Kliros or Krilos?

Steve,

Good question. Since it comes from Greek it should be kliros. Many Slavs however say kriloshan. Rusins are the only ones that I know of who say krilos though. Msgr. Alexis Mihalik who taught Church Slavonic at the seminary in Pittsburgh said that krilos was wrong and that it should be kliros. So, your pick. I prefer kliros.

Tony

"How many of us "official" and unofficial cantors had any say into the existing english translations and music settings, aside from the insert work of cantor john Vernoski?"

Well, I can say that I have set tropars, kontaks, aposticha verses, etc. from resources of the Sisters of St. Basil, as well as service books that called for certain tones to be used, but did not include the printed musical settings. There was no printed music available locally for use on those occasions. There may be other cantors who do the same, or who know the tones so well that they don't have to set prayers to them on paper beforehand (not me ).

Jim, Cantor

In my zeal to demonstrate the viability of such a forum, I posted a poll - http://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002111

I assumed it would remain under this thread, but discussion of it does belong here:

WHY do you (like/dislike) musical notation in pew books intended for parishioners?

Many cantors, who like to do their own thing, never follow anything that resembles consistency in their chants. Everything ends up sounding like Tone 4. People like to sing, but if they are alway second guessing where the cantor is going with Tone 4 this time around, they might just stand/sit and listen only. Music notation is to assist where the church has failed in providing a better system to train its cantors to be better leaders of congregation singing. And if the parish has a pastor who will only "say Mass" then the people will forget or never learn more than just Tone 4. So, in many cases, the music notation helps only because the people, especially the younger people are musically inclined and can probably follow the proper notes and key than their Tone 4 cantor.

Joe

Musical notation shortens the learning time for new settings, as long as the worshippers read music. It also helps keep people together. After all, if the cantor can wander because he doesn't use music, so can the rest of the congregation. And the more people who read music, the easier it is to reinforce the setting - by the number of people singing the same thing, for those who don't read.

A case could probably be made questioning the ethnic authenticity of some musical settings and styles of delivery (Should vocal vibrato be used? Is the setting like my grandparents sang it? etc. ), but without a common source to refer to, anyone can be a loose cannon- anyone.

One other thing. Music is art moving through time. It changes over time, which is why we can seperate its history into prevailing styles, etc. In other words, even with musical notation it will not necessarily stay the same, especially when it comes to interpretation. We can try to be "authentic", but each generation decides what it will or won't keep the same for all sorts of reasons.

Make a joyful noise unto the Lord! It sounds if a forum is created for Cantors we're in agreement it would be open to those of us who assist when there is no official cantor. Having been a member in 5 different BC parishes (because of job moves) across 2 eparchies, I have been privileged to have been asked on occasion by the priest to assist the congregation. I am not professionally trained, but have music background. But I wouldn't dare call myself a cantor! I do believe, however, that being allowed to pariticpate in such a forum would strengthen knowledge of the richness of the liturgy! We would have to return to tonsured Readers only leading the congregation to exclude the rest of us.

The same with ECF teachers. Many years ago there WAS a "real" class (in the Passaic diocese) taught by visiting Sisters of St. Basil to become an ECF teacher (I have my diploma to prove it -- it was a 6-week, one-day-a-week class). But out of necessity we humbly accept the talents of anyone coming forward to spread the Good News. Should we start a forum for ECF teachers, would we limit it only to those "officially" identified as ECF teachers? What DOES that mean? We all serve the Lord in our small way when called.

Christ is Risen!

(Mrs. H attends services at the church where I am currently the lead Cantor. Our former lead cantor is retired and was honored with the Papal Knighthood last year, but wishes only to assist nowadays, not lead. As far as I know, which is mainly from third hour, liturgy, matins, panakhida, funeral, wedding, and vespers services throughout the year, Mrs. H has not been singing at the Kliros for several years now (except for one Christmas where she helped sing hymns in Old Slavonic for a portion of a service). However, she has assisted from within the congregation, to help introduce new musical settings on occasion when asked. She is not currently part of our cantor team.)

I guess with Pascha, Pascha, and Pentecost the cantors on the board have been quiet here.

The Prostopinije list has been quiet too.

Has interest waned in the idea?

With all the posts regarding the changes to the liturgy, there are times when it might help by having a closed or semi closed forum to discuss some of the issues without the threads diverging on different agendas.

Steve

I have been away for a while, but as nearly as I can determine after reviewing the posts within this thread again, the case for a Cantor's Forum or Virtual Kliros within the Byzantine Forum, for use by Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) Cantors only, is proving impractical to administer.

There is a perceived need to include all eastern christian traditions on such a forum, not just Ruthenians.

Besides, there is no reliable way to differentiate those who are officially designated (within the Ruthenians) to enter from those who are not, especially once you introduce other jurisdictions to the mix.

Such a forum would likely have the same sort of access that all the other forums here do except for the Deacon's Door- an outcome that means it may not get off the ground at all, since other venues for inter-jurisdictional discussions already exist, and welcome all who are interested in discussing eastern church music.

An open access cantor's forum is not one I would use much, because I would not find it particularly useful or helpful- too many disagreements, and wandering off to other topics.

Oh well. Other ways to work cantor's issues do exist. They just take longer, and are not as internet-friendly, but they work. Patience is a virtue after all!

