General perspectives on Simon Karas' work and its criticism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Dear John (saltypsalti):

These are the major reasons why the Karas method has no basis in history or oral continuity:

1) It brings back a number of paleographic neumes that were explained and transcribed first by Petros Pelloponesios into a simpler exegetic manner and then further by Chourmouzios and Gregorios into the linear Chrysanthine system in use to this day. 1) Those paleographic neumes that were transcribed into the linear exegetic notation; and 2) other paleographic neumes that served no purpose - since the linear Chrysanthine notation reproduced their features, BY CONSENSUS OF THE CHURCH IN AN OFFICIAL MANNER, and all the Patriarchal and Musical Societies (and the overwhelming majority of the psaltae who KNEW the old stenographic paleography) - were abandoned.

Karas revived some of the paleographic neumes and assigned a NEW, ARBITRARY and REVISIONIST exegesis that has no basis in oral or manuscript evidence. Even Karas did not provide any sources in any of his written works to support WHERE AND FROM WHO HE HEARD THE EXECUTION OF THE OLD STENOGRAPHIC NEUMES.

2) Disregarding the centuries-old accepted system of 8 tones and three genera, the Karas method goes on a tangent and invents more than 100 variations of tonal interval relationships (some with very strange names alluding to the practice of the Turkish makamat) that he terms Tones and Sub-Tones (middle, sub-middle, and even stranger novelty).

What the Three Genera/8-Tone system offers to students in a digestible and understandable manner learnable in less than a year, Karas offers a product that is at best confusing and at worst a pathologic rambling. Where the Chrysanthine system intends to simplify (and the results are evident in the thousands of individuals who can chant well inside a five-year period), the Karas method obscures and forces onto the learner a return to a period of stenography and hieroglyphs. The very opposite of what patriarchal committees and chantors in the 1800s intended.......

3) It invents tonal ratios that have no oral historic and no mathematic historical precedent. Some intervals cannot even be distinguished by the human ear.

4) The Karas method invents scales that are undecipherable in the context of any rational temperament and rooting in the tradition of the fifth (pentachord) or fourth (tetrachord).

A team was assembled recently to test the chromatic genera of Karas using the MELODOS software (http://www.melodos.com/index2.htm) and the outcome is not representative of the oral witness of the chromatic genera of the past 60 years
(see here: http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=79964&postcount=1

AND here: http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=80062&postcount=37

AND here, in response to a request by Mr. Arvanitis: http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=80147&postcount=45).

We are in the process of examining the diatonic "variations" of the Karas method and the results to the ear are horrible and have no basis in 60+ years of oral and recorded witness. Soon, we will post those results....

We have asked the Karas experts to identify the fractional ratios that lead to some of Karas' more exotic integers (i.e. 23, 21, 3) to help us reconstruct the "scales" of Karas in the MELODOS software, and so far they are unwilling or unable to offer those fractional ratios
(see here:http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=81059&postcount=78)


5) The execution and performance of the qualitative neumes as well as the accentual Chrysanthine neumes by the Karas school is not in line with 60 years of oral witness and more important, the cadences are exaggerated to the point where the melody adopts a profanity while sacrificing the strict simple and judicious execution of the qualitative neumes as witnessed in 60+ years of oral evidence (tapes, records of old psaltae)


6) Even as the tonal intervals offered by Karas are problematic in the context of even just intonation, the practitioners of Karas seem to not obey even those intervals as they perform even MORE EXTREME intervals to the point where one cannot distinguish a clear tone and generum from common dissonance of closely spaced quarter and eighth tonal intervals (for example, the clear intervals of second tone stichiraric become so condensed that they resemble the execution of the spathi chroa by the Karas school. There are many more examples of this extreme revisionism and arbitrary invention of intervals and manner of execution and exegesis).

These points serve as an overview of the problem. We could spend megabytes on the details, but I believe that the Greek side of the forum is instructive in providing us those megabytes of discussion. If the moderator believes that it serves a useful purpose to go over those (how many times has the Karas issue been discussed Mr. Koubaroulis???) issues, I would be delighted to go over them in excruciating detail.

In closing, I am still waiting for the champions of the Karas method (whether they are experts or not) to fill in the blanks in the table I seek in an earlier post

(see here: http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=80322&postcount=3

AND here:

http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=80683&postcount=5

AND here:

http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=80687&postcount=7

AND here:

http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=80283&postcount=43

AND here:

http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=80182&postcount=37)


I believe all these questions I have raised in older posts (above) can be a starting point for further academic discussion. Even though the same questions have been posed across numerous posts, I sense that the champions of the Karas method either do not have the luxury of time (as I apparently have) or the capacity to answer. Instead, they engage in laic and childish playful cajoling instead of mature and serious fact-based and data-driven discussion.

Last, Mr. Arvanitis provides a letter from the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (see here: http://www.analogion.com/forum/showpost.php?p=81943&postcount=12) that, unless he provides the following data (sought further below), offers no evidence that the Patriarchate SANCTIONED THEN, OR SANCTIONS TODAY, THE KARAS METHOD.

I will paraphrase the letter to English, and then I will ask Mr. Arvanitis to answer some questions:

"Ecumenical Patriarchate
Arch-Secretariat of the Holy Synod

Number 49, protocol 24

To the erudite musicological Mr. Simon Karas, President of the Society for the Dissemination of the National Music

To Athens:

His All-Holiness, our venerable Father and Bishop, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, received and, in Synodical conference (after the specific introduction by the specific committee on Holy Worship), reviewed the letter of your kind and erudite musicology submitted, dated the 2nd of November of last year, describing the efforts of the Society you have founded towards the preservation and dissemination of the national and ecclesiastic music through specific initiatives and seeking the support of the Mother Church.

