Dear Cantor JKF,

I apologize if you or anyone else interpreted my advice as some sort of personal statement. I meant exactly what I said: if you want more than you can get from cantors like me, you should probably START by convincing the bishops that your request for a broader review comes from honest interest and willingness to help. (I think you must admit that the combination of threats, rumors and accusations that have been cropping up here MAY simply have convinced the bishops that they were right to have the liturgical and musical work conducted in private - and you may have to work hard to convince them otherwise. In fact, I would be pleased if you can.)

By the way: one problem I have noticed here recently is that objective statements or questions ("If a bad accent involves a weak syllable sung on a musical accent, then that is not a bad accent.") have, in the last week, frequently been turned into statements about what others believe or feel ("Aha! So you are COMFORTABLE with bad accents!") Far more attention had been paid to my own psychological state in this very thread than I particularly think is warranted, and I would rather you pay attention to what I say, rather than trying to figure out what I secretly mean.

Be that as it may: Cantor JKF, you've been aware of the MCI website for quite a while. According to my records, your only suggestion was that the common Prokeimenon for the Mother of God was set VERY incorrectly by the IEMC, since the second part of the text was not repeated. I would welcome more input - but as I said, earlier would have been better.

Professor Thompson went to great lengths to obtain permission for the Cantor's Institute to spent an entire year learning the new settings; the fact that the Cantor Institute would use and explain the new settings was widely publicized. He made the entire Sunday Octoechos from the proposed book available, and we requested comments. A number of the comments we received were incorporated. The new music was distributed at the Cathedral and used for the past two years or so, and the weekly propers have been posted on the MCI website for over than a year. For more than that, you will have to ask the bishops - and as I said, convince them that you are in a position to help them, and willing to do so.

Myself, I have made it repeatedly clear that I have no official role with the IEMC. I handle the website and proofread texts and music - more than 2,000 pages of material that either came from the IEMC or was set by individual IEMC members using their procedures and standards. It does leave me rather familiar with the music so far. I really don't think you need minutes of the IEMC meetings, or some kind of master document, to look at the proposed music, determine what you have questions or concerns about, and bring them up in detail.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

First point:

Such a statement is offensive and I demand that you offer an immediate apology to the entire Forum community.

There is no one who is participating in this discussion who doe not have an honest interest and a willingness to serve our Church. Never, ever conclude that principled disagreement by fellow Christians amounts to dishonesty and unwillingness to serve the Church.

Second point:

Such a conclusion is very legitimate based upon what you have written.

If you truly believed that this setting was acceptable you would not have considered that it “might not be desirable” in a new setting. Nor would you have justified the improper accent by saying that “setting it this way brings everything else into alignment.”

Finally, you certainly would not have reached for an additional justification of appealing to “God’s time”.

Everything you have written supports the conclusion that the premise you have in setting chant is one where Boksaj (and any Slavonic original) is kept to point where proper accentuation of the English text becomes of secondary importance (or your understanding of proper accentation of English texts is somehow lacking). As you know, this is a point on which we have agreed to disagree. It is clear to me that chant must always serve the text. If the original melody does not serve the text it must either be reworked or abandoned.

Third point:

Stop digging yourself into a hole.

In this very thread you have complained that feedback “two years ago … would have been helpful."

You also state that the bishops ”were right to have the liturgical and musical work conducted in private.”

It is this last sentence that is the accurate one. To date, none of the priests of Passaic have been given an official copy of either the proposed new text and rubrics or the proposed new music (either for informational purpose or for feedback). It is also my understanding (someone can correct me if I am wrong) that the priests of the other three eparchies have only been given the proposed new text, and then only in a draft form.

So please do not keep complaining that no one has provided feedback when there has not been an effort to ask anyone for feedback!

I will certainly agree with you that each individual should give feedback to his bishop regarding the proposed new Liturgy and proposed new music. Such feedback should be made directly to the bishop and not through Jeff (or anyone informally connected with the liturgical music commission). That is probably the only way that the average cantor can make himself or herself heard.

John / Admin

It was not a matter of my interpretation; your statement was accusatory, and you should offer an "unqualified" apology to me and the Forum Community.

You also may want to re-consider offering public speculations about the decisions of the Hierarchs; until His Grace, Metropolitan Basil; His Excellency, Bishop Andrew; His Excellency, Bishop John; or His Excellency, Bishop William establish their profiles on the Byzantine Forum and start posting away - I think it's safest to stick to what they have said publicly about this project through their respective Chancery Offices.

Perhaps, but I don't think that your clerical support role for the members of the IEMC and webmaster for the MCI places you in the position where it is appropriate for you to comment authoritatively on their work. You may be familiar with the music, but the "process" and "premise" that led to these work products is of significant importance if one is to understand the "WHY" of certain decisions that may seem strange (to some) on the surface.

It has become clear that anyone informally connected with the IEMC (yourself included) is not qualified to facilitate the process of soliciting feedback and comment on the work of the IEMC.

As I have suggested, it would be ideal if there were some sort of "official" process, sponsored by the Hierarchs, where the proposed music can be shared in a printed form with every individual serving in a recognized capacity as Cantor in his/her parish, feedback requested, and suggestions taken.

The members of the MCI and those participating in the discussions on this Forum should not be considered as representation for the full body of Cantors serving in our Metropolia.

This thread instead of being an informative discussion of church, has degraded into attacks on personal character and unfounded accusations. Instead of proving a point, undo enemies to any efforts are being further created. Rather than have this futile exercise continue I am closing this thread.

I am deeply disappointed in the matter that things have been represented on this thread.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator