Objective, software-based comparative microtonal analysis of the Soft Chromatic Tetrachord

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#1
To all interested:

For a significant time, many chanters, musicians and musicologists studying the historical and practical aspects of tonal theory, interval analysis and microtonality in Byzantine Music and its relation to vocal tradition, have yearned for a systematic and scientific comparison among the tonal intervals of the Patriarchal Musical Committee of 1881, Chrysanthos of Madyta and the very recent phenomenon of the "Karas Method".

Specifically, a need existed to reconcile vocal practice and historical audio data with the theory of the intervals. This need was made more acute by the recent propositions of the proponents of the "Karas Method" that vocal tradition is not in line with the interval theory of the 1881 Patriarchal Committee or of Chrysanthos. Rather, the proponents of the "Karas Method" argue that only Karas was correct, using arguments, intervals and "scales" in his two-volume treatise, which forms the backbone of their overall reconsideration of Byzantine Music Theory and Practice.

Towards resolving this issue, a committee of chantors, musicians, musicologists and scientists has been convened. Using state of the art microtonality software that analyse sound and that reproduce tonal intervals in the context of "test melodies", we have reproduced "test" musical manuscripts using the intervals of the respective Tone (tetrachords, pentachords, etc) of the 1881 Committee, Chrysanthos, and those of the "Karas Method".

In parallel, we have analysed vocal performances of "test" melodies by Iakovos Naypliotis and proponents of the "Karas Method" in order to determine the proximity of the inter-pitch intervals to the intervals of the 1881 Committee, Chrysanthos and the "Karas Method".

We have used the software MELODOS (http://www.melodos.com/index2.htm) as well as Sonic Audio Analysis (http://www.sonicvisualiser.org/) in our project.

We now show the first outcome of our research whose first question was which of three post-Byzantine interval representations of the Soft Chromatic Tetrachord is closer to the vocal tradition of the last 60 years using the "classic" Trisagion as the "test" melody. We compared the performance of the test melody by the MELODOS software using the intervals of the 1881 Committee, Chrysanthos (published in his 1832 Theory) and those of the "Karas Method".

As we supply the outcome (the data) further below, we conclude the following:

1) The intervals of the 1881 Committee are closer to the vocal tradition of performance of the Soft Chromatic Tetrachord compared to the intervals proposed by the "Karas Method". Very soon we will provide the data comparing the proximity of Iakovos Naypliotis' inter-pitch intervals to those of the 1881 Committee, Chrysanthos and the "Karas Method" using a series of "test" melodies.

2) The interval with an integer value of "16" which the "Karas Method" proposes as representative of the "soft chromatic" inter-tone is incompatible with the vocal performance (at least 60 years of) of the soft chromatic tetrachord. Astoundingly, analysing the vocal execution of the Di-Ke-Zo intervals by representatives of the "Karas Method", there is no proximity in their vocal execution to the interval that they champion (16).

3) The intervals that comprise the so-called "homologous diphony" of the soft chromatic generum (Vou-Ga-Di and Di-Ke-Zo) as presented by Chrysanthos are compatible with vocal practice and witness to the last 60 years of psaltic execution of Second Tone Soft Chromatic.

We conclude that the tonal intervals of the soft chromatic generum as proposed by the Patriarchal Musical Committee of 1881 are closer and more representative of the vocal execution and performance of Second Tone Soft Chromatic and we sensitise all interested individuals in tonal theory of Byzantine Music to consider using microtonal synthesis software like MELODOS and wave analysis software like Sonic Audio Analysis for comparative investigation towards reconciling psaltic tradition with musical tonal theory.

Importantly, we sensitise all chantors and musicians that the "Karas Method" as concerns the Soft Chromatic Tetrachord is incompatible with vocal tradition and analysis of the pitch waypoints of a melody in the Soft Chromatic as performed by the oldest psaltai on audio witness (i.e. Naypliotis and chantors of the period between 1940-1980).

On behalf of the Working Group,

NG

We append the following supporting sound files:


1) Ps_Hel_Trisagion_Archaion_Karas_Equal_Fifths_72ET_ 08_16_06_12.mp3
Reproduction of the test melody ("Classic Trisagion in Second Tone") using the intervals proposed by the "Karas Method" in the MELODOS software (8, 16, 6)

2)Ps_Hel_Trisagion_Archaion_Melodos_Epitropi_Equal _Fifths_72ET_08_14_08_12.mp3
Reproduction of the test melody ("Classic Trisagion in Second Tone") using the intervals proposed by the 1881 Committee in the MELODOS software (8, 14, 8)

3)Ps_Hel_Trisagion_Archaion_Melodos_Epitropi_Equal _Fifths_Fractions_KLASMATA.mp3
Reproduction of the test melody ("Classic Trisagion in Second Tone") using the actual fractions (ratios) proposed by the 1881 Committee in the MELODOS software

4) Ps_Hel_Trisagion_Archaion_Other_72_ET_Equal_Thirds _09_12.mp3
Reproduction of the test melody ("Classic Trisagion in Second Tone") using the "homologous diphony" as shown in Chrysanthos in the MELODOS software (9, 12)

5) Ps_Hel_Trisagion_Archaion_Melodos.pdf
The music in Byzantine Notation that served as the test file.

For this announcement in Greek refer to http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=79964&postcount=1
 

Attachments

Last edited:

saltypsalti

Παλαιό Μέλος
#2
I really wish someone would address the problem those of us who love traditional chant in HOCNA face with other extreme of elminating the entire soft chromatic genre and shoving 2nd and Hiermologic Pl 2 into G Major. There are heresies and then there are heresies. I realize HOCNA and GOC are characterized as being "do your own thing" but many of us do love the tradition and regard as being sons of that tradition, regardless of our relationship with the current occupant of the throne.
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#4
My pleasure John,

If you are following the Greek thread on the matter, you will see that, after the provision of the sound evidence, there is a deafening silence from the proponents of the "Karas Method".

John Arvanitis who, although he started with the movement, has parted ways and has his own independent line of thought which he presents very well and although his conclusion is that the soft chromatic tetrachord should be 12-9-9 (which we will test soon), at least he agrees that it is NOT the Karaitic 8-16-6 (!)

This is what many have been saying for years against the Karas Method, to deaf ears, but now with sound analysis and microtonal production of music, there is no room for the Karas Movement to wiggle.

With time, we hope that those proponents will return to the traditional way of chanting with historically-accurate tonal intervals.

Facts are facts, and the data are the data.

NG
 

Laosynaktis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#6
My pleasure John,

If you are following the Greek thread on the matter, you will see that, after the provision of the sound evidence, there is a deafening silence from the proponents of the "Karas Method".

John Arvanitis who, although he started with the movement, has parted ways and has his own independent line of thought which he presents very well and although his conclusion is that the soft chromatic tetrachord should be 12-9-9 (which we will test soon), at least he agrees that it is NOT the Karaitic 8-16-6 (!)

This is what many have been saying for years against the Karas Method, to deaf ears, but now with sound analysis and microtonal production of music, there is no room for the Karas Movement to wiggle.

With time, we hope that those proponents will return to the traditional way of chanting with historically-accurate tonal intervals.

Facts are facts, and the data are the data.

NG
I didn't say this, Mr Giannoukakis!!! Simply, you probably did not read my article. You saw only the last line where I say that 12-9-9 are the intervals of soft diatonic. I wrote also a message in Greek about the same thing, Sorry, didn't you see this? And I said that I agree with the intervals 8-14-8. Didn't you see this, too? Sorry, but I expected that you were more careful.

Ioannis Arvanitis

PS. Sorry again, but if you are going to make an unprejudiced research, you don't need to be so aggressive against Karas or anyone else.
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#8
Dear Mr. Arvanitis,

I have some reservations about some of the propositions you make in your article, but that is for another time in a more specialised discussion...

For now, let me quote you and ask some questions, just so we can both be clear about your precise intent:

1) You state that you "agree with the intervals 8-14-8"

2) I assume are are referring to the soft chromatic tetrachord here, so we can be on the same denominator?

3) If this is correct, you do know that the Karas method advocates 7-16-7 (rounded from the fractions 15/14 - 7/6 - 16/15, respectively), and another proponent of the Karas method (Konstantinou) goes further to advocate 8-16-6 as representing the soft chromatic tetrachord, yes?

4) therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that you do NOT agree with Karas' representation of the soft chromatic tetrachord.....

Perhaps I should have been this deliberate in my discussion....

Now, as for the unprejudiced research, our sound files are as unprejudiced as can be. If you can identify problems with the respective tonal intervals, please upload sound files of your own in rebuttal. The conclusions one makes FROM THE SOUND FILES (i.e. the person's ear) is that the Karas intervals DO NOT REPRESENT the traditional performance (i.e. 60 years of acoustic and recorded music) of the musical mansucript we supplied. If you find recorded material between 1940-1970 that represents something different, I would love to hear it and see it and then to analyse it with wave analysis software.