In response, as decided by the Synod and directed by the Patriarch, I transmit to your erudite musicology and all your associates, that the Ecumenical Throne blesses and supports the efforts of the Society and lauds the indicated initiatives through its blessings. In recognition of the personal multiyear and valuable contribution of your erudite musicology, [the Patriarchate] submits and distinguishes you through this appropriate Ecclesiastic offikion, which will be granted and bestowed to you personally, in the future, by a Patriarchal representative.

On this, I convey to you and your associates of the Society the holy blessings of our all-Holy Patriarch in support of, and in best wishes for the success of the indicated initiatives. I submit this in the love and blessings in Christ,

In the Patriarchal Edifices, February 13, 1995,

Meliton of Philadelphia,
Arch-Secretary of the Holy Synod"

Now, this letter to Karas, as presented, offers nothing factual other than:

1) Karas submitted a letter to the Patriarch on November 2nd 1994, outlining the entity called "the Society for the Dissemination of the National Music" and, I speculate, its general objectives and accomplishments. Karas evidently seeks some form of "support" in his efforts which we have no evidence about (see questions later)

2) The Patriarch, as he always does on such matters, delegates such requests to appropriate committees of the Holy Synod. Karas' request was delegated (as evidenced in Metropolitan Meliton's letter) to the Synodical Committee on Holy Worship.

3) The Committee at some point submitted a summary and appropriate details and possibly a course of action on Karas' request(s) to the entire Synod. The Synod evidently followed the committee's recommendation.

4) The Synod decided, and the Patriarch directed, that an offikion be bestowed to Karas in RECOGNITION OF THE INITIATIVES AND OUTCOMES DETAILED IN THE LETTER BY KARAS, and that the offikion be bestowed to him by a representative of the Patriarch at some time in the future.


My comments on the letter:

a) If Mr. Arvanitis is trying to persuade us that this letter proves that the Patriarch and the Holy Synod (and the committee on Holy Worship) in 1995 BLESSED THE KARAS METHOD as a teaching and chanting method by chantors then he is MISREPRESENTING THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER OF THE RESPONSE OF THE HOLY SYNOD TO KARAS, or otherwise engaging in other disingenious sophistry and questionable tactics in persuading us to equate a BLESSING FOR THE EFFORTS OF THE SOCIETY, ITS OBJECTIVES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN ITS MISSION as equal to APPROVAL AND BLESSING OF THE KARAS METHOD.

b) For a full and proper contextual evaluation of the INTENT of the Synodical letter, Mr. Arvanitis should supply the letter that Karas submitted to the Patriarch (i.e. scan it and post it here). What initiatives did Karas list in his letter? How did he phrase these initiatives? How general or specific was the description? How factual was the description? Did Karas supply his THEORY WORKS as a companion to the letter and did the Committee on Holy Worship examine this and any related works?

c) The Synodical response alludes to an offikion to be bestowed to Karas at some point in the future. What was this offikion specifically? When was it finally bestowed and by which patriarchal representative? Can Mr. Arvanitis post an image of the offikion so we can get an accurate picture of the precise reasons for its issuance.

d) In line with my point (a) above, nowhere in the letter of Metropolitan Meliton is any reference made to the Karas Method. In fact, and Mr. Arvanitis knows very well that any submission of a specific work (book for example) to the Patriarchate for evaluation and blessing receives a direct and signed response from the Patriarch himself and SPECIFICALLY STATES IN DETAIL that the blessing is granted for THE SPECIFIC BOOK AND WORKS. The letter by Metropolitan Meliton has no such reference.

Awaiting the Karas champions to answer my questions earlier in this long post, and hoping that John Presson (saltypsalti) is clearer on the Karas problem, Father Ephraim can pray for my sinful soul as a weak human, I await Mr. Arvanitis to post the letter Karas submitted to the Patriarch in 1994 which triggered the reply of the letter dated the 13th of February 1995.

NG.
 
Last edited:

frephraim

Παλαιό Μέλος
Although I do not belong to the "Karas School," let me attempt to present a succinct exposition of the merits in his suggestion that certain neumes of the old notation be included in the current (Chrysanthine) notation of Byzantine music.

Chrysanthine notation is a descriptive notation, not a definitive notation. Therefore, in order to chant Chrysanthine notation in accordance with the oral tradition of Byzantine music (which is what the written melody attempts to describe), one must embellish it. These embellishments are not arbitrary deviations from the written melody, but they are specific interpretations that are executed by all traditional chanters. Many melodic phrases have more than one traditional interpretation, and different traditional chanters tend to favor certain interpretations over other interpretations.

Thus, the problem with Chrysanthine notation is that a chanter without sufficient exposure to the oral tradition of Byzantine music will chant it dryly, note-for-note, which is also called "metrophonia." In other words, he will not know what interpretations are implied by the written score. (A good example of this is the melody of Χριστὸς γεννᾶται, as presented in this article by Demetrios Nerantzis.) Or even worse, an inexperienced chanter might try to embellish the melody in an arbitrary manner that is foreign to the tradition of this sacred liturgical art.

To address this problem, Karas recommending adding a few symbols to Chrysanthine notation, which would remind chanters at what points in the melody a particular kind of interpretation is implied. Experienced chanters rightly point out that they themselves do not need such written reminders and thus conclude that they are superfluous. It seems to me, though, that they tend to forget how many people lack their experience and therefore would benefit from these reminders.

Yet even experienced chanters could benefit slightly by using some of those reminders if they have a choir, because those symbols can be used to specify a particular interpretation of a phrase that has more than one way of being interpreted. For example, an experienced chanter would execute kentemata above an oligon above a psefiston in several different ways, and if there are others chanting the melody with him, they won't always correctly guess which interpretation he is going to use. As a result, they will sometimes chant something different, and their notes will clash.

