Is Byzantine Notation suitable for chanting in English?
- Thread starter Dimitri
- Start date
herron.samuel
Ieropsaltis
I think it is not only suitable, but should be the primary source for chanting Byzantine Music in English.
I wrote a little article about the pros and cons of using Byzantine notation versus Western notation for Byzantine chant at: http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/music/NotationB.htm
what a fantastic summary frephraim, thanks for the link 
For me the crux of why western notation is incompatible for traditional BM is the issue of modes/scales/tonalities. If a BM piece which is not in a mode that lends itself easily to major/minor interpretation then the western transcription becomes confusing and serves little purpose for someone wanting to perform from it. I think the other important considerations of rhythm/metre and formulaic phrases are secondary as these can often be either worked around, sometimes avoided altogether (you dont technically need time signatures and indeed they are inappropriate at times), or with repetition (Im talking about the phrases here) may become recognisable in western notation as well. But both notation systems were developed specifically for the musics and tonal systems that they describe. I believe that western music doesnt lend itself well to BM transcription either. Try transcribing the melodies of Schoeberg for example and how does BM notation fair with vertical harmony? Im sure it could be "achieved" somehow but would be cumbersome to say the least.
I do however see the educational merits to western transcriptions - even those that cant help but be cumbersome. As we all know western transcriptions open a window into the world of BM for those that cant read BM notation. So this in itself is important.
Now back to the original question: Is BM notation suitable for chanting in English? Let me rephrase it. I think what Dimitri is asking is: How suitable is the English language for Byzantine Chant - given that the melodies were written (not all the time) to suit the words which were in Greek. Thus when translating into English there are many issues to consider and not just the meaning of the text. To keep the music true to its original then the metre of the language/poetry itself is of utmost importance.
So to those members who have translated texts to different languages I ask: How important is this consideration? How difficult is it to remain true to the music whilst also translating the meaning? And does the end result achieve what the original achieves in terms of conveying the poetic nature of the texts and enhancing the "spirituality" of the experience?
Kiriaki
For me the crux of why western notation is incompatible for traditional BM is the issue of modes/scales/tonalities. If a BM piece which is not in a mode that lends itself easily to major/minor interpretation then the western transcription becomes confusing and serves little purpose for someone wanting to perform from it. I think the other important considerations of rhythm/metre and formulaic phrases are secondary as these can often be either worked around, sometimes avoided altogether (you dont technically need time signatures and indeed they are inappropriate at times), or with repetition (Im talking about the phrases here) may become recognisable in western notation as well. But both notation systems were developed specifically for the musics and tonal systems that they describe. I believe that western music doesnt lend itself well to BM transcription either. Try transcribing the melodies of Schoeberg for example and how does BM notation fair with vertical harmony? Im sure it could be "achieved" somehow but would be cumbersome to say the least.
I do however see the educational merits to western transcriptions - even those that cant help but be cumbersome. As we all know western transcriptions open a window into the world of BM for those that cant read BM notation. So this in itself is important.
Now back to the original question: Is BM notation suitable for chanting in English? Let me rephrase it. I think what Dimitri is asking is: How suitable is the English language for Byzantine Chant - given that the melodies were written (not all the time) to suit the words which were in Greek. Thus when translating into English there are many issues to consider and not just the meaning of the text. To keep the music true to its original then the metre of the language/poetry itself is of utmost importance.
So to those members who have translated texts to different languages I ask: How important is this consideration? How difficult is it to remain true to the music whilst also translating the meaning? And does the end result achieve what the original achieves in terms of conveying the poetic nature of the texts and enhancing the "spirituality" of the experience?
Kiriaki
herron.samuel
Ieropsaltis
what a fantastic summary frephraim, thanks for the link
Now back to the original question: Is BM notation suitable for chanting in English? Let me rephrase it. I think what Dimitri is asking is: How suitable is the English language for Byzantine Chant - given that the melodies were written (not all the time) to suit the words which were in Greek.
Kiriaki
I would say to this that English is as compatible with Byzantine Music as any other language BM is commonly used in. Arabic isn't even read in the right direction to use with Byzantine Notation yet it is done. Romanian has a beautiful Byzantine Music tradition. Holy Transfiguration Monastery I believe has proven with their translations the poetry aspect can be maintained to a certain degree. While it may not keep all of the poetic value of the original Greek, I doubt any of the other languages of Orthodoxy do either. I also think that Papa Ephraim's work proves how Byzantine music and its formulas can be applied to English. I feel in the field of both translation and composition enough has been proven to show that both can be done more than adequately in English. In fact, if the paths that are being taken now in the field of Byzantine music in English continue, in 20 years every piece needed for having a strong English BM tradition will be available and well translated.
Well, I'm not nearly as experienced in Byzanitne notation as everyone else, but I think it's definitely suitable for English.
Even though I'm an 'American' ie: western, for some reason I've never quite gotten staff notation. I find it difficult and complicated to read in all but the simpliest hymns...I don't know a C from an F sharp, and even though I've learned a little more about it over the last few years, I still simply don't "get" it. However Byzantine notation, once I got past that initial "huh?" period, which granted took a few months, is now much, much easier for me to comprehend. I have no problem "thinking" in the language of byzantine notation, and for me, it's just much easier...maybe because my brain comprehends differently, I really don't know.
Granted I can't have in depth conversations about the notation, I'm just not that experienced at this point, and I probably can't even remember all the names of the notes, but I know what each symbol means and what I'm supposed to do with it. It totally works for me. Maybe I'm just wired differently or something. But it works in English very well. Of course not everyone is going to learn byzantine notation, but for those willing, I see no problem in using it.
Even though I'm an 'American' ie: western, for some reason I've never quite gotten staff notation. I find it difficult and complicated to read in all but the simpliest hymns...I don't know a C from an F sharp, and even though I've learned a little more about it over the last few years, I still simply don't "get" it. However Byzantine notation, once I got past that initial "huh?" period, which granted took a few months, is now much, much easier for me to comprehend. I have no problem "thinking" in the language of byzantine notation, and for me, it's just much easier...maybe because my brain comprehends differently, I really don't know.
Granted I can't have in depth conversations about the notation, I'm just not that experienced at this point, and I probably can't even remember all the names of the notes, but I know what each symbol means and what I'm supposed to do with it. It totally works for me. Maybe I'm just wired differently or something. But it works in English very well. Of course not everyone is going to learn byzantine notation, but for those willing, I see no problem in using it.
saltypsalti
Παλαιό Μέλος
Thanks Tennessee Sam! This is really the divide between HTM's translational skills and the music that been coming out of that institution in the past (which have largely been the product of the musical biases of one person --there are new minds at work at HTM which are changing some of these old biases -results to be determined). Fr. Pachomios, the arch-translator there, is not only an excellent translator, but also a skilled poet (with a dry sense of humour that sometimes has made its way into some of the text recently, of the Menaion), and deliberately lends itself (at least IMHO) to the general meter of chanted Byzantine music in its original language. I was told, particularly in their latest edition, this was part of their intent. Fr. P is not a chanter there, and simply goes directly the meter of the written text.
Making the final chanted product (to coin a term) "work" convincingly, requires a certain amount of "pluckiness" and cleverness on the part of both the translator, as well as the music arranger who is adapting the hymn tune from one language to another and a willingness to "go on beyond zebra" so to speak with respects to well loved Greek melodies, while making them "sound" intact and yet respect the text. Perhaps that is the advantage of having us "xeni" learn the rules, and then apply them to our native language. We simply don't have prejudices that have lead to stretching out English text into Greek melodies.
Enough blustering on my part.
π. Δαβίδ
Γενικός συντονιστής
Though the prerservation of the original Greek meter is very suitable for me (should I chant in English), I am not totally persuaded that it is the best solution. The other Orthodox national Churches (Romanians, Arabs etc) did not adopt this solution as a rule but only in exceptional circumstances (eg the Romanians for the Epitafios Encomia).