For what it's worth ...

I think the separate forum for cantors suggested here is a wonderful idea, and could well be additive to the resources mentioned to date if properly framed, focused and "publicized".

I emphasize "publicized" intentionally. OBSERVATION: How many people in the "Prostopinije" group are active cantors in Byzantine - Ruthenian churches (vs. clergy and other interested parties, including our Orthodox brothers & sisters)? How many more members would there be if ALL cantors in the Archeparchy (assuming all online access) we members of the group)? NOTE: This is not at all a criticism - just an observation. Point = we need to find a way to get the word out about all of these resources to our community!

Changing subject slightly, I consider myself one of the lucky "volunteer" cantors who was blessed with the opportunity to learn from one of the "masters of the art" at the Eparchial cathedral parish to which he was assigned.

That said, how many of us can say that (i) we've had a opportunity to formally study and train for this vocation in any form or fashion and (ii) if so, what was available for use as "officially promulgated" study material & for later liturgical use?

How many of our parishes today have no cantors (or volunteer cantors whose knowledge does not extend beyond the "Green Book")?

How many of us truly comprehend the effort being undertaken today to introduce an newly translated liturgy, including revised musical settings?

I've stumbled on this discussion today, but regrettably have little time remaining at present to expand my argument in favor of this idea beyond the few points noted above, but will do so as soon as possible. However, I'd ask everyone to consider that all truly great "volunteer" efforts survive and thrive via the unity of those bonded together with similar passions, backgrounds and beliefs.

Seems to me that our own natures (the very thing that drove us to this "volunteer" vocation), our common interests and needs (and perhaps a little "divine intervention") should be enough for us to justify creation of this forum.

Truly yours in Christ,
Joe

Joe,

I know of at least 18 cantors by way of email and having personally meeting them. Also several professors of chant and a few seminarians on the list. There are most likely more cantors and interested parties. The complete list of members includes some of the "who's who" in the Eastern chant world! Both cantors and professors.

You write correctly that publicizing of the prostopinije list has lagged and could use a boost. While the 'prostopinije' list is great it doesn't have the convenience of a bulletin board format, particularly the ability to scan an entire thread quickly.

Steve

Allow me to articulate another reason in favor of a "Virtual Kliros" - focus.

Like many (I suspect most) readers of this Forum, I have not yet found a way to make it part of my daily routine. I will often go 2 or 3 weeks without attending to it.

Over the last 4 days I have spent 6-8 hours searching for this thread! Admittedly much of this has to do with personal shortcomings, yet even those more organized than I would benefit by having a clear focus for a well defined area of interest

Several respondents have raised the issue of focus so far, noting the connection to the question of this being an open or closed forum. My personal feeling, which I think was the point raised by several others, is that providing such a focus could be a major benefit of such a Forum. The point has been raised that such focus could easily be compromised in an open forum.

My suggestion is that the forum technically be a closed forum, in that only registered users would be allowed to participate. The nuance here is that the only criteria needed to register would be a self-identification as one who is interested in the topics addressed by the "Virtual Kliros" and a willingness to accurately identify oneself and their ecclesial situation when registering.

I personally would have no difficulty with the routine use of Avatars while posting as long as we had access to posters' real names, their parish affiliations, and self-descriptions of their role[s] in the parish.

Add to this a few ruthless Moderators who would diligently remind participants of the existing protocol on courtesy and the proposed focus of the Forum, and I believe the ideal could be approached.

I would favor the Forum being open to those who have an interest in any of the Eastern Christian Chant traditions. One can always skip over topics one is not interested in, and there can be many benefits in monitoring discussions of other communities and traditions.

Phil Yevics

Here are the available options for a possible “Virtual Kliros” forum with this software:

1. Regular Forum – No registration on The Byzantine Forum is required to read these forums. Registration is required to post. [This the way all the forums except The Deacon’s Door forum operate.]

2. Restricted Forum – A user must be a registered user on The Byzantine Forum both to see the contents of that forum, to read them and to post. [This is the way The Deacon’s Door Forum works.]

I am willing to give the whole thing a try. What I want from those participating in this topic is an agreement for the criteria for entrance to “The Virtual Kliros” forum. These are the questions I want addressed:

Question A: Who is given access? If access is limited only to official cantors how do we define a cantor and how do we verify that they are official?

Question B: If access is granted to anyone who self-identifies as one who is interested in these topics it is theoretically possible that every registered user could request access. Jim has already stated that he will not participate in this type of forum. What does everyone else say?

Question C: Would it be better simply to create a public forum (like most of the other forums) to allow the topics discussed to be contained all in one place?

I had indicated earlier that I wanted to see at least some threads dedicated to the issues of chanting the Liturgy before creating a dedicated forum. So far, there have been only a few threads. What I am willing to do, however, is to create a public forum and allow users to post to a thread in that forum their interest in participating. We can allow a fixed period for people to declare their intentions (say two weeks) and then take the Forum private.

How does this sound to everyone?

Admin

Though I am not a cantor and would never pretend to be. I would see this forum as a tool of evangelization. Not in reaching out as to evangelize those not in the Church, but to call for a desire for those who would serve the Church in this manner. There are many out there who may wonder if they have the skills or the aptitude and by reading here, it would help in that decernment process of offering their talents to God.

Pani Rose