Well, I had better stop here, if I want this to be a succinct exposition!
+Papa Ephraim

P.S. Just one last thing I must say is that it was a stroke of genius on behalf of Karas that he managed to add symbols to Chrysanthine notation in such a manner that someone who does not know those symbols them can still chant a score that has them by ignoring them. This allows beginners to ignore those symbols until they are ready to learn more.
 
Last edited:

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Dear Fr. Ephraim:

With sincere humility, Karas went beyond the bounds of a "better exegesis". I am puzzled in your comments because the Karas two-tome work, as early as its preface, does NOT INDICATE a work of further exegesis and building upon the Chrysanthine system to clarify what you describe (an eventual notational system to marry the metrophonia with the ornamentation). Instead, and please take the time to re-read the entire two volumes carefully, he INVENTS, MISREPRESENTS, REVISES.

Karas viewed all the psaltae of his day disdainfully. There is much evidence of this (see the book and witnesses therein in Theodore Akridas' book as well as the comments by Dragoumis and Karas' collaborators). We can only speculate on the reasons. But it is clear that none of the consensus chanters worked with him as he refused to work with the consensus chanters of his day.

Instead, as we read his introduction, he offers the reason for the two-volume theory. I quote the original Greek: «συνέτρεξαν ἐκ Θεοῦ συγκυρίαι», ὅπως ἡ «ἐκ τυχαίας χειρονομίας πτῶσις τοῦ μουσικοῦ παλαιογραφικοῦ παραπετάσματος». In English, we can translate this, the most critical sentence of his work and the trigger that made him start thinking about Byzantine music, as "A number of God-sent coincidences occured that, serendipitously tossed away the veil that had kept obscure the musical paleography".

That was his trigger: a series of coincidences (that he does not describe at all, although he is very prolific in the minutiae of his more than 100 tonal interval relations) and serendipity.

The rational thinker would not move past this sentence, but since we are discussing the Karas method and as you describe its potential merits, we will move on.

Had Karas written as an introduction something along the lines of "I propose a series of new neumes that represent a cadence or an ornamentation that I describe and that I derive from the consensus of chanters of my day", Fr. Ephraim, your thesis would have merit. Unfortunately, the aim of Karas, triggered by the serendipitous coincidences, explicitly stated in his introduction and then in his "exegeses" does not support your thesis.

Contrary to your thesis, Karas INVENTS the cadential exegeses that had never been performed by ANY chanter of his day, prior to his day (if we listen to Iakovos) and SUBSEQUENT to his day. Had those exegeses possessed merit, why did Karas not submit his work to the Church of Greece or the Ecumenical Patriarchate for consideration?

You are correct in that the modern day Chrysanthine neumes offer metrophonia with the qualitative features and the specific qualitative neumes to be interpreted by a chanter who had heard them from consensus masters. If your thesis is that one should strive to find a means of teaching these ornamentations in a WRITTEN manner and method and medium, I will partially agree with you. I partially disagree with you (as will the most experienced and reknown psaltae in Greece who are pushing past 70 years old) because a chanter cannot be taught in a conservatory (which is what a mechanical medium that you propose can only offer), but is a PERSONAL EXPERIENTAL ELEMENT OF THEIR TRAINING. I can use the martial arts as a comparator. Are there handbooks of the kata or the forms that will make one into a 2nd degree black belt/sash WITHOUT THE PERSONAL INTERVENTION OF A MASTER? The same is true for opera, for Persian, Ottoman and Arabic classic music (instrumental or sung) and for Byzantine Music. One cannot take the human element out of it.

I understand our society's new vision that everything must be spoon-fed in a mechanical manner. Everything must be tabular and in the context of "rules" and formulae. To a degree those are helpful, but in the end- the secret ingredient -HUMAN GUIDANCE AND PERSONAL TEACHING - will be missing and the meal will be rather incomplete.


Byzantine music is no different because the rules were made to explain a PRE-EXISTING ORAL PRACTICE. You are aware of many situations where something of Byzantine musical practice simply can't be codified or placed into a "rule"or a formula. Simply because that's what has been passed down to us.

But let's return to the Karas method and why your thesis is not supported by the written intent of the work by Karas himself.

1) Karas INVENTED and REVISED the exegesis of neumes that fell into disuse a century before him. Nowhere in his work does he provide references along the lines of "this interpretation of the tromikon (or name your favorite old neume) was performed by psaltae X, Y, Z,...and I now transcribe it here". The question remains: WHO DID HE HEAR THOSE ORNAMENTATIONS FROM??? HOW HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WERE THEY TO THE CONSENSUS PERFORMANCE?

2) Karas INVENTED and REVISED tonal intervals according to those "serendipitous coincidences" that tore apart the veil of obscurity (where a century of chanters and no less than three Patriarchal schools and committees had accepted the Chrysanthine intervals and then those of the 1881 Committee)

3) Karas INTERJECTED in an authoritarian manner his own views, WITHOUT CONSULTING ANY OF THE PSALTAE OF HIS DAY, using the medium of the two-tome theory and WITHOUT CONSULTING THE AUTHORITIES OF THE CHURCH FOR ITS OPINION. George of Lesvos at least had made a reasonable proposal but he did not REVISE or INVENT something that NO ONE HAD EVER HEARD BEFORE!


Even as I could, in principle, be able to agree with your thesis that one could possibly use old, currently not used paleographic neumes in a mnemonic manner to represent AN ORNAMENTATION AS PERFORMED BY A CONSENSUS OF PSALTAE (AFTER EXTENSIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE CONSULTATION AND WITH THE APPROVAL AND BACKING IN AN EXPLICIT MANNER OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE), I will not agree, and neither will any chanter of any reputation in Greece who was taught by masters of Old time, that KARAS HAD THAT SPECIFIC INTENT (to IMPROVE, TO EXPLAIN AND TO SIMPLIFY).