You see Mr. Arvanitis, when a certain viewpoint throws out historically-untenable sophistry, those of us who criticise it are ostracised into silence. When we present evidence refuting the sophistry, we are threatened, we are screamed at but the ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT DOES NOT MEET US WITH LIKE EVIDENCE!!!!! They do not submit sound files, they do not submit waveforms. Nothing. They simply preach from a high loft as if THEY are the only experts.

At the end of the day we have to make a conclusion: Either 60 years of acoustic tradition of hundreds of psaltae is WRONG and one man was RIGHT and his followers today represent historically-accurate and authentic Byzantine Chant, or the converse. What does your common sense and your research tell you?

NG
 
Last edited:

antonios

Αετόπουλος Αντώνιος
#9
My pleasure John,

If you are following the Greek thread on the matter, you will see that, after the provision of the sound evidence, there is a deafening silence from the proponents of the "Karas Method".



Facts are facts, and the data are the data.

NG
There are already 39 messages there discussing the matter calmly finding common ground or points for debate.

Facts are facts, and the data are the data and that is the good thing, but please don't try to crate impressions Mr Giannoukakis. I wish ALL of them would post their messages here!
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#10
I don;t make impressions Mr. Aetopoulos. Also, please don't misrepresent the 39 comments in the Greek discussion. Those 39 comments relate to whether fractions or integers should be used in generating sound files, which fractions and integers represent parts of the soft chromatic, the effect of rounding fractions into whole numbers and overall a detailed and incisive discussion on INTERVALS of the soft chromatic.

The Greek discussion has NOT refuted the conclusions rendered by the original sound files. In that Greek discussion you made some very abstract comments in an apparent effort to dissolve and distract from the sound files and their implication.

The sound files (identical to those above in the first post) make the conclusions and the pronouncements on what is historically-tenable and what is untenable.....

If you have data refuting our sound files, please upload.

NG
 
Last edited:

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#11
I really wish someone would address the problem those of us who love traditional chant in HOCNA face with other extreme of elminating the entire soft chromatic genre and shoving 2nd and Hiermologic Pl 2 into G Major. There are heresies and then there are heresies. I realize HOCNA and GOC are characterized as being "do your own thing" but many of us do love the tradition and regard as being sons of that tradition, regardless of our relationship with the current occupant of the throne.
John, I did not target HOCNA the entity. I respect each jurisdiction. I questioned the people who are going to TEACH your program in Carlisle, PA based on what I HEARD on their website.

You also note: "elminating the entire soft chromatic genre and shoving 2nd and Hiermologic Pl 2 into G Major"

Well, the problem is that the soft chromatic generum is NOT G-major. Whoever is promoting this concept does not understand Byzantine Chant. Period.

The soft chromatic (Second Tone and PL. 2nd eirmologic) is real and it has characteristics. It is NOT G-major.

NG
 

saltypsalti

Παλαιό Μέλος
#12
John, I did not target HOCNA the entity. I respect each jurisdiction. I questioned the people who are going to TEACH your program in Carlisle, PA based on what I HEARD on their website.

You also note: "elminating the entire soft chromatic genre and shoving 2nd and Hiermologic Pl 2 into G Major"

Well, the problem is that the soft chromatic generum is NOT G-major. Whoever is promoting this concept does not understand Byzantine Chant. Period.

The soft chromatic (Second Tone and PL. 2nd eirmologic) is real and it has characteristics. It is NOT G-major.

NG
I apologize --I am very busy, and these threads can be a little difficult to follow at times.

In regards to 2nd and 3rd Paragraph -I know that, you know that, and more importantly the "whoever" who is promoting this in Boston KNOWS this and promotes his views anyway under the auspice of his authority in our jurisdiction. Safe to say this view is being countered.
 
#13
Dear Nick,

I, too, do not use the intervals that Karas put forth in his method for the soft-chromatic 2nd mode. It is interesting to note, however, that in Γεώργιος Κωνσταντίνου's textbook (as many problems as there are with it), he has (approximately) Karas's intervals for the 2nd mode, but the more common intervals of 8-14-8 for soft-chromatic Λἐγετος. This is the scale that I use and teach for all of the soft-chromatic scales. The lower ζω (and βου) is what I believe makes the soft-chromatic scale "soft," and is what is common between the soft-chromatic and soft-diatonic scales.