Of course another major problem when it comes to English is many translations, many jurisdictions etc.
The other Orthodox national Churches (Romanians, Arabs etc) did not adopt this solution as a rule but only in exceptional circumstances (eg the Romanians for the Epitafios Encomia).Of course another major problem when it comes to English is many translations, many jurisdictions etc.
saltypsalti
Παλαιό Μέλος
So much for me stopping my blustering
This is a crux of a vociferous argument I have been having with one of my female helpers --staff notation was the brain child, originally, of Guido of Arrezo largely to expand the range and ability of written music to record any melody, whereas the "Byzantine" notation in many ways, actually restricts the melodist/composer to a limited body of musical figures and doesn't really work outside of that. Additionally, western notation has no way to cope with the classical ornamentation beyond the recording of a structural melody-one of my favourite examples is the oligon/kentemata/psifiston followed by two plus descents, which has multiple (3 or 4 in my admittedly Karas biased schooling) realizations, depending on the school, outside of a literal reading of the figure. An experienced chanter could read western notation and read these figures in, but it means nothing in and of itself to the Byzantine illiterate reading a staff score.
Beyond recording a basic melody, the two systems grossly diverge. I find that western notation, as Kiriaki has implied, can actually muddy the waters.
Pray for me --today July 2 (NS June 17 OS) is my nameday -St. John of San Franciso
John, the salty protopsalti
Maria Juliane
New member
Well, when I'm chanting in English, I like to use Western staff notation and when I'm chanting in Greek, I like to use Byzantine notation. That's just how I find it easier to read. There seems to be the idea among Byzantine enthusiasts that staff notation is overly precise, rigid and it's difficult to see patterns. Not for a folk musician, nor for an experienced sight reader. On the other hand, it's helpful to have the phthora of the tone/mode, even on staff notation (as St Anthony's do) for alerting you to temporary scale changes coming up. Cappella Romana's multi-notation is great - including one easy-read melodic line of staff, another with all the twiddles and frills - a great teaching aid! I do agree with frephraim that Byzantine is quicker to write in shorthand. But staff makes it much easier to see the forthcoming range of the piece, which helps in a decision about where to pitch your first note. Learning microtones comes aurally, I think, rather than theoretically.
Pappous43
Παλαιό Μέλος
Well, it all depends on how one wants to sing Byzantine Music (B.M.):
The simplest way to sing it, is like straight staff music as performed by a piano etc with absolutely "flat" notes, e.g. the natural Ke (La) would be a flat sound fixed on 440Hz. Period. In that case, staff music (in the West) is the natural notation to use. We forget the exact intervals for the moment.
On the other hand, one might want to sing it like the widely accepted beautiful traditional chanters (psaltai), some of them from recordings of the previous century, or other chanters of our time. The accepted beautiful traditional B.M. interpretation uses practically no flat notes. Each note has a non linear pitch depending on the orthography of the note e.g. petasti, antikenoma, psifiston, vareia, klasma, kentimata. The exact interpretation of these neumes depends on the length of the note and on the chanter's personal style within some limits. It would be a very tedious (if not practically impossible) task to properly write and use these detailed interpretations in staff music, and what about the exact intervals? In this case, then, the natural thing to do seems to be the use of the Byzantine notation.
By way of illustrating (in 2017) what we are talking about, I examined the beautiful interpretations of a specific hymn by five well known and accepted chanters (Stanitsas,Emmanouilidis,Fortomas,Karampasis,Vasilikos, plus BZQ parallagi and flat) and I produced the spectral views:
https://bzquality.wordpress.com/ὓφος/
You will see that most notes have an elaborated analysis, including a kind of varying vibrato.
Each of the five chanters has taken the freedom of his own qualitative analysis as well as tempo. To quote Britannica (1951):
"...the total effect is a rather lively and melodious recitative rather than a tune in the modern sense".
