On another thread, a list member recently posted the following comments:
and
I would like to take some time to look at both of these statements, using the first setting of the Trisagion ("Holy God #1"). I chose this melody because at first glance it differs at a number of points from the 1964 setting above, and makes a good example of a number of issues. (Other examples might be used to address the separate issue of accents.)

Disclaimer: Although I have done a variety of Internet-based work on behalf of cantors, including website management for the Intereparchial Music Commission, I have no particular standing in the Metropolia. What follows are my own opinions - through, I think, reasonably informed.

Here is Holy God #1 in the Bokshai Prostopinije of 1906, the canonical collection of the Carpathian chant known as prostopinije or "plain singing":


(A sound file is available, but note that it follows the Papp 1970 Irmologion, which tweaked Bokshai slightly to match the music to the Slavonic accents.)

Here is the same melody as reprinted in America by Father Andrew Sokol:



Now, here is the melody as it appeared in the 1964 booklet "Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom", published by Byzantine Seminary Press:



How does this differ from the Church Slavonic setting in Bokshai?

1. The English setting is in metered 3/4 time - and the note values are adjusted to fit the typesetting, rather than the other way around,

2. The entire first phrase has been changed from two pulses with a leap up to "God" and back down, to a smooth downward arc. The second pulse in the English, if heard at all, is moderately stable, resting on mi; the movement only continues if the phrase is actually SUNG in triple meter. This is not the same melodic phrase, even if it starts and ends on the same note.

3. The second phrase in English the same as in Slavonic, EXCEPT for the extraneous bar line and the shortening on the final note, But the third phrase is simply changed from a smooth upward arc from the bottom to the top, to a much faster fragment starting on a plane half way up,

4. The last phrase has the syllables "-cy on:" sung four times faster than the note before, and six times faster than the note after, If sung as written, the plainchant melody has become a waltz!

Now look at the second part - the Glory, Now and ever. In the Slavonic, the exact same melody was used as for "Holy God"; notice that smooth rise and fall of the melody at the end, contrasting with the leap in the middle of the first phrase. In the English, this has been entirely replaced with the "placeholder" melody - the same one used for the Glory, Now and ever, Lord have mercy (3), Give the blessing at the end of the Liturgy. Not only does this vary wildly from the original Slavonic (in EVERY setting of the Trisagion), but it makes it far harder to correctly sing the final half-phrase of the Trisagion.

Furthermore, in the English setting of the Glory, Now and ever, note the three half notes on "-er. Amen." This is very hard to sing as written at tempo, and may simply be a mistake.

(This booklet is widely used, and sometimes new cantors sing the melody as written; I have only seen one congregation that didn't fight the cantor at every turn and try to turn it back into plainchant.)

Six years later, in the famous "black notebook", the metal-bound Byzantine Liturgical Chant (1970) from the Byzantine Seminary Press, we have the following:



The triple meter in 1964 has become an implicit duple meter. The melodic contour is the same, but the first notes in phrases one and two, and the last notes in phrases two and three, have been lengthened to reinforce the new meter. (Chant is NOT supposed to be metered music!) The overly fast notes on "-cy on" are slowed down to something more appropriate.

In the same way, the first notes of "Glory" and "Now" have been lengthened by 50% to maintain a solid duple meter, At the end, the out-of-place half note on the "-er" of "forever" has been replaced with a dotted quarter and eighth which STILL leaves the "Amen" awkwardly placed. In short, this setting is more singable as liturgical music than the 1964 setting, but still has room for improvement. I have actually heard it sung this way by congregations, in both cases people who had the 1964 booklet in front of them; but I have NEVER heard "forever. Amen" executed as written here in actual use.

(By the way - a common variation on this melody is to drop the second note on "Holy and immortal" (the eighth note fa) down to re, where it matches the old Slavonic setting.)

Meantime, Jerry Jumba (probably the widest-travelled of our own Rusyn chant scholars), who taught the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh's Advanced Cantor's School and Chant Education Program (1984-1992), taught and distributed the following setting:



The melodic contour of Bokshai has returned, and the result is in plainchant rhythm, rather than either triple or duple meter. The accent on "have mercy on us" might be criticized as emphasizing "on us" at the expense of mercy, and the end of the "place-holding melody" for Glory, Now and Ever now has "Amen" on a single pitch rather than two, But it is certainly NOT a setting in the same family as the 1964 and 1970 settings, but just as singable for any cantor or congregation which is used to chant rhythm. I have been told (but am unable to verify) that this setting was in the package of material sent out to clergy and cantors in May 1987 by Bishop Thomas Dolinay (then of Van Nuys) with the comment, "Much work has been done in the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh to standardize the texts, using proper accents and generally bringing the music to a greater perfection." In any case, the Advanced Cantor School music is widely used (some of it is in my head cantor's notebooks in New York.)

Now let's look at the proposed setting from the Intereparchial Music Commission:



The melodic contour AND the basic rhythm are those of the Slavonic - with extra syllables placed precisely as they are when melodies are extended in the 1906 Prostopinije. Except for a doubling of note value, the first two phrases are exactly as set by Jerry Jumba 20 years ago; where the rhythm differs from Jerry's in the third phrase, the IEMC setting puts the emphasis on "immortal", "mercy" and "us".

The controversial point (if any) was the Commission's decision to provide each Holy God with a doxology setting using the same melody - just as in the Slavonic books. The setting is straightforward, and should offer no particular difficulty to any congregation that has heard it a few times. Admittedly, "now" on four syllables might not be desirable if we were writing new text rather than using a liturgical one, but setting it this way brings everything else into alignment.

So... compare the Slavonic with the 1964, then with the IEMC setting. On the face of it, it seems quite a stretch to me to claim that the 1964 setting was "very faithful" to Bokshai,

Now, for a change of pace, let's look at how the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox sing Holy God 1. From The Divine Liturgy of St.John Chrysostom (Johnstown, 1988), p. 29, where it is labelled "Trisagion No. 3":



This setting is slightly awkward, primarily because of the addition of the pronominal "One" at the end of the first three phrases. (In particular, a singer ends up having to work to sing the third phrase as neither "HOly IMmorTAL" nor "HoLY ImMORtal".) Note that the Glory, Now and ever uses the same melody as the other repetitions, and avoids four syllables on "Now" by dropping the entire second phrase. But compare this setting to any of the English settings above, and you will find it's closest kin in the IEMC setting.

I could go through the same process (and will, if asked) for the other hymns in the proposed setting recently posted. But the other important question is, how are cantors supposed to learn the restored Slavonic settings?

1. Current cantors may be singing any of a number of variant settings for each hymn in the Liturgy - with variations coming from simpification (as in 1964), correction (as in 1970), or simply parish custom.

2. The IEMC has proposed a People's Book with not only the complete text of the Divine Liturgies (Chrysostom and Basil) with music, but also the Sunday Eight Tones, weekday propers, common services for saints, and Divine Liturgy music for the entire liturgical year (including pre- and post-festal hymns not usually found in our existing service books), panachida, moleben, and Communion and other liturgical hymns. This amounts to what Father Deacon was proposing: an English Sbornik, or anthology. (Father Deacon, you may object on translation grounds, but I suspect you may be otherwise impressed...)

3. A looseleaf Cantor's Companion will have additional music for cantors, explanations of how to sing chant and introduce music in a parish setting, a history of prostopinije, etc.

4. Virtually everything in the People's Book has been recorded and is to be distributed on CD to each parish when/if the new materials are promulgated, and the music will also be indexed and made available on the MCI website, alongside the printed music. (If I had access to the recordings at this point, I would post the Holy God #1 for comparison, for example.)