I am mostly silent on this forum because I dislike the un-Christian manner with which so many feel the need to participate. When there are specific questions and issues which I can address, I will do so.

ciao,
JMB
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#14
Dear Nick,

I, too, do not use the intervals that Karas put forth in his method for the soft-chromatic 2nd mode. It is interesting to note, however, that in Γεώργιος Κωνσταντίνου's textbook (as many problems as there are with it), he has (approximately) Karas's intervals for the 2nd mode, but the more common intervals of 8-14-8 for soft-chromatic Λἐγετος. This is the scale that I use and teach for all of the soft-chromatic scales. The lower ζω (and βου) is what I believe makes the soft-chromatic scale "soft," and is what is common between the soft-chromatic and soft-diatonic scales.

I am mostly silent on this forum because I dislike the un-Christian manner with which so many feel the need to participate. When there are specific questions and issues which I can address, I will do so.

ciao,
JMB
Dear John,

If Konstantinou (or anyone) calls the 8-14-8 intervals as belonging to legetos then they either dont know what they are doing, are unread, or they had better go back to the first year of study of the 5 year beginners course in Greece!


Legetos, according to the classic Theory texts belongs to the Diatonic and specifically it is a variant of fourth tone eirmologic. Listen to old man Syrkas (who was a direct student of Polychronios Pacheidis and Nileas Kamarados) describe how legetos got its name and its characteristics here (http://www.analogion.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=23806&d=1265330389). Pacheidis and Kamarados were among the most learned of theorists in the late 1800s and participated in the various Musical Committees and Schools in Constantinople. Syrkas got this information from both. So, either Nileas and Pacheidis (and by extension Syrkas) did not know what they were talking about, or modern day revisionists are clueless and are....well.....revising arbitrarily.

How can one justify calling legetos chromatic when, for example "Anoixw to Stoma Mou" and similar katavasies as well as the canons with eirmoi belonging to legetos, exhibit a flat on Zw? and why such melodies end on Pa in the context of a typical diatonic 12-10-8 tetrachord in their tentative endings (enteleis katalixis)?

Try this to convince yourself: get a copy of Sonic Visualizer (it';s free; http://www.sonicvisualiser.org/). Analyse the performance of Naypliotis (assuming we agree that he is the most faithful to what BM sounded like between the late 1800s and early 1900s) on legetos. Pick out his notes and then transpose them to intervals (equal temperament 72 or 68) and tell me that they represent CHROMATIC intervals of any sort. Do the same with the older chantors (recordings from the 40s-70s).

Whoever is peddling legetos as chromatic better go back to year 1.

In the past year, a number of folks, including myself, have gone over a LOT of Karas' scales, his sharps/flats with the most objective methods available: microtonality software that plays back byzantine music text according to the value of the intervals among notes. We have also analysed a number of vocal performances of Karas' acolytes with Sound Visualizer to see the specific pitches that they hit, followed by a transformation of those data to Byzantine intervals to compare how close they are to the Karas intervals, the 1881 committee intervals, Chrysanthos, or if they hit none of the above.

The results are not encouraging at all for those who want to sacrifice their credibility defending Karas......

God endowed every person with a vocal talent. Some more, some less. God also endowed humans with the ability to reason logically and to consider that even though we hold convictions, the data and facts may not always support our convictions.

If we become frustrated and use colorful language in these fora, it's because the Karas movement has misrepresented and perverted many historically-accurate views and theories (and practices) and has even gone on to, I dare say, fabricate history to justify their more outlandish claims and practices.

Until 1982, the world of Byzantine Chant (and chantors) was congruent on theoretical grounds. Paleography was studied and analysed where it should be, in academic discourse. Not forced upon the analogion with outlandish interpretations of some neumes. The soft chromatic was the soft chromatic and the diatonic was the diatonic. Legetos was legetos and no one questioned that. Then in 1982, along comes one person who decides that he and his mentor know everything and 60+ years of history and tradition suddenly for them and his students became irrelevant.

Would you not be frustrated?

NG.
 
Last edited:
#15
Ὄχι, Καλέ.

Perhaps you should take a moment and consider things before responding so quickly. When I (or anyone) says "soft-chromatic Λέγετος," I mean the mode and scale to which we sing those melodies of the Fourth Mode which are soft-chromatic: Apolytikia, Kontakia, Kathismata. This is not the same as simply Λέγετος, which of course is soft-diatonic.