His intent was completely different and THAT is the reason why the problem was created in 1982 by those few acolytes whereas prior to that time, the world of psaltic performance and controversy was quite boring....

Finally, your statement: "it was a stroke of genius on behalf of Karas that he managed to add symbols to Chrysanthine notation in such a manner that someone who does not know those symbols them can still chant a score that has them by ignoring them. This allows beginners to ignore those symbols until they are ready to learn more", makes no sense to me. Perhaps I misunderstood. Karas DID NOT ELABORATE AN EXEGESIS OF THE ORNAMENTATIONS OFFERED BY THE OLD NEUMES BUT INVENTED NEW, UNTIL THEN UNHEARD OF, CADENCES AND PHRASINGS AND ASSIGNED THOSE PHRASES TO THE NEUMES HE BROUGHT BACK.

So my final question to you, as you consider Karas' genius is the following:

Which of the modern-day oral interpretations as decreed by Karas of the old paleographic neumes resurrected by Karas is historically accurate? Can you provide the oral and manuscript evidence to support this statement?

Would you be able to fill in the table I asked for in earlier posts so at least I could learn something I don't know?
(refer to: http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=80322&postcount=3)

With love in Christ,

NG
 
Last edited:

domesticus

Lupus non curat numerum ovium
Angelopoulo does not merely argue by authority as many do. Are you familiar with Angelopoulos' body of work? You'll find plenty of teachers who simply argue by authority. "It is so because I said so." Or more succintly, "I am the tradition." Angelopoulo never argues by the authority of his person, or by the authority of Karas. Angelopoulo appeals to sources, "It is so because it is written .....and heard." Defer to Angelopoulos' students and his record to fill you in on who he is, not on an isolated experience.

Don't be so sure about Mr Angelopoulos and his opinion for Karas' authority.

Check his article here -in Greek- and a very exaggerating or -perhaps- outrageous statement saying that ''Karas' Theoretikon is the most important work of the century for the system of Greek music'' (translation by myself).

PS. Thank you for your kind words above but I prefer to stay anonymous.
 

frephraim

Παλαιό Μέλος
Dear Fr. Ephraim:
So my final question to you, as you consider Karas' genius is the following:

Which of the modern-day oral interpretations as decreed by Karas of the old paleographic neumes resurrected by Karas is historically accurate? Can you provide the oral and manuscript evidence to support this statement?
I thought that the article by Nerantzis I mentioned is precisely that kind of evidence. In that article, he gives a few examples of how the oral tradition of the Patriarchate (as written analytically in books by Pringos) can be explained using the old symbols Karas recommended. He also presents those examples in their common Chrysanthine form to demonstrate how poor it is in comparison. That article is very brief and incomplete, but he has also written a 250-page book entitled Συμβολὴ Στὴν Ἑρμηνεία τοῦ Ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ Μέλους that presents many more examples. I must say that this book is probably the most helpful book I have ever seen for people who don't have the luxury of being beside a traditional chanter.

As for the other issues you brought up about Karas, I honestly don't feel qualified to defend him because I am an outsider and not an expert in his teachings. I would not be surprised if, being human, he made mistakes. But what matters to me is whether or not any of his ideas can be used to help chanters.

As an aside, I would like to mention here that there are two reasons why I decided against including those old symbols in all the music I have composed in English:
1) I am afraid that I would only do a mediocre job of inserting all the right ones in the right places, and
2) As JPP said earlier in this thread, Byzantine music here in America is struggling to survive. Many people are already so intimidated by its many symbols that they don't even try to learn them. If I were to add even more symbols to my music, even more people would probably be intimidated.
And since Byzantine music is struggling to survive here in America, I think my time would be much better spent doing something constructive rather than arguing about things like this. So I would like to withdraw from this particular discussion and let others take my place who know the Karas system better (and who have more time than I do).
 
Last edited:

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Angelopoulos is one of Karas' acolytes.

These are but a sampling of many questions for them to answer which to this day (Karas notwithstanding, because he is departed) the Karas acolytes have not responded in any manner (other than book-burning lawsuits, or laic cajoling, and fits of temper tantrums laced with profanities).

1) Where and from who did Karas HEAR the exegeses for which he has assigned his various paleographic neumes? Who were his witnesses and what were the qualifications and experiences as well as exposure to Athonite or Constantinopolitan chant of those witnesses?

2) Where and from who did Karas hear the pitch intervals that he then categorised into the tonal relationships of more than 100 variations? Who were his witnesses and what were the qualifications and experiences as well as exposure to Athonite or Constantinopolitan chant of those witnesses?

3) On what historical AUDIO and ORAL WITNESS does Karas base his novel tonal fractions and their corresponding integer values (some for which he has NEVER PRESENTED ANY FRACTIONS!!!!)?

4) On what historical ORAL WITNESS AND EVIDENCE does Karas offer, until then, UNHEARD OF cadential meanderings as NOVEL exegeses of the known qualitative Chrysanthine neumes?

5) Why do Karas' own acolytes, today, on many occasions, NOT FOLLOW EVEN THOSE INTERVALS THAT KARAS LAID DOWN FOR THEM but instead INNOVATE in performing even MORE EXTREME sharps and flats (yfesodieseis?) and cadences (or vocal acrobatics) that have NEVER BEEN HEARD IN HISTORY of Byzantine Chant for the 60+ years of traditional audio witness and traditional oral practice?

Karas' acolytes consider anything that carries relics of Karas as holy and sacred without questioning the basis, the methods and the data. The behaviour is close to cult-like.