5. I'm waiting to see what my own eparchy does (Passaic). But if the new materials are promulgated as in the past, there will likely be 6-8 months between the time the music is available and the date it is to be used - plenty of time for cantors to learn the material if they try, given the materials being proposed to accompany the new books. And of course there will continue to be local variations - but the "new" music is NOT really new for our people (my head cantor insists on singing his "own" melodies from Slavonic for a number of things - melodies he's going to see in the new People's Book, and the babas in my old parish always hummed along whenever I sang the supposedly unsingable irmos melodies on feasts, and sang as soon as they;d heard the words enough to learn them). AS CHANT (i.e. if you aren't trying to sing in 3/4 or 4/4 time) I really haven't found the IEMC melodies hard to sing adequately. (Harder, perhaps, to sing WELL, like any chant, but worth the effort).

Would I rather have seen this done twenty years ago, without controversial textual changes at the same time? Sure. But our people can certainly sing melodies as rich in English as they did in Slavonic..

It is perfect? By no means; for example, looking at Papp 1970 implies that dropping the "-tal have" from la to so might be even more in line with the tradition. But it's certainly not bad.

So.... please post comments or questions, or send them to me at ByzKat@stny.rr.com.

And to the original poster: enough from me. Let's talk about music, here or offline, rather than about your fears or dislikes, OK? And please let me know if there are other melodies you want to add to the discussion.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski
Cantor, Ss. Peter and Paul Byzantine Catholic Church
Endicott, New York

I know this will sound like preaching to the choir, but I want to thank Jeff for taking the time and making the effort to actually demonstrate just what is going on with regard to producing a new service book with music for use nationally. It is a gargantuan effort, and deserves appreciation.

Excellent analysis.

It's nice to know that we aren't going to get another version of Plainchant for Dummies.

In my parish, we have learned to sing the Prostopinije Holy God 2 in English. I believe the Carpatho-Russians published a similar English version. But many of these melodies have either disappeared or have been dumbed down. I welcome ANY attempt to open the treasure chest of chant.

In the Pittsburgh Seminary Black combed book, "Byzantine Chant," why were the Tone numbers omitted and melodies re-arranged for the Our Father? This seeemd weird, if not purposeful. Was this a result of those days when "chant tones" were being scoffed at for choir music and the same old Tone 4 as the default Alleluia? I think it is grand to see the chant tones given credit again.

Joe Thur
Cantor, Holy Transfiguration Parish
Mentor-on-the-Lake, Ohio

It seems that both my post along with one from ByzKat's have been removed,again!

Ungcsertezs

Try looking under the "New Music" thread, UC.
Yours,
Jeff

OK, not removed, but moved to other thread.

Ungcsertezs

Jeff:

You did a nice job with your comparison of the different arrangements of this particular melody for the "Thrice-Holy Hymn."

It would appear that the work of the Commission, in large part, was based on the premise that there was a need to "standardize" the plain chant in the Metropolia by "restoring" the settings as they appeared in the 1906 Prostopinije.

Reading through some of the more emotional comments on the topic of music, it is very clear that some Cantors may disagree with this premise which, in turn, causes them to find fault with the work products created under that premise.

Assuming that I am correct in my assessment of the premise of the IEMC's efforts, perhaps there could be some further discussion as to why that direction was chosen in favor of merely "correcting" the blatant musical/accentual errors in some of the current English settings and/or developing completely new arrangements that could better reflect an American character and Faith Expression.

Your thoughts?

I second Cantor JKF’s comments on Jeff’s very good comparison of the different arrangements of the Trisagion.

Cantor JKF raises a very good question about the premise of a strict interpretation of the 1906 Boksaj Prostopinije. I would like to add to it. But first I would like to note that I realize that these decisions have been made at a clerical level.

Boksaj is a very important publication in our Church, but it is in no way canonical.

When the Slavs accepted Christianity they also accepted Greek priests and chanters and with them came Greek chant. In time they took that Greek chant and made it their own. Each Slavic ethnic group created its own wonderful gift of chant to the larger Church. Chant developed over time. One variant of the gift of our Carpathian Church is documented in the 1906 Boksaj Prostopinije. It is truly one variant, since no two parishes ever sang it exactly alike. Most of us are aware of older cantors (mostly gone now – Eternal Memory!) who sang the chant very differently than it is notated in Boksaj. I am personally aware of one late cantor who learned and sung versions of the Troparia 8 Tones that make those given in the 1970 Byzantine Liturgical Chant book (“Black Book”) seem extremely faithful to Boksaj! Apparently what he sung was similar to the style sung in whatever village in the Carpathians his family came from.

What style of chant should we use here in America?

How should we arrange it in English?

Obviously at some point we will follow the example of the Slavs, and we will someday develop new chant that fits the American culture. [The Gospel says nothing about preserving ethnic culture and everything about proclaiming Christ.]

I am not saying that we ought to toss out Ruthenian Chant! I (and I’m sure many others) who were raised with this chant will find it important to us for the rest of our lives. I am saying that we ought to present it in English and use it until our Church is mature enough to become creative with chant. There are signs of new compositions here and there, but the process is one that will take many generations. [Some might remember my often repeated suggestion to the bishops to convert and then recruit a couple of African-American Gospel singers to create a new style of chant that would appeal to the un-churched African-American communities in our inner cities (where we have plenty of church buildings but few people). And then do something similar for the Hispanic community.]

Presenting chant in English is the current issue. We (as Church) need to realize that the Boksaj Prostopinije has not been a standard for the English texts of the Divine Liturgy since the 1960s (those supporting using Boksaj as a “must keep every note exactly” standard don’t seem to ever acknowledge this). If I were one of those preparing the English arrangements in the 1960s, I would certainly have advised making sure the chant served the text (and not the other way around). I would not have agreed with some of their settings, but overall I compliment them. Their work has served the Church well.

What to do at this point? We must consider that for many of our parishes the English settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy is Prostopinije. Boksaj is not important for most parishes. I am sure that there are exceptions but you can walk into any parish and start singing “It is truly proper” and the people will raise the roof with it (much like they still do if you start singing “Dostojno Jest”). It is really not just to fiddle with something people have embraced and accepted for several generations now.

I agree with Jeff that the notation and accents of the English settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy are not perfect. My advice is to fix the notation and accents but not to make major changes to the settings. We see that in Europe there are variants in the chant and new developments everywhere. We ought to respect Boksaj but also respect that chant moves on and cannot be a slave to one parish in 1906. (Also keep in mind that the Boksaj edition was not itself without accentual problems in Church Slavonic.)

Regarding the troparia and other changeable texts, there is some leeway here, simply because they are not done every Sunday. But we must realize that we cannot get too far from the style in which the fixed texts were arranged in English. Back around 1979 I wrote out all of the changeable texts from the Levkulic Pew Book in a style that kept most of the notes of Boksaj, putting the chant before the English text. I have not seen much of the MCI materials but what I have seen is reasonably similar to what I did 25 years ago. For the most part it was rejected by the Church, since many places had already accepted the settings in BLC for the changeable texts. What I then did was to start with something a bit simpler and, over the years, purposely make changes a little at a time to standardize and find a good setting in English that was reasonably faithful to Boksaj, making sure that the chant was always in a serving role to the text. It is far from perfect and in constant need of improvement. But the fact that it has been embraced as a standard by the majority of our parishes tells me the path is a good one.