CALM DOWN and actually consider what people are saying, instead of immediately jumping to erroneous conclusions.

Even if you do not refer to the above mode as "soft-chromatic Λέγετος," it should be abundantly clear what is meant by this. If not, how do you classify these melodies? They cannot be called simply "borrowed from the Second Mode," as the melodic formulae are quite different. Calling them "Fourth Mode" is fine, but non-specific. "Soft-chromatic Fourth Mode," is fine of course.

As for the sharps and flats of Karas and/or his students/proponents, as with anything, the problem is often the degree to which they are applied/executed, rather than the theory behind them. I am happy to discuss these issues further, if there is a specific topic on the table.

JMB
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#16
When I (or anyone) says "soft-chromatic Λέγετος," I mean the mode and scale to which we sing those melodies of the Fourth Mode which are soft-chromatic: Apolytikia, Kontakia, Kathismata. This is not the same as simply Λέγετος, which of course is soft-diatonic.

[........]

As for the sharps and flats of Karas and/or his students/proponents, as with anything, the problem is often the degree to which they are applied/executed, rather than the theory behind them. I am happy to discuss these issues further, if there is a specific topic on the table.

JMB
Dear John,

Let me ask you this:

1) How is legetos defined by the old theory texts? I have not ever encountered legetos described as having a "soft chromatic" component in the old theory texts. Legetos is legetos. How do you perform the prosomoia "Ws gennaios en martysin", "Edwkas shmeiwsh", etc which belong to fourth eirmologic and are described by many theory texts as examples of legetos? What about the troparia of the ainoi? The stichira of the vespers? Do you use a chromatic tetrachord of any kind for those? Those form the bulk of fourth tone eirmologic.

2) Now for the situation of the Apolytikia and Kathismata: The application of the phthora of the soft chromatic Di on Di was a CONSEQUENCE of the vocal performance. Although there is no specific indication (by their "arktiki martyria") that those melodies of fourth tone eirmologic (Apolytikia and Kathismata) are legetos, the arktiki martyria is SPECIFIC in that the melody belongs to fourth tone. Since the vocal performance over time inside the upper tetrachord started to resemble more of second tone soft chromatic (it is interesting to note that the earliest versions of the Anastasimatarion of Ioannis Protopsaltis had no indicator of a soft chromatic alteration for these hymns!), the decision was made to place that phthora on Di. That is why these specific melodies are not described as belonging to legetos. Nor are they described as "soft chromatic fourth tone" or "soft chromatic legetos", at least not in any of the older (and classical) theory texts that I have seen and studied.

3) Fourth tone is either diatonic or soft chromatic in character and essence. It cannot be both.

The misunderstanding made (by many) is that they take the detail imposed by the phthora on Di which was very likely placed to assist as a REMINDER for the nuance of the Di-Ke interval (in concept, not too unlike what happens with the placement of the "general flat" on Ke of Third Tone or the "general sharp" on Ga for Third Tone) and make the erroneous assumption that legetos (or fourth eirmologic) has soft chromatic characteristics and therefore should be described as fourth tone soft chromatic or legetos soft chromatic or whatever.

It's simply wrong to take something that serves the role of a reminder and nothing else and to build an entire tetrachord and subtonal theory on it, absent any evidence from history to justify this.

Let;s consider another example: the apolytikion "To faidron ths anastasews kyrigma". Consider the passage "kai ths progonikhs". Does it descend to Pa? HOW DOES IT MAKE THIS DESCENT? Is Pa NOT in its diatonic "location"? Is it flattened towards Ni as the soft chromatic would direct?

Now, extend this to the kathismata etc....

NG
 
Last edited:
#17
"Deafening silence"..... I LOVE it!!

Apostolos
In your own echo chamber, maybe that's all you hear. All of this excitement to negate Simon Karas......perplexing, considering Simon Karas provided an invaluable system which helped the field of byzantine music refocus back to its traditional roots. Just compare what 'mathemata' people influenced by Simon Karas chant to what most of the others chant. Facts are facts, and data are data, right?

And that's why many of us only trust the theoreticians and practitioners which are heavily influenced by Simon Karas.