I have said this a few times on this forum: We may hold on to our convictions dearly and passionately, but is it ever formally possible that our convictions are factually wrong?

Can the Karas acolytes ever display the mature thinking capacity to consider the null hypothesis in a scientific manner and to look at their data dispassionately and with a suspicious eye reflecting on the possibility that their convictions are factually and historically wrong?

......I am still waiting for answers to my questions in the above posts in in many earlier posts......

NG.
 
Last edited:

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Dear Fr. Ephraim,

You allude to the synoptic essay of Neratzis and then the 250 page volume. I was aware of them since the time they came out.

They are both utter nonsense.

The examples he offers are deliberately chosen and are offered very selectively. If you follow his reasoning and then attempt to apply his method on a survey of paleography his reasoning breaks down.

Have you tried to use his reasoning to construct exegetic linear Chrysanthine "formulae" to interpret repetitive paleographic sequences? You will very quickly realise that you can't.

First, because the quantitative and qualitative actions of a single old neume or even a pattern of neumes (that are repetitive in a single music text) differ depending on the cadential and tonal context.

As evidence, please look at the pdf files in the link here carefully and then come back to consider the following points and then consider the remainder of my thoughts:

http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost...47&postcount=1

Now that you had an opportunity to look at the pdfs of the Mega Ison in the notation of Petros Pelopponesios and the exegeses of Chourmouzios and Nileas Kamarados, it becomes evident that one single old neume, from the simple quantitative to especially the qualitative neumes have completely different exegeses depending on tonal, subtonal and cadential context, different even on each iteration of the SAME pattern/sequence of paleoglyphs in the same music text. Do you agree?

In humiity to your holiness, I give thanks to the Lord for your wisdom and your choice to focus on what has been tried and true in our church, irrespective of where your heart lies. Even if the data do not convince you, or you might be tempted to give more consideration to the exotic theses of the Karas method (and newer interpretations), at the very least you have chosen to UPHOLD THE ORTHOTOMIA and the ORTHODOXY of our church and to remain faithful, until further notice, to what our church believes, teaches, and safekeeps.

If the Chrysanthine system was adequate to train and to guide thousands of psaltae worldwide since its acceptance by the church, if the Chrysanthine system was adequate to transmit the metrophonic exegesis of the old paleography and to permit the transmission of the old texts to us so that we could offer them in prayer in a manner no different than how the musical offering was a century or two ago, if the Chrysanthine system was adequate to shape and guide the masters of two centuries, if the Chrysanthine system has made it possible to train psaltae in Greece and in the Diaspora for at least 100 years now to serve our church, then I believe it is more than adequate to maintain Byzantine music alive in America. The ornaments and the vocal interpretations of the qualitative neumes or the quantitative neumes with dual activity can be learned from qualified teachers by LISTENING. In the age of the internet this does not pose a hurdle.

But, even if someone wants to introduce a number of hieroglyphs of their creation or liking to serve as mnemonics of vocal ornamentation and cadential execution, this proposal must first be accepted in principle and in fact by the CONSENSUS of chanters worldwide and then be approved and ratified by the Ecumenical Patriarchate (in our case). Nothing less.

Music theory and history aside, assuming we are all part of the jurisdiction and line of behaviour that is active and directed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its traditions, we are BOUND to RESPECT and to ACT AND TEACH in that specific CONSENSUS manner. Nothing less. Anything less is an outlier and casts us out of the consensus. There is a specific word that the ancient Hellenes used to describe "outlier"....

With sincerest respect and love in Christ,

NG
 
Last edited:

greek487

Tasos N.
Mr. Giannoukakis,

You state . . .

These are the major reasons why the Karas method has no basis in history or oral continuity


Simon Karas' accomplishments are far greater than merely the "Karas Method". Afterall, he inspired a much wider renaissance.

A few questions to consider what separates traditional from less traditional (you prefer 'outlier' and 'heretic' which causes stark divisions; I do not).

Do you chant the typika every Sunday?

Do you chant the Makarismous?

Do you chant the Prokeimenon tou Apostolou?

Do you chant the Allilouaria with stichous?

Do you encourage your priest to return to traditional practices as well in regards to his liturgical practices?

Do you do the kanones during the Orthros?

Do you chant arges Katavasies in the Orthros?

Which leitourgika do you chant? Anything goes? Or do you improvise?

How do you perform the isokratima? There's plenty of contradictions within oral tradition. Which is best? What did Hatzimarko teach in regards to isokratima? How does it compare to what Kara illustrates?

What xerouvika do you chant? Taliadoro? Karamani? Theodosopoulo? Do you perform long improvizations for the Triadi, much like Stanitsa did? Is that "traditional" in your eyes?

Do you chant the arges katavasies after liturgy?

What repertoire do you chant for vespers? Who do you consider "traditional" composers? Are Petro, Stefano, Filanthidi, Iakovo outliers as well?

Do you chant the 'Eidomen to Fos to Alithinon' and 'Eih to onoma Kyriou' in plagal first like the Hatzimarko 'acolytes' do? Or in second mode as is traditional?

How many different modes do you chant the epistles in? Is that traditional?

Do you chant the classical koinonika or simply chant Manoli Hatzimarko's "Anti Koinoniko Eulogiso ton Kyrion"? Which is traditional and which is outlier?

Ever notice what composers Archon Protopsalti Lycourgos Angelopoulos interprets? Do you have nothing positive to say here as well? Doesn't Angelopoulo deserve much praise and many thanks for his efforts to refocus our attention to these classical composers? If you do not think so, how can we therefore take your thoughts on byzantine music seriously?


Is there no basis for all of these reforms in our history? Do you think these are Karas' "arbitrary" innovations?


Do you think you know how chanters and choirs sounded centuries ago? Is it possible that some sounded the way Karas suggests?