Now a word about the proposed setting for the Trisagion.

If this had been 1960 and we were setting this for the first time, I could probably agree with the first part of the setting. It seems obvious that those who did the arrangement in the 1960s did not wish to place two notes on the word “God” and came up with the setting they promulgated. It is a legitimate point to be discussed about this arrangement, and this particular combination of notes on the word “God” does sound odd. [Since the 1960s setting is so well accepted across the Church I would not propose to change it now no matter what.]

One problem I see with this arrangement is with the setting for the word “now”. “Now-ow-ow-ow” (putting 4 notes / 6 beats) on the word “now” just doesn’t work in English. It is a case of the English text being in second place behind the chant. If one wishes to keep the Boksaj melody for the “Glory be… now and ever….” it seems that the only way to set it is to repeat: “Now and ever, and forever; forever. Amen.” It is probably this issue that caused those setting the text in the 1960s to choose the simple setting for the “Glory be... now and ever….”

A friend of mine who is Antiochian Orthodox (and not a Slav) made an interesting observation several years ago. He noted that when he is at a Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) Divine Liturgy he can understand every word even if he does not have the text in front of him. But when he is at a Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Divine Liturgy (Johnstown) he has to try very hard to understand the words and does not always succeed. I have always understood that as a bit of proof that the settings for the fixed texts given to our Church in the 1960s were successful in putting the English text first and the chant second while the settings in the Johnstown books still placed the chant before the English text.

Mr. Administrator raises a valid question or two.

I would like to add whether there is any room for chant development?

However, as he may well know, many parishes don't have ANY chant tradition and/or style. Chant is basically 'just getting through the liturgy.' His bulletin handouts have taken a good number of parishes from chant ignorance (many notches below Plainchant for Dummies) to a working order. It is nice to hear the youth take the lead with the melodies in their heart and on their lips. But what happens when not a single tone in any style is learned?

I think what the Metropolia is trying to do is what ANY organization tries to do when something has been left for dead for so long; it tries to get something done. Where does one turn to?

Organizatinal practices and language has their own life force when not regulated. How did we get the Romance languages? How does a company end up with a dozen accounting procedures when one is enough? Consolidate and standardize or let loose and free for 'organic development' and all its natural growths.

Standards are always a goal, not reality.

And no matter what is officially decided, nothing is official. Cantors and clergy will still do what they want to do. Church is still a local thing.

This reminds me of the awful Basil hymns for Lent. I believe they were elongated to cover the time Father said the Anaphora silently to himself. And do we have to really sing "To You, O Lord" twice? This is still in some recent publications of hymn books.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Cantor JFK,

Earlier in this thread, you said:

It would appear that the work of the Commission, in large part, was based on the premise that there was a need to "standardize" the plain chant in the Metropolia by "restoring" the settings as they appeared in the 1906 Prostopinije.

Your thoughts?

I would have originally responded with an affirmative and an explanation. Before I could answer, our own Administrator added a single word to what you said:

Cantor JKF raises a very good question about the premise of a strict interpretation of the 1906 Boksaj Prostopinije.

John (Admin), on your web site here, you have an account of prostopinije chant taken from Father Andrew Sokol's 1955 book, Basic Chant. You quote the last paragraph of the introduction in full, but you leave out the PREVIOUS paragraph, which after explaining how to mark different Slavonic texts for singing to the common prostopinije melodies, concludes:

Prostopinije, like any traditional oral music, has an internal logic and integrity. It is NOT simply the contents of one book, and never has been. It is a BODY of music with complex interrelationships among the rhythms and melodies, and with the various parts of the liturgy. What you neglect to mention is that the "simplification" that took place when our chant was adapted to English was part of a larger whole.

Let's look at the "tan book", the 1964 "The Divine Liturgy of Our Father Saint John Chrysostom", "adapted from traditional chants for congregational use by the inter-eparchial music commissions of Pittsburgh and Passaic", and running to 38 pages. This was the common text used by the people from 1964 till 1978 - and the only text WITH MUSIC officially published for the entire Pittsburgh metropolia. (Father Levkulic's much larger service book from 1978 had no music; your own non-Passaic books, John, are approved by not officially promulgated, I believe; correct me if I'm wrong.)

This little book is HEAVILY abbreviated; we knew that. But the same thing was done to the music: two melodies were provided for the Trisagion (heavily edited and in waltz time), and one for everything else. This little book became THE standard in many of our parishes - unless the cantor sang from HIS settings, or from HIS copy of Byzantine Liturgical Chant (after 1970).

Now since then, we've restored a number of the litanies that were omitted, and are on the way to restoring the third antiphon. Your booklets, John, have added an additional melody or two. But you seem steadfastly to believe that while we MUST restore the optional Litanies and other things omitted in the text, we MUST NOT restore the melodies that were truncated and edited at the same time - that the people can adapt to all sorts of new texts being restored, but can't adapt to singing in English the same melodies our old people remember from Slavonic.

I am in no wise saying that we ought to sing awkward arrangements. What I am saying is that the editing done in 1964 damaged the integrity of the chant - did as much violence to our chant as the partial text did for the Liturgy as a whole. It allowed a "short form" of Liturgy, and IMPOSED "dumbed down" music to match.

Many people still remember the "old music" - some cantors still sing it, albeit by ignoring the printed music in front of them, including yours, John - and it has real value; it forms a coherent whole.

To see what I mean, let's consider the single melody for Alleluia given in the 1964 book. (Many parishes today still haven't restored the Alleluia in all eight tones, but use the Tone 4 one - since it's "in the book".) Here is the melody in Slavonic:



Here it is in 1964 :



This is quicker to get through; it's up-tempo, and avoids any kind of meditative pause. In the last phrase, it throws the "weight" from the middle (the repeated mi) to the end. Here it is in 1970, with the middle rhythm restored:



and here it is in the proposed IEMC setting:



(Note that the IEMC adjusted the second phrase so that the Alleluia is closer to how people are used to dividing the syllables.) Not a big deal, right? It takes a little longer to sing in either 1970 or IEMC, just like the Liturgy with the third antiphon and more litanies than we used to take. But now look at the 1970 prokeimenon melody that comes just before it:



In Slavonic, it's the SAME MELODY as the Alleluia, at least in the middle and end:



In the IEMC setting, this similarity can be both seen and heard, without making the English ANY more awkward or contorted:





That pause in the third phrase on A is important, both for the curve of the melody, and for hearing the fact that the Alleluia and the Prokeimenon share the same melody - making both easier to remember and sing.

Most of the IEMC changes to the Ordinary parts of the Liturgy are quite minor - for example, to the Our Father, the "It is truly proper" that John mentioned, and so on. I should probably write up a commentary that shows the differences and perhaps people will understand a little better what's involved; looking at a text with only one melody for each part (like the linked one) doesn't give a full view of the issues.

(limit of 8 images in a post; continued in next post)

NEXT: Something a little more challenging.

But now I'm going to take the risk of scaring people, to show what our chant can do for the Church.

First, a story from Thomas Day's Why Catholics Can't Sing, about a Mass in an inner city Latin Rite church:

Can it happen here?

At the risk of scaring you, I'd like to to LISTEN to a recording of the Tone 1 Prokeimenon in Slavonic - the Tone 1 Alleluia is our longest (I wish I had a recording of that as well). Remember that the Alleluia has always been an almost wordless chant of joy and praise - "jubilus" of Blessed Augustine. Now here's the music in Slavonic.



