byzantine world until the time of Psachos. It fell into disuse quite rapidly in Asia Minor. It was revived in Athens by some students of Psachos only to fall into disuse until Karas. Only his followers maintained it in Greece. No other mainstream chanter used it.
their work in creating a valid, coherent, systematic theory on when and why to move isokratima cured many of the problems that still are found in many chanting schools today that, at least for me, can completely detract from the chanting itself and produce a Westernized feel to the music, almost producing a sound that resembles chordal changes.
Historically, the acceptable method of isokratima was based on the tetrachord (i.e. base of the tetrachord). Period.
There never was a problem with isokratima in old times.
Many of the Stanitsas-influenced Byzantine Choirs suffer from this problem. Ergasteri Psaltikis, which is a fantastic choir in my opinion, detracts from its fantastic chanting with its constantly shifting isokratima.
Stanitsas' predecessors and certainly his teachers were in line with the tetrachord-based ison. Despite his perceived "modernisations" Stanitsas, in Athens, can hardly be accused of untraditional. Almost all of the old timers who were alive in Athens conceded that, despite his "sensationalistic" moments, Stanitsas was a continuation of mainstream chant.
- The widespread use and rivival of classical compositions and anthologies - Indeed, this was the #1 reason actually.
Indeed, the Karas followers have gone to the manuscripts and have presented, in concert, a lot of material according to their interpretation. This material however is not in use in our services! As wonderful as it may be to listen to a 20 minute kalophonic hymn, when is it ever used in the services? Hundreds of hymns have been composed and are now in the "classical" books. How many of them are used in the services?
I find the classical compositions and classical anthologies to be unmatched for quality and simplicity and beauty.
Indeed. But, don't the acrobatic cadences (from what historical source they derive from I don't know) used to interpret these simple hymns, as you state, detract from the simplicity or make it annoying?
Sadly, many chanters to not even know them or use them.
Factually incorrect. How many times do we find in the typikon the directive to chant "en th vrontosi kamino" and other stuff Angelopoulos sells in his CDs? All well-trained chanters use these hymns as "mathimata" and I can tell you that many chanters worth their analogion in Greece and elsewhere have studied and chanted these hymns in their homes, in front of their teachers and in front of the "exetastiki epitroph" to obtain their diplomas and certificates. Indeed, there is literal meaning in this term "mathima". Many of the compositions are called "mathimata" for the reason that they were to be used as such. As learning tools. Not for use in the church.
A big part of why I wanted to study with a group who has such respect for classical compositions is because I believe for English to have a firm foundation for Byzantine chant ti grow, it needs a repertoire of classical compositions itself.
True. But, do the objectives of the Karas followers really facilitate the learning of Byzantine chant? The Chrysanthine system was intended to address the complexity of what was the situation in their day. It was no wonder that it took 30 years for someone to learn the complexities of the mnemonics of the neumes and the contextual execution! Is this what we want today especially in the US? To take away a system that at least offers a learning cycle of five years and to give ourselves special status by instead enforcing a return to the pre-Chrysanthine 30 year educational cycle? Even as the Karas meanderings have no historical and mathematico-acoustic basis? I don't know about the thinking of those in the US who believe the Angelopoulos PR, but I would like to see churches return to Byzantine chant and for students to learn this quickly. Not take 30 years to learn 100+ scales, master odd cadences (without any historical basis) and sound like they need Allegra D (an antihistamine drug to clear the sinuses).
Papa Ephraim has done an excellent job in using this model, and is one I firmly support.
I'm not sure Papa Ephraim is absolute about this.....
- An understanding of classical composition - If you take out all those excess signs from the Karas method, their compositions are quite classical and beautiful in nature.
If you take away those neumes (excesses as you term them-I would call them something else), what you have are the compositions as they are found in the pre 1900s books. Period. Go back to those and with a good teacher learn them.
Ioannis Arvanitis has many fantastic compositions that I would say are unequaled by any other modern composers, and I think this is largely due to his and the Karas school's understanding and respect for classical compositions
Again, how many of those compositions belong inside a church service? Interesting to present in a concert setting but hardly the material for a vesper or orthros or liturgy in the context of America (remember, we have clergy that insist on a five minute herouvikon!).
However, I do not have much fondness for their extra signs, and can present the same problem they try to correct by returning to classical style composing. That problem being the over-analytical and mechanical interpretation of trills.
I am happy that you recognise this aberration. There's more to it. But I will not add anything further here.
- Maximization of the art of chanting as a choir - I wanted to see if they had any special methods for training and learning to sing together as a choir. I learned some things, but ultimately it seems to just be practice. There is no special trick to this one. But I do have respect for how well their choir works together.
It doesn't take an Angelopoulos formula to make a good choir. We have a bunch of Americans who could hardly read, but with LOVE, and ADHERENCE and CAMARADERIE, they mould together as any decent Greek choir. Don't let formulaicisms or those advocating them fool you.....
I would be interested, not so much to discuss the problems of the Karas method, but in working to correct these problems. Thank you for the criticism. It really is helpful and invaluable.
Stick to what is mainstream and learn from good teachers. There are many others who will offer you the warmth, love and education to levels that make Angelopoulos and his followers look (and sound) like smurfs singing in the shower
NG