You categorically discard Karas. But by calling him an outlier (let alone a heretic), you basically ignore the centuries-old traditions and repertoire he sought to resurrect.

You position yourself as the representative of the "consensus chanters" with "over 60 years of oral tradition." Seems like Karas is interested in a little more than merely 60 years.

Taso

p.s. There's no such thing as a "Karas acolyte". The musicians I know who utilize Karas, especially Angelopoulos, are independant, dedicated traditionalists.
 

greek487

Tasos N.

Don't be so sure about Mr Angelopoulos and his opinion for Karas' authority.

Check his article here -in Greek- and a very exaggerating or -perhaps- outrageous statement saying that ''Karas' Theoretikon is the most important work of the century for the system of Greek music'' (translation by myself).

PS. Thank you for your kind words above but I prefer to stay anonymous.

Domesticus,
I agree entirely with you that Archon Angelopoulos utilizes and refers to Karas extensively. All I'm saying is that Angelopoulos bases his 'authority' not on his innumerable accomplishments and on his person, but on tradition.

"This is correct because it is written (or heard)" And not "This is correct because I say so." And when he bases certain practices on Karas, it's not merely because Karas said it. It's because of the supporting rationale and justification for what he said.

It's a subtle difference but one which avoids the cult of the teacher and seeks out the authority of tradition.

That's all I meant,
Taso
p.s. It's too bad you need to remain anonymous. I respect your preference. But why aren't you more rude and uncivil? :)
 
Last edited:

domesticus

Lupus non curat numerum ovium
Domesticus,
I agree entirely with you that Archon Angelopoulos utilizes and refers to Karas extensively. All I'm saying is that Angelopoulos bases his 'authority' not on his innumerable accomplishments and on his person, but on tradition.

"This is correct because it is written (or heard)" And not "This is correct because I say so." And when he bases certain practices on Karas, it's not merely because Karas said it. It's because of the supporting rationale and justification for what he said.

It's a subtle difference but one which avoids the cult of the teacher and seeks out the authority of tradition.

That's all I meant,
Taso
p.s. It's too bad you need to remain anonymous, but I respect your preference. But why aren't you more rude and uncivil? :)

Personally, my problem with L. Angelopoulos and some of his followers is that his starting point in his way of thinking is Karas' theory and only this. If you have read the above article he declares that the most important work is by Karas and that's all.

He has focused only in Karas' work, he has set Chrysantus' Theoretikon in second rate and from there he reaches the point to say that 'Karas' Theoretikon is the most important work of the century for the system of Greek music''.

Unfortunately, I think this is a very narrow way of thinking on his behalf.
 

greek487

Tasos N.
Personally, my problem with L. Angelopoulos and some of his followers is that his starting point in his way of thinking is Karas' theory and only this. If you have read the above article he declares that the most important work is by Karas and that's all.

He has focused only in Karas' work, he has set Chrysantus' Theoretikon in second rate and from there he reaches the point to say that 'Karas' Theoretikon is the most important work of the century for the system of Greek music''.

Unfortunately, I think this is a very narrow way of thinking on his behalf.

Fair enough, Domesticus. Each of us has his own perspective and experiences.

From my perspective, I am very grateful to Angelopoulos for his contributions to byzantine music. He has helped me to see great beauty and depth to our music and tradition. His imaginative and creative interpretations never cease to amaze me. For me, he has elevated our sacred artform to higher levels.
 

Γιώργος Μ.

Γιώργος Μπάτζιος
What did Hatzimarko teach in regards to isokratima?
.....
Do you chant the 'Eidomen to Fos to Alithinon' and 'Eih to onoma Kyriou' in plagal first like the Hatzimarko 'acolytes' do? Or in second mode as is traditional?
.......
Do you chant the classical koinonika or simply chant Manoli Hatzimarko's "Anti Koinoniko Eulogiso ton Kyrion"?
Dear friend, it's the first time I see Hatzimarkos used as sort of a symbol of all anti-traditional practices. Is it just for example's shake? Any way, it's twice unfair I think: a) there is much more than Hatzimarkos opposite Kara's School, b) Hatzimarkos is much more than the anti-traditional practices you mention.
 

domesticus

Lupus non curat numerum ovium
Fair enough, Domesticus. Each of us has his own perspective and experiences.

From my perspective, I am very grateful to Angelopoulos for his contributions to byzantine music. He has helped me to see great beauty and depth to our music and tradition. His imaginative and creative interpretations never cease to amaze me. For me, he has elevated our sacred artform to higher levels.

No problem also, my friend, any one of us shall follow his own opinions and desires.

But, the specific article by L. Angelopoulos was a very unpleasant shock to me, because, personally, I expected more from Mr Angelopoulos.
 

greek487

Tasos N.
No problem also, my friend, any one of us shall follow his own opinions and desires.

But, the specific article by L. Angelopoulos was a very unpleasant shock to me, because, personally, I expected more from Mr Angelopoulos.

Domesticus,

I am sorry that you were disappointed with the specific article. It may give an inaccurate impression that Angelopoulos is concerned with only Karas' work.

But please take notice of the rest of Angelopoulos immense body of work. He has brought critical attention and focus to the chant of Fr. Dionysios Firfiris, Leonidas Sfikas, Konstandinos Mafidis, Stanitsas, Priggos, and countless other favorites. I can't even begin to list the names of all of the chanters and composers (e.g. Koukouzelis) he has highlighted and honored over the years.

Angelopoulos is concerned with more than just Karas. We could agree with that, correct?

Taso
 

apostolos

Απόστολος Κομπίτσης
Taso,

Please allow me to address a few things in your recent post:

A few questions to consider what separates traditional from less traditional

You propose a very nice plethora of questions. Unfortunately, I don't think ANY of them have anything to do with what we're talking about! Your questions raise issues of the Typikon that might be the basis for another topic.