"The Lord is God" from Matins is at the top; the prokeimenon from the Divine Liturgy is in the middle, and the Alleluia from the Liturgy is at the bottom. All three share a common melody.

Here is the tone 1 melody in 1970:



Here's the 1970 Prokeimenon in the same tone. Except for the ending note, can you tell they use the same melody?



And here is the proposed IEMC setting. Note that the IEMC did NOT keep every note; they shortened the middle section slightly, but kept the beauty and vigor of the entire melody:



and the prokeimenon:



Here is a recording of the Prokeimenon and Alleluia in Tone 1 (which ARE recognizable now as the same music), taped for instructional purposes in St. Olga's in Chicago - and it would sound even better during a real Liturgy.

Let a congregation at this music; many of the old people will remember it. On one Sunday, the people will hear it five times (before and after the prokeimemon, and accompanying both verses of the Alleluia). Even without books, some will be singing it by the end if the cantor is not afraid of it. And music in front of people DOES make a difference.

This is our chant - and the IEMC settings do in fact reflect it better than the ones from 1964 and 1970. If you find something wrong in the IEMC settings, write me about it! (And I do hope to post most comparisons, here or on the MCI website.) But it's a body of music that deserves to be restored and used in fullness - which includes Vespers and Matins, where the REALLY wild interrelationships in text and melody come to light and give us something to rest our hearts in. Half the power of our singing in Slavonic is NOT nostalgia, but that we had a coherent, complete body of really good music to sing.

Don't be afraid to let the floor shake.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Joe T asked do we have to really sing "To You, O Lord" twice?

In my parish our priest asks for this as well as an extended a-men following the prayer immediately after. I believe that it is mainly a matter of personal piety, but I could be wrong. It has never occurred to me to ask why. During other services, such as Vespers, we do the single version.

P.S. In the Tone 1 examples, I ought to have said "Holy is the Lord" from Matins rather than "The Lord is God" (which is sung to the troparion rather than the prokeimenon melody). For comparison, the tone 1 setting of "Holy is the Lord" can be found on page 92 of the MCI Sunday Matins Book - Jeff

Glory Forever!

Jeff, in this post and the one that follows it, you have demonstrated (and quite well, I might again say) that the music proposed by the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission makes an attempt to be a faithful interpretation, in English, of the 1906 Boksaj-Malinich Prostopinije.

Unfortunately, I don't think you answered my original question about the guiding premise of this musical work that there was a need to "standardize" the plain chant in the Metropolia by "restoring" the settings as they appeared in the 1906 Prostopinije.

So, let me ask it again, in a different way, and one that will not require you to perform another side-by-side comparision of music.

The 1906 Boksaj-Malinich Prostopinije is a picture of one parish's interpretation/rendition of the Carpathian Plain Chant for the Greek Catholic Church.

Similarly, the 1970 BLC English arrangements are an interpretation/rendition of the Carpathian Plain Chant for the Greek Catholic Church.

Both editions were created during very different eras and for different reasons. Both serve and have served their purposes very well.

Boksaj's work was primarily aimed at providing a resource to train new Cantors in the Seminary in Uzhorod.

The purpose of the BLC was to make a basic set of musical resources available as parishes continued to move decisively from Church Slavonic to the English across the United States.

Putting aside the debate over which collection of music is "better," because there's no solution to that debate as each person brings a somewhat different perspective to bear when considering the merits of each set of music, there is a bigger question to consider.

If the guiding premise of the IEMC wasthe need to "standardize" the plain chant in the Metropolia by "restoring" the settings as they appeared in the 1906 Prostopinije, then we need to consider:

Will restoring the 1906 Church Slavonic music program of the Uzhorod Cathedral (re-arranged to fit an English text) enhance the Liturgical Life of our Faithful? Will it help them to better know and praise our Lord in the Divine Services? Will it help them to better answer our call to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ?"

If yes: How was that determination reached?

If no: One must speculate that the original premise may simply be the whim or personal preference of a selective elite within our Metropolitan Church. If that is the case, is it worth putting the prayer of the Faithful in jeopardy?

The "quality" of the music nor it's "faithfulness" to a hundred-year old book is not at the heart of the discussion; our discussion should focus on "HOW" and "WHY" the guiding premise developed.

~ Cantor JKF

Dear Cantor JKF,

First, I think you misunderstand the purpose of the 1906 Prostopinije. It was NOT created in order to provide some sort of "snapshot" of local practice; it was commissed by the Bishop of Mukachevo to "reform the liturgical chant and achieve some kind of uniformity in the Eparchy." In the process, he underwrote the first printed collection of Transcarpathian chant, which was used in both the Seminary and Cantor's School - and across the Eparchy as well.

Second, you seem to dismiss the entire history of prostopinije in Church Slavonic between 1906 and 1985 or so. The 1906 collection was not just reprinted; it was expanded in 1925 by Theodore Ratsin; used in class notes at the Pittsburgh Seminary and Mount Saint Macrina; reorganized and expanded with further material by Father Andrew Sokol in the 1950's. Father Sokol's Divine Liturgy book (reprinted by Bishop Michael in 1982!), which it includes melodies omitted in Boksaj, is used to this day where Church Slavonic liturgies are celebrated - there is one on our cantor stand in Endicott, and many copies were in evidence last month in at the Uniontown pilgimage. (Some of our melodies aren't in Boksaj, but ARE in Sokol, which is basically a complete manual for singing the Divine Liturgy in Church Slavonic.)

From Europe, we have prostopinije collections independent of Boksaj, as well as access to manuscripts of Znammeny and Galician chant that were unavailable in the 1960's. These manuscripts often show us where certain melodies not found in Boksaj may have come from.

Finally, we have sixty years of composition of harmonized prostopinije from choirs in Church Slavonic, and many collections in English which do NOT follow the 1970 abbreviations. For example, the Alleluia contained in Mr. John Vernoski's leaflet for September 24, 2006, is NOT the Alleluia printed in the 1970 Byzantine Liturgical Chant; it has been updated and corrected. Why may John do this, but not the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission?

Every chant teacher I have had, from both Europe and America, has held that the 1964 settings did not reflect the TRADITION of prostopinije singing; the many cantors who have tried to adapt these settings to incorporate older elements serve as witness to this. Back in the 1990's, I was working with monastic and parochial cantors to try and re-invigorate the prostopinije tradition, learning and singing the melodies used in Slavonic, and preserving them in English. This is NOT adherence to a book; it is adherence to an oral tradition, for which documentary evidence also exists.

If you had come to Pittsburgh for the Metropolitan Cantor School, you would have heard the following text read, which we were told would be in the foreword to the proposed Divine Liturgies Book:

The musical settings are based on the Ruthenian tradition that has been handed down from one generation to another. After extensive research, discussion and detailed comparison of various oral and written sources, the Intereparchial Music Commission has compiled the plainchant settings of the Byzantine liturgy found in this book.

This agrees with what we were trying to do for Vespers and Matins in the 1990's: to preserve the oral tradition of prostopinije in service to the Church. In many cases, few changes or none were needed, or the Commission decided to leave an existing English melody in place. In others, the English version was adjusted to match the way we sing in Slavonic, always taking English accent and phrasing into account.

Right now, we have NO common set of music for the Pittsburgh Metropolia, beyond an absolutely minimal set of music for the Divine Liturgy - and even that is not used as written. Father Sokol's book has fifteen settings of the Cherubic Hymn, ALL of which I have sung in English in one parish or another, with good congregational singing. The 1970 BLC has seven - and that book was never in the hands of the people.