The last part of the first colour image is a flat interpretation by the BZQ software, using a midi violin sound. The case before that, is also generated by BZQ and includes a "typical" qualitative analysis (style Y4), and using a built-in human (pre-recorded) voice of chanter "FCHAR", plus portamento.
By the way, BZQ examines the score and calculates/advises "where to pitch your first note".
It also calculates and lists an approximate score in Western notes.
The simplest way to sing it, is like straight staff music as performed by a piano etc with absolutely "flat" notes, e.g. the natural Ke (La) would be a flat sound fixed on 440Hz. Period. In that case, staff music (in the West) is the natural notation to use. We forget the exact intervals for the moment.
On the other hand, one might want to sing it like the widely accepted beautiful traditional chanters (psaltai), some of them from recordings of the previous century, or other chanters of our time. The accepted beautiful traditional B.M. interpretation uses practically no flat notes. Each note has a non linear pitch depending on the orthography of the note e.g. petasti, antikenoma, psifiston, vareia, klasma, kentimata. The exact interpretation of these neumes depends on the length of the note and on the chanter's personal style within some limits. It would be a very tedious (if not practically impossible) task to properly write and use these detailed interpretations in staff music, and what about the exact intervals? In this case, then, the natural thing to do seems to be the use of the Byzantine notation.
By way of illustrating (in 2017) what we are talking about, I examined the beautiful interpretations of a specific hymn by five well known and accepted chanters (Stanitsas,Emmanouilidis,Fortomas,Karampasis,Vasilikos, plus BZQ parallagi and flat) and I produced the spectral views:
https://bzquality.wordpress.com/ὓφος/
You will see that most notes have an elaborated analysis, including a kind of varying vibrato.
Each of the five chanters has taken the freedom of his own qualitative analysis as well as tempo. To quote Britannica (1951):
"...the total effect is a rather lively and melodious recitative rather than a tune in the modern sense".
The last part of the first colour image is a flat interpretation by the BZQ software, using a midi violin sound. The case before that, is also generated by BZQ and includes a "typical" qualitative analysis (style Y4), and using a built-in human (pre-recorded) voice of chanter "FCHAR", plus portamento.
By the way, BZQ examines the score and calculates/advises "where to pitch your first note".
It also calculates and lists an approximate score in Western notes.
Last edited:
Maria Juliane
New member
Forgive me, but I've never heard anyone sound like a piano, nor any expressive human voice fixed on 440Hz. Perhaps you could prove me wrong?
Last edited by a moderator:
Pappous43
Παλαιό Μέλος
You are absolutely right.
I am terribly sorry and I apologize for the crude and rude example
of the piano. After all, the piano cannot pronounce any syllable
and it uses strings and not a human vocal chord. I first thought
of using the example of a violin, but then I thought it was too
good because it can have vibrato. You see, I wanted to
establish that, at one extreme, one could sing as mechanically as
possible, like (almost!) some kind of instrument, you name it.
Again you are right, strictly speaking the human voice does have
an automatic built-in kind of vibrato even if it is 1 morion (1/72 of octave)
or less.
If you agree, let's not get stuck with the secondary and
unfortunate example of the piano.
My primary "thesis" is that Byzantine Notation, including the neume sequence/orthography,
is more helpful (than staff notation) to us to do the
Byzantine embellishments AND intervals.
It seems that the B.M. embellishment neumes work very efficiently in a intuitive or mnemonic way.
I couldn't agree more with Thomas hereabove.
At the end of the day, this is just my humble 2-cent-worth personal opinion.
I am terribly sorry and I apologize for the crude and rude example
of the piano. After all, the piano cannot pronounce any syllable
and it uses strings and not a human vocal chord. I first thought
of using the example of a violin, but then I thought it was too
good because it can have vibrato. You see, I wanted to
establish that, at one extreme, one could sing as mechanically as
possible, like (almost!) some kind of instrument, you name it.