The argument here is the WAY of chanting (the "tropos eketeleseos", if you will) of all of those hymns you are asking about, NOT about taksis or rubrics. Whether the Typika are chanted every Sunday, or the Kanones, or the arges Katavasies is NOT the issue; the question here is, HOW are these chanted? Are they chanted according to the traditional klimakes handed down by Patriarchal oral tradition, or according to the manipulated (I won't use the word "bastardized", as it might be too harsh a word for you) scales according to Karas?

Ever notice what composers Archon Protopsalti Lycourgos Angelopoulos interprets? Do you have nothing positive to say here as well? Doesn't Angelopoulo deserve much praise and many thanks for his efforts to refocus our attention to these classical composers? If you do not think so, how can we therefore take your thoughts on byzantine music seriously?

"Interprets" is your key word here, Mr. Nassis. What good is it if Mr. Angelopoulos "interprets" the works of the classical masters (and yes, even the more recent masters like Nafpliotis, Pringos, Stanitsas) if he does so using the manipulated and redefined scales and elxeis of Karas? It does absolutely NO good. It's as if he's saying, "Here is the 'Axion Estin' of Sarantaekklisiotou, but he really MEANT to compose it and chant it THIS way, not the way everyone has been doing it all of this time."

Do you think you know how chanters and choirs sounded centuries ago?

Do YOU, Mr. Nassis? Because if you do, I'd really like to see (well, actually, I'd like to HEAR) your documentation. Did KARAS know how chanters and choirs sounded centuries ago? He claims he does. My response is, how could he? Did he have audio documentation? (No.) Did he have any type of "key" to define the old neumes he was so adamant about bringing back? (No.) Did he even have one teacher who perhaps MIGHT have been taught the exegesis of these neumes and who then passed them down to him? (No.)

Is it possible that some sounded the way Karas suggests?

ANYTHING is possible, Mr. Nassis. But do you think it is PROBABLE? I would say "no" to that, as well, given the fact that we have an oral tradition which does not have trands towards the Karas suggestions.

You position yourself as the representative of the "consensus chanters" with "over 60 years of oral tradition." Seems like Karas is interested in a little more than merely 60 years.

ANY good musicologist or serious chanter is always interested in "a little more than merely 60 years", but without audio documentation, that "interest" is pretty much limited. Mr. Giannoukakis is rightfully focusing his arguments (and therefore his issues on credibility and authenticity) on what we have been able to HEAR. Beyond that, it is all speculation. And the REASON is that it is all speculation is because we have absolutely nothing (written or otherwise) to support anything else.

Finally...

There's no such thing as a "Karas acolyte". The musicians I know who utilize Karas, especially Angelopoulos, are independant, dedicated traditionalists.

Oh, indeed there IS such a thing as a Karas "acolyte". If you don't like the word "acolyte", might I suggest other words such as "disciple", "follower", "supporter"... take your pick. The point is that Angelopoulos, as "independant" and "dedicated" as he may be, chooses to espouse the theories of this one man, Simon Karas, in his work. I think Old Simo knew what he was doing... he wanted to "leave his mark" by creating a controversy. If you ask me, I think we're giving him way too much credence.

Apostolos
 

domesticus

Lupus non curat numerum ovium
Domesticus,

I am sorry that you were disappointed with the specific article. It may give an inaccurate impression that Angelopoulos is concerned with only Karas' work.

But please take notice of the rest of Angelopoulos immense body of work. He has brought critical attention and focus to the chant of Fr. Dionysios Firfiris, Leonidas Sfikas, Konstandinos Mafidis, Stanitsas, Priggos, and countless other favorites. I can't even begin to list the names of all of the chanters and composers (e.g. Koukouzelis) he has highlighted and honored over the years.

Angelopoulos is concerned with more than just Karas. We could agree with that, correct?

Taso

I won't diminish the hard work of L. Angelopoulos especially in the area of choral chanting with the excellent performance of ΕΛΒΥΧ and also the very organized PR, especially abroad. Also, as you said, he promoted the study of the old masters.

But, his initial motivation about the promotion of Karas' views remains and, as I understand it, he shows still great endurance defending the above theories and, I feel sorry saying it, with great indifference to the oral tradition of Megali Ekklisia.
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
Dear Mr. Nassis,

Mr. Combitsis (earlier above) summed up how I was going to respond to you in your post (http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=82176&postcount=28).

In a later post (http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=82182&postcount=31), you write:

"He" [Angleopoulos, I assume?] "has helped me to see great beauty and depth to our music and tradition. His imaginative and creative interpretations never cease to amaze me. For me, he has elevated our sacred artform to higher levels."

You indicate the word tradition in your argument above. Let's consider how that word is defined and what it entails [the Greek word "paradosi" can be defined identically, so I will stay with the Egnlish for the benefit of our non-Greek friends on this side of the forum]:

The word tradition comes from the Latin "traditionem" which is the accusative case of "traditio" which means "handing over, passing on". A tradition is a practice, custom, music or story that is memorized and passed down from generation to generation, originally without the need for a writing system. Tools to aid this process include poetic devices such as rhyme and alliteration. The stories or music thus preserved are also referred to as tradition, or as part of an oral tradition.

Can we agree that the post-Byzantine Eastern Orthodox Church inherited an oral tradition of musical expression of the ecclesiastic poems?

If we can agree on this, then let's move on.

Who learned the oral musical expression to the highest possible competence and skill? Were they the Protopsaltae of the day? If we can agree on this, let's move on.

Who did the Protopsaltae teach? Were they not the most brilliant and the most able students and those that kept intact in form and style what they were taught? If we can agree on this, let's move on.