The 1964 and 1970 collections drastically changed the form of many of the prostopinije melodies. This can be seen clearly in John's 1997 Liturgy book - which gives the FIRST verse of each Antiphon in the melodies from 1964 (each of which has a different interpretation of the cadence!), while the remaining verses are pointed for singing to the Slavonic melody. Why not sing the first verses to the same melody??

Cantors have "fixed" these melodies for years, each in his own way. For the bishops to select eight priests and cantors, many with wide experience in the chant, to create an "English Boksaj", makes perfect sense at this time, while we still have many who remember the original forms of the melodies, sung in both English and Slavonic. In many cases, a choice will need to made from a variety of variants.

I agree that quality is key to the discussion; but I see no reason that the Commission should be bound a particular individual's settings from any era, when trying to preserve the tradition. And a service book with complete music is something we have needed for years, which cannot possibly be limited to those settings; the tradition of prostopinije is both too broad and too deep for such a narrow view. Much as I may quibble with that setting or that from the IEMC, they did NOT take a narrow view of prostopinije.

NOTE: I would be happy to revise my views of the 1964 settings if you can show me any settings at all of plainchant in Slavonic that use the shortened or altered music in the 1964 and 1970 collections. I haven't found any; the author(s) in 1964 appear to have simply "chopped up" the melodies to make them easy, often altering the melodies in very idiosyncratic ways.

Right now, many of our parishes have no cantor, or an untrained one; we have the tools these days to begin to remedy that lack. Many of our parishioners are well educated, and even many of those without much education can read music at least somewhat. The question is whether to use the prostopinije tradition, or the "dumbed down" settings from 1964 and the later attempts at "fixing" them; even "fixed", they remain neutered. We can do better, and God should have the best praise we can muster - "dumbed down" music needs to be quietly put away, in favor of the music we've been quietly singing all along, across the Metropolia.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

Bishop Fircak commissioned Rev. Bokshaj and Cantor Malinich to "write down on paper" the Rusyn Prostopinije because until that point, no written musical notation was widely available, which made cantor training difficult. Cantors were usually trained by oral tradition. Bishop Fircak wasn't attempting to reform Prostopinije.

Ungcsertezs

Ung,

It depends on what you mean by "reform". Notated hand-copied irmologia in Kievan notation were widely used in the 18th century - Bishop Andrew Bachinsky (1773-1809) ordered that a list of all the books used in his eparchy be compiled.

But according to Sr. Joan (Roccasalvo):

"During the nineteenth century, the struggle for social justice and religious freedom continued to claim the attention of bishops living in Subcarpathian Rus'. It should not come as any surprise then, that matters pertaining to the chant, i.e. learning and executing it, were not of paramount importance. Basic human needs ranked first in the hierarchy of values.

With the advent of Bishop Fircsak (1891-1912), the chant once again became an object of special concern in the Mukachevo diocese. Bishop Fircsak assigned Father Boksai, an accomplished musician, to gather and copy the local melodies of the entire liturgical cycle. Deficiences in chant studies had declined over the years, and many variants of the same chant existed, with one parish singing the chant different from another. The organization and uniformity mandated by Firczak were long overdue"

As Father Stefan Papp said, in the notes accompanying the 1970 Czech edition and expansion of Boksaj:

It was Bishop Fircsak (1891-1912), who decided to reform the liturgical chant and achieve some kind of uniformity in the whole Eparchy.

Based on these statements, the Bishop was not looking to CHANGE the chant, but to collect, standardize and arrange for the use of one preferred version. Local traditions continued, of course; but what you hear at Slavonic liturgies in the US is basically drawn from this standardized tradition, with additions from a variety of sources.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Considering that the "Uniate" Rusyn clergy were sent to Hungarian Roman Catholic seminaries for higher education, the "square" musical notation that was used by Eastern Slav Church was naturally discarded in favor of the Western notation.

Ungcsertezs

Yes and no. Father Papp states with certainty that Father Boksaj compared his work with Juhasevic irmologia; and Cantor Theodore Ratsin, who studied at the monastery in Mukachevo before coming to the United States, published Lenten chants in modern notation that were faithful transcriptions from the (square-note) L'vov Irmologion. They may not have published books in square notation, but they could certainly read them.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

What I think Bp. Fircak wanted to create was a cantor manual using the Western musical notation to use as a teaching aid. By using Western notation in the Prostopinije book, the Hungarian Roman Catholics would most likely approve of it.

Ungcsertezs

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!

Jeff:
Thank you for responding to my question about the premise of the IEMC's work and the choice of Boksaj. I'll discuss that in a moment.

Based on some of your responses, it appears that you might have mis-read or mis-interpreted some of my earlier statements. For the sake of clarity, I have embedded your quotes below and inserted my points of clarification.

I never indicated that the 1906 Prostopinije was created to provide a "snapshot" of local practice.

I said: "Boksaj's work was primarily aimed at providing a resource to train new Cantors in the Seminary in Uzhorod."

On this point, we seemingly agree, as this edition was used in both the Seminary and Cantor's School.

I'm well-versed in the history of Prostopinije in Church Slavonic; the purpose of my post/question, however, was not to provide a historical timeline for the publication of the Church Slavonic resources for Carpathian Plain Chant.

I, therefore, did not specifically mention the works published by Ratsin, Sokol, and Papp. By no means should one interpret that to mean that I "dismissed" them. In fact, I believe that each of these editions played a valuable role in further documenting some of the variations of our chant, and I personally use selections from them when singing in Church Slavonic.

I said: "...the 1970 BLC English arrangements are an interpretation/rendition of the Carpathian Plain Chant for the Greek Catholic Church."

I never claimed and would never claim that these arrangements did not drastically change the form of many of the Prostopinije melodies. It is quite clear that there was a deliberate attempt by the group that put this work together to accomplish a re-cast of melodies from Bokshaj. They were successful in this effort; although I do not personally agree with some of their choices, I must concede that they created music that has served our Church well for about the last 40 years.

It sounds like Boksaj was chosen because research has shown that the music in this edition appears to provide some "common denominator" between the different local variations (in Church Slavonic) that existed in Europe and the United States at the turn of the Century.

The Commission cannot overlook the fact that the past 40+ years saw the introduction of a new "common denominator" (in English) with the 1970 Music (with all of its often-discussed problems and shortcomings).

For many of our Faithful and Clergy, this music IS our chant.

Save for a few nostalgic folks (myself included), I doubt that the majority of the Faithful will immediately recognize the arrangements of the IEMC as the restoration of their long-lost, beloved Slavonic Prostopinije. They'll see it as "new music."

Musically, perhaps we should not go back to 1906 and stay there :rolleyes: -- instead, perhaps we should assess where we are in 2006 and embrace the potential opportunity to move forward, and best respond to the needs of an increasingly diverse, American Church.

Your thoughts?

Jeff,

Thanks for your willingness to participate in this discussion.

I think that there are several different discussions going on here and that you might be missing the real questions that have been asked of you.

Everyone agrees that we need a standard and that much music needs to be published and new cantors trained. That is not the issue and I hope you will understand that that is not the question.

Also, no one is arguing that the proposed chant settings are not literally “note for note” faithful to Boksaj. They are so literally faithful that it is clear that proper accentuation of the English text is of secondary importance (the example of “now-ow-ow-ow” showed that, and your explanation clearly admitted that the chant is more important than the English text in this current effort – other examples of this can be found in abundance in the link at the beginning of this thread).

The question is what shall that standard be? Obviously it shall be some form of our chant until our Church starts producing new chant that works better for the American culture.