Groups that intend on promoting byzantine music ought to utilize and embrace those influenced by Simon Karas. In my experience, they are the most reliable, disciplined, and professional individuals to work with. And all they care about is the pure tradition of byzantine music......not amanedes, improvisizations, and prima-donna theatrics. That is the challenge. But then again, ignorance is bliss. We can merely write them off as "untraditional" .... the biggest contradiction of em all.

Finally, did the ancients need computers to understand? Instruments maybe, for educational purposes. But computers with their unnatural, mechanical sound? Or maybe this is what some may want (along with their isokrati machine, of course). :eek:
 
#18
I didn't say this, Mr Giannoukakis!!! Simply, you probably did not read my article. You saw only the last line where I say that 12-9-9 are the intervals of soft diatonic. I wrote also a message in Greek about the same thing, Sorry, didn't you see this? And I said that I agree with the intervals 8-14-8. Didn't you see this, too? Sorry, but I expected that you were more careful.

Ioannis Arvanitis

PS. Sorry again, but if you are going to make an unprejudiced research, you don't need to be so aggressive against Karas or anyone else.

This is the response that Mr. Giannoukakis gets from a living author whose article he's misrepresented and misunderstood. Can you imagine the response he would've received from the prolific Simon Karas? :eek:
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#19
Dear Mr. Nassis,

I will not belabor the discussion on Karas and what his viewpoint represents. There is enough here on Psaltologion for you to read about.

From your statements above it is obvious that you are probably among those who the Apostle Paul wrote to Titus about today. Fair enough.

But, let me ask you this then:

1) Are you part of the jurisdiciton of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

2) What is the tradition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as concerns Byzantine Chant?

3) Are you aware of the ypomnemata of the Church of Greece on the so-called "musicological issue"? If so, what do those ypomnemata advise?

4) Last, technology is used today just as the monochord was used in the day of Chrysanthos and the Psalterion was used by the Patriarchal Committee of 1881. The monochord and the psalterion were used to determine intertonal intervals and to assign as objective a value as possible based on the ORALLY-TRANSMITTED tradition.

5) Technology is being used today to CONFIRM AND AFFIRM the authenticity of those intervals and to compare them with intervals proposed by novel views.

That technology does not support the intervals proposed by novel views (call it Karas, call it Konstantinou) is not the fault of the technology or of the people using the technology specifically for this purpose.

6) If the outcome of the technology makes some people uneasy, it is not the fault of the people using the technology. Rather, it is those who are sensitive to the results given by the technology that should re-evaluate their convictions.

7) No one is advocating replacing the human voice in church with machines.

8) However, machines can be used to CORRECT the pathology that some human voices have incurred as a consequence of years of abuse on historically- and traditionally-inaccurate (I could be more severe here) chant practices and executions and interpretations (scales, neumes, cadences etc).

So, Mr. Nassis, let me ask you again:

Consider these:

http://www.psaltologion.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30208&d=1279216166

http://www.psaltologion.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30209&d=1279216187

http://www.psaltologion.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30210&d=1279216205

http://www.psaltologion.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30211&d=1279216222

http://www.psaltologion.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=30212&d=1279216233


Which of the sound files represents the performance of the above-listed music text acoording to what 60+ years of Byzantine Chant witness provides?

You see Mr. Nassis, Byzantine Music is not a theory manual. The theory comes to supplement and perhaps understand what a GOOD AND TALENTED TEACHER passes to the student. Byzantine chant, like all eastern chant is an ORAL TRADITION. The theory came later.

Unfortunately, some never had the blessing of learned teachers, acclaimed by the most repsected psaltae of old and instead opened theory books on their own and assumed, after reading the texts, that they became experts.

It reminds one of what usually happens when a kid picks up a loaded gun without any idea what it is and what it does.

Last, please check this out:

http://www.psaltologion.com/showpost.php?p=80147&postcount=45

It should be of interest to you.

NG
 

Nikolaos Giannoukakis

Παλαιό Μέλος
#20
This is the response that Mr. Giannoukakis gets from a living author whose article he's misrepresented and misunderstood. Can you imagine the response he would've received from the prolific Simon Karas? :eek:
1) Mr. Arvanitis accepts the 8-14-8 tetrachord. The 8-14-8 tetrachord is incompatible with any of the tetrachords of the prolific Simon Karas

2) Mr. Arvanitis proposes a 12-9-9 tetrachord for the soft diatonic. We'll soon see how close this tetrachord approximates 60+ years of traditional chant of the "soft diatonic".

Mr. Nassis, please read point 1 above again, carefully...

NG.
 
Top