Tradition in musical expression therefore becomes a linear, unbroken transmission of the corpus of the music from one generation to the other.

If we can agree on this, let's consider the remainder of your suggestion. You write:

"His imaginative and creative interpretations never cease to amaze me."

Here, Mr. Nassis, you have a problem. Imagination and creative interpretation is NOT in line with tradition.

Let's consider the terms "imagination" and "creative interpretation":

"Imagination": Used in the musical context, which also has an empirical and scientific subcontext, imagination refers to the process or the result of theory CREATION and idea CREATION [key term is CREATION here] from conscious or subconscious perceptions based upon an "IF" function to create and revise conscious or subconscious empirical observations or existing hypotheses. Musical imagination permits the UNBOUNDED creation of NEW forms where the objective is the founding of something NOVEL and new. Where musical imagination has as its objective the INTERPRETATION of something already in existence, the new form and hypothesis MUST BE FRAMED IN RELATION TO PREVIOUSLY ASCERTAINED FACTS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES of the ESTABLISHED forms.

You cannot have it both ways Mr. Nassis if you consider your statement from a rational point of view.

Karas and his acolytes are either traditional or they are imaginative and interpretatively creative.

I agree with you that they are VERY imaginative and EXCEPTIONALLY interpretatively creative.

They have INVENTED a NEW SYSTEM OF TONAL RELATIONSHIPS. They have INVENTED a NEW SYSTEM of oral exegesis. They have INVENTED a NEW MANNER of neumatic ornamentation. They have INVENTED NEW RELATIONSHIPS of intertonal attractions.

In this regard, they are pioneers. They have cut themselves off from the intergenerational continuity of the consensus of psaltae and the corpus received and transmitted. Having cut themselves off, and cutting the consensus corpus off, they are burning new territory.

It is imaginative and it is creative.

However, this invention WAS NOT, IS NOT, AND WILL NOT be accepted by the corpus of consensus psaltae who have been REMINDED IN TWO ENCYCLICALS to remain FAITHFUL TO THE CONSENSUS CORPUS AND PRACTICE (and by definition the TRADITION).

Karas and his acolytes are INVENTIVE AND CREATIVELY INVENTIVE.

But, Mr. Nassis, they are in no manner, shape, form or witness - TRADITIONAL.

NG
 
Last edited:

greek487

Tasos N.
You propose a very nice plethora of questions. Unfortunately, I don't think ANY of them have anything to do with what we're talking about!

Mr. Combitsis,

What are "we talking about"? The topic of this thread is "Simon Karas' work and its criticism." Do you see that at the top of your screen?

Every one of my questions has everything to do with the topic at hand. (Should I add an exclamation mark like you did? :cool: )

But you and Mr. Giannoukakis focus on but a small portion of Karas' project (i.e. what you call the Karas method) and leap to categorical non-musicological conclusions of 'heresy'.

Also, which is the "consensus" you and Mr. Giannoukakis claim to represent? Because I see a wide variety of psaltic practice in the world of byzantine music. Now Mr. Giannoukakis is calling the work of Neratzis "utter nonsense". Neratzis has described and documented the interpretive analyses many of the Patriarchal chanters perform. Mr. Giannoukakis, does Hatzimarko not accept the use of analyses either? We simply chant note-by-note in a dry of dry metrophonia?

Mr. Giannoukakis and Mr. Combitsis, you do not represent the Ecumenical Patriarchate and you do not represent the totality of the byzantine music tradition. (That's why I even asked questions relating to Hatzimarkos and Stantisas. Do you really follow their practices, even the non-traditional ones? For my money, Karas is much more traditional. Are you both heretics though? I will deliberate in my chambers and give you my ruling very soon. Afterall, only I am tradition. . . just kidding. . . :p)

In fact, you only represent yourselves, just like each one of us does. You are no different than any other chanter or student of byzantine chant. Abandon your misguided anti-Kara campaign, unless you wish to constantly keep Kara and his traditionalist enterprise in the spotlight. And as scripture teaches, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."

No one has the right to condemn, curse, or anathematize anyone else as a "heretic".


If you ask me, I think we're giving him way too much credence.

Yes, Mr. Combitsis, you are simply showing the reality of what Kara sought to accomplish. In the best way he saw fit, he sought to bring us back to the classical repertoire, back to traditional liturgical practices, back to precise, choral interpretations, back to our traditional roots.

Representing himself,
Tasos Nassis
 
Last edited:

greek487

Tasos N.
I won't diminish the hard work of L. Angelopoulos especially in the area of choral chanting with the excellent performance of ΕΛΒΥΧ and also the very organized PR, especially abroad. Also, as you said, he promoted the study of the old masters.


Domesticus,
Contrary to unfounded rumors, the Greek Byzantine Choir does not have any "organized PR". I can say this categorically because I know from first hand knowledge. All they are is a group of lovers of traditional byzantine music. In fact, I've been begging them for years now to setup an extensive website and hire an agent to assist their efforts.

PR is not the source of the EBX's success. Talent, hard-work, and dedication to tradition is their MO.

Taso
 

greek487

Tasos N.
Γιώργος Μ.;82185 said:
Dear friend, it's the first time I see Hatzimarkos used as sort of a symbol of all anti-traditional practices. Is it just for example's shake? Any way, it's twice unfair I think: a) there is much more than Hatzimarkos opposite Kara's School, b) Hatzimarkos is much more than the anti-traditional practices you mention.

Exactly George. It is for example's sake.

I am not in the business of categorically and unacademically trashing anyone's lifework. Each person acts as s/he sees fit.

But we must recognize untraditional practices regardless of anyone's vocal virtuosity. Tradition is more important than vocal beauty and talent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top