Why do we need literal faithfulness to Boksaj?

Why not an adapted form of Boksaj that better serves the English language and worship in America? As I noted earlier, I do not agree with every note of the 1964 / 1970 settings. It does seem clear to me that their intention in purposefully changing the chant was to put English first and the chant second (and maybe even present something more inviting to the American ear). They did not always succeed in their goal. But they gave us the standard we have for the fixed English texts of the Divine Liturgy that has served us for 40 years. Why not merely adjust those settings for consistency and better accentuation of English? And be reasonably faithful to Boksaj without being rigidly literal about it? Why is it necessary to return to a literal version of Boksaj?

In Divine Worship the job of the chant is to serve the text. When the Slavs accepted Christianity from the Greeks it came with priests and chanters who brought Greek chant. When the liturgical language went from Greek to Slavonic the Slavs did not think it necessary to preserve Greek chant, let alone a “note for note” literal exactness of Greek chant. They took it and developed something wonderful and unique in the various Slavic chant systems that are now in existence. So why cannot we do the same thing with Boksaj? Why must we keep every note – even to the point where the English settings are awkward and accent the wrong syllables?

What was the thought process which lead to a desire to abandon an English standard that has served the Church (for fixed texts) very well for 40 years to a literal faithfulness to an earlier rendition?

How does a standard based upon a literal “note for note” faithfulness to Boksaj better serve the Church’s job in proclaiming the Gospel to America than does one with slight (or even major) adaptations to some of the melodies?

These are the questions that I would like to see answered.

John / Admin

Dear Cantor JKF and Administrator (John):

Wow, you two always seem to answer in couples - I will try to respond in the order of the questions asked and statements made.

Cantor JKF, you said:

I said: "Boksaj's work was primarily aimed at providing a resource to train new Cantors in the Seminary in Uzhorod."

On this point, we seemingly agree, as this edition was used in both the Seminary and Cantor's School.

In fact this is NOT what I said. The 1906 Prostopinije was intended to standardize and unify the chant in the Mukachevo eparchy. This is directly related to John's statement below: that TODAY we need a chant standard as well.

The reason I wondered if you were ignoring the history of Church Slavonic chant from 1906 to the present is that you and John keep referring to the IEMC's supposed "strict adherence to the 1906 Prostopinije." You have both made this claim repeatedly - but based on BOTH the statement from the foreword which was read at the Cantor's Institute, and on the actual works from the IEMC, your claim is simply not true. The IEMC attempted to provide settings based on the ACTUAL PROSTOPINIJE TRADITION, the bulk of which is in Church Slavonic, and which goes far beyond Boksaj. They made these settings with all the current English usages in view, and discarded material from Boksaj in a variety of cases. So your claim simply does not stand up.

I ... would never claim that these arrangements did not drastically change the form of many of the Prostopinije melodies. It is quite clear that there was a deliberate attempt by the group that put this work together to accomplish a re-cast of melodies from Bokshaj.

Yes. An attempt was made in 1964 - and a comparison of the 1964 and 1970 books shows that MANY of the melodies needed to be changed AGAIN in 1970. I have sung in five parishes in three eparchies; not one of them used the 1964 or 1970 music (and they are different!) AS WRITTEN. All of them modified the melodies and rhythms, sometimes extensively, and in almost all cases to either (a) re-introduce motifs and rhythms from the Church Slavonic prostopinije (while keeping good English accents) or (b) to add ornamentation to the recast melodies, which are often austere and abbreviated.

Here is what I mean.

This morning, at our parish in Endicott, we had on the cantor's stand:

a 1964 Divine Liturgy book
a 1978 Levkulic "pew book"
John Vernoski's leaflet for this Sunday
a copy of Sokol's Plain Chant
a book of the Divine Liturgy with the variations for the Eparchy of Passaic
three looseleaf pages with music

plus a notebook full of music from the old Advanced Cantor's School, as well as chant transcriptions from the Prostopinije by Professor Lessler back in the day.

The first two books were turned page by page through the service, since the 1964 book omits so much of it. We sang from the 1964 book, supposedly - but with a single exception (Blessed be the name of the Lord), not once did we actually sing the notes as written. It was not simply a matter of bad accents; quarter notes are held, slurs added, and notes "corrected" on the fly. To have sung exactly according to the book would have been painfully noticeable. An appeal to the book would have likely been met with the statement our head cantor gave me when I first started singing there: "They may have written that down in 1964, but it's not our music."

When we came to the troparia, as he always does, he sang the hand-pointed music from the text in Lekvulic. Our assistant cantor used to sing from the Vernoski leaflet, but now he just uses it for the text and sings the melodies by formula - which usually results in a much more consistent rendering. (For example, he consistently adds a quarter note where sometimes the Vernoski setting move stepwise, and sometime leaps.) Both have complained that John's settings change over time.

When we came to the prokeimenon, I sang it as usual, from John's leaflet - and guess what? It was not the 1970 music; it had been altered to be closer to Boksaj. THIS is what bothers me about the claim, "The IEMC must not move away from our tradition of the last forty years." That "tradition" encompassed a TON of internal inconsistencies - which I would be happy to explain - and not even our own Administrator can keep to it!

Our cantor says he knows that the music coming from the IEMC is bad. He had heard that the IEMC is trying to change our chant "to modernize it" and throw out all the prostopinije. He says that the IEMC is composed of people who don't know how our music is really sung in Slavonic.

Where did he hear it? "Everyone is talking about it on the Internet, and all the priests learned about it from there."

(Last year, I brought in the MCI materials and sang the prokeimenon (current text) using the IEMC prokeimenon setting. Our head cantor, who had seen the title page, rolled his eyes and reminded me how the people in Pittsburgh wanted to ruin our chant.

Eight weeks later, I sang the same prokeimenon to the SAME melody, walking up the stand and singing from memory. Afterward, our cantor took me aside to tell me how WONDERFUL it was to hear the old prostopinije melody - far better than the simplified one we usually used.

Conclusion: Expectations influence reactions.)

I have been asking for detailed critiques and comments on the IEMC-derived MCI materials - including the ENTIRE Sunday Octoechos from the proposed book - for three years, and all people can say is, "Oh, it's awful, and I can show you lots of examples." I'm waiting; the gist of the current argument seems to be that the IEMC is abandoning the 1964 music - which no parish I have ever sung in, and no recording I have heard, ACTUALLY uses as written - settings which you seem to agree may have made "drastic changes" to the chant and "re-cast melodies."

It sounds like Boksaj was chosen because research has shown that the music in this edition appears to provide some "common denominator" between the different local variations (in Church Slavonic) that existed in Europe and the United States at the turn of the Century.

Boksaj was not chosen. You and John have repeatedly made this claim without providing evidence. By the Commission's own statement (quoted earlier), they based their settings on oral AND written sources for the prostopinije tradition, which goes back at least 400 years. It is true that they have largely decided NOT to use the 1964 settings which made "drastic changes", and the 1970 corrections which contains massive inconsistencies. But in some places they KEPT melodies which did not even appear in the older books (such as the second Trisagion in the 1964 collection).

In sumnmary, Cantor JKF, the 1964 / 1970 music is in front of us, but it is NOT USED AS WRITTEN. Even John frequently recasts it as he likes, and ends up closer to the IEMC settings than to the supposed "common tradition". So your statement "this is our chant" falls flat. It does not reflect the truth "on the ground".

We need music that can be used AS WRITTEN. The IEMC chose to embrace the broad tradition of prostopinije, to try to preserve the link to our Church Slavonic past while admitting NEW melodies and restoring little-used ones that deserved to better known, and giving us CONSISTENT chant settings that respect the English word and phrase accent. In another ten years at this rate, we will have lost our chance to recover the 3/4 of the prostopinije corpus that our current books omit, and will STILL have books in front of us that we ignore. THAT is why this is an opportune time for change.

Dear Administrator (John):

I don't think I have missed the question, and I thought I had answered it - but your follow-up suggests I was not clear enough.

You said:

How does a standard based upon a literal “note for note” faithfulness to Boksaj...

The IEMC did not follow simply Boksaj; a good number of their melodies do not even come from Boksaj. They chose to follow the Church Slavonic tradition of prostopinije more closely than before - and treat the melodies CONSISTENTLY. In specific cases such as short text phrases, a consistent solution was applied to all the music set to the melody. This was NOT done in the 1964 and 1970 books, which often set each troparion differently from the others in the same tone, omitting notes in a scatter-shot fashion according to the desire of the composer.

The very fact that the new settings are consistent makes them MUCH easier to learn - no harder, for example, than the new music you introduced for the Typika or in other places. The biggest obstacle to a standardization of our English chant - and I repeat, my experience in a variety of parishes is that we do have "chant anarchy" regardless of the fact that we are supposedly all singing from the same 1970 - or was is 1964? - music - is the whispering campaign that asserts WITHOUT EVIDENCE that "oh, I heard the music is awful."

Everyone agrees that we need a standard.

I'm gratified to hear this. I just don't agree that we need "American music", since Orthodox the world over have praised our chant in Slavonic AND English for its beauty, singability and usefulness. Before we can add new music, we should ensure we don't lose what we have. Now is the opportune time, and the "new music" (with melodies MANY of our old people will recognize, like the restored Cherubic hymns) is NOT that hard to teach or learn.

On to specifics:

Also, no one is arguing that the proposed chant settings are not literally “note for note” faithful to Boksaj. They are so literally faithful that it is clear that proper accentuation of the English text is of secondary importance (the example of “now-ow-ow-ow” showed that, and your explanation clearly admitted that the chant is more important than the English text in this current effort – other examples of this can be found in abundance in the link at the beginning of this thread).

Judging from your "They are so literally faithful" , your first sentence implies that everyone AGREES that the proposed settigns are "note for note" faithful to Boksaj. I deny this absolutely. The IEMC has kept the melodic SHAPE of the prostopinije lines, only truncating them where absolutely necessary - and even then, truncating them according to patterns found elsewhere in the corpus of chant. They have kept a chant RHYTHM. But very often notes were adjusted slightly to fix the English prose rhythm and accent, or to reduce the Slavonic melody to a more manageable length.

Proper accents are of principal important, as are PHRASE accents (often neglected in 1964/1970). In the phrase

Now and ever and forever, Amen.

the text accents are on NOW and EVer and forEVer. AmEN." (The second "and" carries a weak accent but not a strong one; Amen is sometimes sung as a spondee - AM-EN). What I said was that if there was an EASY way to resplit the syllables, I would. But there is NOTHING wrong with a four note melisma. Proof? In today's prokeimenon (Tone 3), you added a four note melisma direct from Boksaj that was NOT in the 1970 setting.

If that's the best you can do, then I don't agree that those are "bad accents". A bad accent occurs when a WEAK syllable is accented, not when a strong syllable is sung over several notes. The other place a bad accent can occur is when a text accent occurs at a conspicuously weak point in the melody - for example, on the second or fourth note of a four-note melisma. Thus, if the text had been "AND now-ow-ow" rather than just "Now", THAT would have been a bad accent.

We have posted 2500 pages of music on the MCI website, pretty much all of it set using the standards and practices of the IEMC. If you find things you want to comment on or suggest corrections, PLEASE do so! But a text-accented syllable on four notes is NOT by itself a bad accent, at least in my book - and typically not awkward enough to justify truncating a melody.

You asked:

The question is what shall that standard be? Obviously it shall be some form of our chant until our Church starts producing new chant that works better for the American culture.

I think the latter part of your proposal much more controversial than the former. Based on the music in your propers, the chant (even from Boksaj) DOES work - whereas the "drastically changed" versions are often not sung as written, leading people to distrust their own books. The question is whether we try to return people to the "dumbed down" chant in front of them - shortened, simplified, and inconsistent - or give them their own birthright, consistent prostopinije settings in English. Your own work is a start that goes FAR beyond the 1970 book.

The answer to your next question is similar: the 1964/1970 books made drastic changes to the chant, shortened and "simplified" melodies, and were massively inconsistent. Many parishes simply change the chant as desired. To use them "for real" would require almost as much retraining as the new chant - while abandoning dozens of melodies the IEMC have added back into the proposed books. Which one is really progress?

Why must we keep every note – even to the point where the English settings are awkward and accent the wrong syllables?

The IEMC has NOT kept every note, and their settings are significantly less awkward than the 1964/1970 ordinary AS WRITTEN. Yes, people who try to sing the new melodies without looking at them will get caught out sometimes. If you have a REAL example of an accent on the wrong syllable, please point it out. Better yet, please point out all of them in the linked text while you're at it (it's not THAT long).

What was the thought process which lead to a desire to abandon an English standard that has served the Church (for fixed texts) very well for 40 years to a literal faithfulness to an earlier rendition?

First, the English standards from 1964 and 1970 (again, 1964 and 1970 are DIFFERENT) AS WRITTEN were abandoned, modified or supplemented in many parishes long ago. The IEMC seems to be trying to be faithful (curious how you use "literal" as a praise-word in texts, and a curse-word in music!) to an earlier TRADITION, not a rendition - and that tradition is called prostopinije. Calling "drastically changed" melodies, and contorted metered music, prostopinije does not make it such.

Forty years is not a long time. Why are you so determined to hang on to music even you don't use (more than half the 1970 book) while insisting we need to rediscover and apply an Ordo from 1944? Can't we accept restored musical traditions while continuing to ask for restored liturgical traditions?

Or are you SO opposed to any initiative from our bishops, or SO determined to have new "American" music, that you will persist in opposing a honest attempt to extend, teach and use our own traditional plainchant?

Your last question:

How does a standard based upon a literal “note for note” faithfulness to Boksaj better serve the Church’s job in proclaiming the Gospel to America than does one with slight (or even major) adaptations to some of the melodies?

No one has proposed a musical revision that I have seen, except for the IEMC settings, and Jerry Jumba's - both of which are much better prostopinije than the 1964/1970 settings. And I have already pointed out that the IEMC settings are NOT "note for note faithfulness to Boksaj". Further, you are asking for "even major" adaptations to already "drastically modified" melodies - why not just adapt the original melodies we STILL use in Slavonic?

So let me turn the false alternative around:

Question: How does a chant standard based upon faithfulness to our own chant tradition better serve the Church’s job in proclaiming the Gospel to America?

Answer:

By placing in front of our faithful, guests, and inquirers, service books with good collections of beautiful, well-presented liturgical chant for use in our Divine Services.

By making the faithful familiar with traditional, consistent music for those services which have fallen by the wayside - Matins, Vespers, Molebens - thus assisting in a rediscovery of those services.

By attempting to repair the breach between Vostochniki and "good Greek Catholics" by using music which can be sung EITHER in English or in Church Slavonic, without having to drastically shift melodies.

By preserving a 500 year old tradition of church music and congregational singing for which WE are responsible, and which has in the past served as an example to Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and non-believers, of the beauty of the Liturgy.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!