Again you are right, strictly speaking the human voice does have
an automatic built-in kind of vibrato even if it is 1 morion (1/72 of octave)
or less.
If you agree, let's not get stuck with the secondary and
unfortunate example of the piano.
My primary "thesis" is that Byzantine Notation, including the neume sequence/orthography,
is more helpful (than staff notation) to us to do the
Byzantine embellishments AND intervals.
It seems that the B.M. embellishment neumes work very efficiently in a intuitive or mnemonic way.
I couldn't agree more with Thomas hereabove.
At the end of the day, this is just my humble 2-cent-worth personal opinion.
Last edited:
Maria Juliane
New member
Well, my apologies too, because the 'piano' example is perfectly understandable, although I question it (on timbre, rather than pitch). Much post-Renaissance Western music (particularly of the 18th and 19th centuries) has aspired to precise use of its "well-tempered" pitches, even for the human voice and, even today, many people admire virtuosic performances of sung arpeggios, etc. Singing at exact pitches isn't at all simple, though. It takes quite a lot of training and 'flatness' is more often used to describe a failure to reach the desired pitch through lack of skill. Limiting the range of sound frequencies of any given note is more usually described as 'purity' of tone, rather than 'flatness'. Going along that line, I could suggest a moog synthesiser as a piano substitute - except who can listen to one of those monotonous instruments for more than quarter of an hour at a time? (or St Anthony's sound files - I can barely manage more than 5 minutes with one of those!)
I was trying to say that Western staff notation does not have to be used like that and frequently isn't - jazz, rock, flamenco, klezmer (which specifically imitates the sound of the human voice) and many other folk styles that incorporate the 'bending' of notes, as well as looser timings, are traditionally written in Western staff notation. People who play in those styles play acceptably and indeed beautifully, true to those traditions, from Western staff notation without getting hung up on 'piano' notes or any of the classical rigidity that seems to be assumed by many Byzantine chanters to be a necessary corollary of reading staff notation. I can vouch for the fact that it is just as possible to sing 'rigidly' from (neo-)Byzantine notation as it is from Western notation. Our (Greek Cypriot) chant teacher often stops someone in our class (also all Greek Cypriots except for me), saying, "Yes, yes. I know you can all read the music but I want to hear some chanting!" - and then demonstrates the piece with great expressiveness.
I see notation primarily as an aide-memoire and no substitute for learning the aural sounds, in whatever tradition. Of course Byzantine notation works well for neo-Byzantine music in any language written left to right (I can't vouch for Chinese or Arabic) - that's what it's designed for. But, as an aide-memoire, I have yet to be persuaded that Western staff notation is inferior, especially if they read it with fluency and (this is probably the crux) when they have access to a good chanting teacher, as I am lucky enough to have. Western notation can write in the embellishments or not (as I mentioned with Cappella Romana's scores) but, without a teacher, it would be hard to know about them in neo-Byzantine notation.
And that's my ha'penny's worth (as we say over here in England)
God bless all
I was trying to say that Western staff notation does not have to be used like that and frequently isn't - jazz, rock, flamenco, klezmer (which specifically imitates the sound of the human voice) and many other folk styles that incorporate the 'bending' of notes, as well as looser timings, are traditionally written in Western staff notation. People who play in those styles play acceptably and indeed beautifully, true to those traditions, from Western staff notation without getting hung up on 'piano' notes or any of the classical rigidity that seems to be assumed by many Byzantine chanters to be a necessary corollary of reading staff notation. I can vouch for the fact that it is just as possible to sing 'rigidly' from (neo-)Byzantine notation as it is from Western notation. Our (Greek Cypriot) chant teacher often stops someone in our class (also all Greek Cypriots except for me), saying, "Yes, yes. I know you can all read the music but I want to hear some chanting!" - and then demonstrates the piece with great expressiveness.
I see notation primarily as an aide-memoire and no substitute for learning the aural sounds, in whatever tradition. Of course Byzantine notation works well for neo-Byzantine music in any language written left to right (I can't vouch for Chinese or Arabic) - that's what it's designed for. But, as an aide-memoire, I have yet to be persuaded that Western staff notation is inferior, especially if they read it with fluency and (this is probably the crux) when they have access to a good chanting teacher, as I am lucky enough to have. Western notation can write in the embellishments or not (as I mentioned with Cappella Romana's scores) but, without a teacher, it would be hard to know about them in neo-Byzantine notation.
And that's my ha'penny's worth (as we say over here in England)
God bless all
Pappous43
Παλαιό Μέλος
It has been shown that, at the end of the day, what is significant in performance (in various disciplines) is not the choice of the tool/instrument/language/notation being used, but rather how much experience the user has in that choice.
Therefore it seems fair to say that, if you have a lot of experience in staff notation and I have a little experience in B.M. notation, the chances are that you will sing something (including prima vista) much better than me.
Having said that, with some people like Thomas above and myself, it has happened that B.M.notation proved to be more intuitive than staff notation. But again the sample of two people is not sufficient for a valid general conclusion.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I used the word "flat" technically, in the spectral sense, ie meaning a "flat" Herz line, thus fixed pitch, no connotation of "failure".
I am sorry I did not realise that you are based in England. One of my daughters lives there and goes to Church in Walsall, with husband and children. I also know the Church in Shrewsbury and some other places. In Shrewsbury they (used to) sing "Holy God", Mode 1, Byzantine, VERY beautiful!. They learned it in staff notation!
Therefore it seems fair to say that, if you have a lot of experience in staff notation and I have a little experience in B.M. notation, the chances are that you will sing something (including prima vista) much better than me.
Having said that, with some people like Thomas above and myself, it has happened that B.M.notation proved to be more intuitive than staff notation. But again the sample of two people is not sufficient for a valid general conclusion.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I used the word "flat" technically, in the spectral sense, ie meaning a "flat" Herz line, thus fixed pitch, no connotation of "failure".
I am sorry I did not realise that you are based in England. One of my daughters lives there and goes to Church in Walsall, with husband and children. I also know the Church in Shrewsbury and some other places. In Shrewsbury they (used to) sing "Holy God", Mode 1, Byzantine, VERY beautiful!. They learned it in staff notation!
Last edited:
Maria Juliane
New member
Really? Because that's the conclusion I reached but most people I meet don't seem to agree with me. Is there some research on this, then, that you could point me to?
Last edited by a moderator:
Maria Juliane
New member
No offence taken from your use of 'flat' but I don't think it's technically correct. If you look up dictionary definitions of 'flat' (used as an adjective in the context of music) you will find the definition: "lower in pitch", whereas 'pure tone' is defined as "having single frequency and no overtones", which I think is what you mean. Also 'flat' in the context of pure tone tends to have the connotation of 'flat-lining' - as when a heart monitor indicates death!
Last edited:
Maria Juliane
New member
It's possible I know your daughter - I have close links with Walsall Church (and Fr Stephen from Shrewsbury). Presbytera Georgina was the person who gave me indispensable support when I was first asked to start chanting entire Divine Liturgy services in English at Birmingham Cathedral about two years ago.
Last edited:
Maria Juliane
New member
I have to admit I'm probably over-defensive because I have a very good and very dedicated chant teacher from the London Byzantine School of Music, who (in normal times) travels hundreds of miles every week to provide lessons over the whole southern half of England and teaches the entire up-coming generation of chanters of the Greek church that English chanting is rubbish and should not be set to Byzantine music. He has fairly frequent rants about this during lesson times but our new Archbishop wants English elements in the Greek services, so he has been required to make some concessions - like modifying his rants with apologies about being too old to change and agreeing to explain liturgics in English, since he knows some of us are under obedience to chant in English. To this day, not one of the hundreds of fluent English speakers in my church is prepared to chant in English with me (or even consider learning to), although they are happy to chant antiphonally or separately in Greek (which works fine, actually).