Jeff --

Our discussion began with my suggestion of a premise under which the IEMC conducted it's work:

It would appear that the work of the Commission, in large part, was based on the premise that there was a need to "standardize" the plain chant in the Metropolia by "restoring" the settings as they appeared in the 1906 Prostopinije.

In your post on Saturday afternoon, you said:
Since that post, the discussion has run in circles dealing with Bokšaj, how the IEMC's work may or may not literally adhere to Bokšaj, etc.

I'll leave those debates for other posters, make a couple of final points for this discussion, and move onto other things.

The late Msgr. William Levkulic had included the following in several of the booklets that he published for private use over the years:

In my estimation, that was a terrific guiding principle ("premise") for Cantors using the music in his booklets.

During the Paschal Season, I listened to the recorded music from St. George the Great-Martyr Parish in Aliquippa, PA and the Resurrection Matins recorded by the Schola Cantorum of St. Peters in the Loop.

Both of these URL's contain recordings of Paschal Matins using the same tradition of plain chant. Each recording, however, appears to have used different guiding principles.

The "Schola Cantorum" recording reveals what Prostopinije sounds like when a professional ensemble renders chant using "...music that can be used AS WRITTEN."

The Saint George Parish recording, on the other hand, reveals what Prostopinije sounds like when a group of Cantors (none of whom, to the best of my knowledge, are "professional musicians") gather together to unite their voices and hearts in prayer.

In my opinion, the recording from the Schola Cantorum lacks the "vibrance" of the St. George parish recording. It is almost too "polished" to be Prostopinije and sounds more like Gregorian Chant.

Other than expressing my opinion (which, by the way, is not intended to be a criticism of anyone's work - so, please, assume good intentions on my part), what's my point?

In your latest post (which is far too long for me to Quote), you made many references (I quickly counted about 8) to the fact that most, if not all parishes, do not sing the 1964 or 1970 music "as written."

You're correct. Is that indicative of a serious problem in our Church?

Not necessarily. In any kind of a cappella singing, slight variations can be expected - regardless of the music that may be placed in front of the people as a guide.

The Paschal Recordings referenced above are a case in point. While the Cantors leading the services at Saint George did have a variety of music in front of them, they were more concerned about having the feeling of abundant joy over Christ's Resurrection radiate throughout that Church (via the plain chant) than they were about strictly adhering to the notes on the page.

If the IEMC's music is promulgated, it will not take long for regional differences to develop again because our Plain Chant is far more than notes on a page.

The Carpathian Plain Chant is part of a Living Faith and Living Church. It will continue to take on its own "character" to meet the needs of the Faithful.

In Christ,

~ Cantor JKF

BRAVO JEFF!

Dear Cantor JKF,

I agree with Monsignor Levkulic's note completely - and I regret the sequence of events that made it necessary: the 1964 booklet with its 2/4 and 4/4 arrangements, and the 1970 setting in which every melody was re-rhythmed to try and notate the microscopic variations that Msgr. Levkulic rightfully points out are an integral part of chant-singing. If you come to class, you will hear and see instruction which echoes Monsignor's advice.

I also noted, I believe, that recorded liturgical music sounds MUCH better "live", as actual worship. The St. George recordings are wonderful.

The variations I talked about, as I'm sure you noticed, were NOT these sorts of variations; they were consistent changes to the 1964 settings. Why go over this in such detail? Because a few days ago at least one poster was attacking the new arrangements for daring to differ from "the 1960's arrangements all our parishes are using" - to which I say, no, each parish has its own music, much of which is a reaction to the changes made in 1964.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Cantor JKF,

Yes, Prostopinije sounds more authentic when sung by the general congregation, and not a choir. At the Church Slavonic Divine Liturgy next Sunday at St. John's (Uniontown, PA), most of the faithful present will be singing without the use of a pew book. That's because they will be singing from memory and from the heart. Singing from the heart, that's what Prostopinije is all about!

Ungcsertezs

Glory to God in all things!

In hopes of moving the conversation forward, I will try to write up the actual premises that appear to guide the Music Commission's work - based on their settings released to the MCI so far, and on the discussions and lectures we've had at the Cantor Institute sessions. It will appear as a new thread.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Miezejewski

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!

Terrific!

Jeff -- Thank you for "sticking with" a conversation that, I'm sure, has provided its share of frustration for you.

By now, you will note that my posts have been somewhat different than those of other Cantors/interested parties in that I have been strictly focused on having the guiding principles (or "premises") of the work of the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission shared with a broader community.

One cannot fully appreciate the work and potential contributions of the IEMC/MCI materials nor offer the constructive feedback that you have been requesting without understanding the context under which the work products were created.

Jeff,

Thanks again for your willingness to participate in this discussion. I am sure that it is difficult for you to answers questions about the premise of the new approach to chant. [It is even possible that the commission has never shared with you whatever written approach was directed by / approved by the Council of Hierarchs at the start of this project.] You and others have invested so much time and energy into the new approach that any question – be it one about a particular setting or those we are asking about the guiding principles – is sure to come across as an annoying personal attack. I can assure you that that is not the intent of this discussion. Our Church really does need a discussion about liturgical chant (in addition to one on Liturgy).

I believe that you are still missing the questions I am asking. You keep talking around the questions about premise and responding with answers like we need “well-presented liturgical chant for use in our Divine Services” as if I were arguing that I don’t want such a thing. Clearly I do.

Please let me approach the issue a slightly different way.

Why does the commission (and you) believe that a literal faithfulness is essential to presenting Boksaj (and any other sources in use) in English? What is the basis for such a premise?

Now, please don’t immediately respond with they haven’t kept every note. In many of the fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy the proposed settings are so literally faithful to Boksaj that they do not properly accent the English language.

You admitted this in your presentation about the proposed new setting of “Holy God” when you wrote:
What I take away from this is that:

1. You understand that four notes / six beats on the single syllable “Now” is not “desirable” (especially because this setting makes “now” the most important word in the whole song!).
2. You are comfortable with this poorly accented English because it keeps the original melody fully intact.

Who cares if the music is in “alignment” if the English setting sounds unnatural? Do you really think visitors to our Church are not going to quietly wonder about us when they hear the people singing “Now-ow-ow-ow”? It really is sometimes necessary to adjust the chant so that the setting in English is the most desirous possible.

As I examine the proposed settings in the book that was linked at the start of the other topic I see a number of examples like this. [So please, if you choose to respond, respond to the question on principle and not the example itself.] It is clear that the guiding principle here is one of complete faithfulness to Boksaj, even if such faithfulness means (at times) sacrificing proper accentuation of the English text. The issue I have with such a principle is that since English is our liturgical language we should ensure that every setting places the English text first and the music second. In every single setting the music must serve the text. While I have disagreement with the way the 1964 / 1970 fixed texts of the Divine Liturgy were notated I agree with the guiding principle that it’s OK to make some adaptations to the chant to serve the English text (even if I would not have found some of their adaptations desirous).

It’s not a matter of replacing Prostopinije with “American” music.

It’s a matter of having chant that – without exception - properly accents the English text. It’s a matter of having a visitor to our Church who listens to our wonderful Prostopinije (and whatever else we develop) understand that English is our native language.

I look forward to the write up you are preparing for Cantor JKF.

I hope I have better explained my questions.

John

I'm not sure which side this supports, but it is certainly relevant. One of the problems of Prostopinije (stop throwing things - there is no chant system in this world that doesn't have its problems!) is that even though the books retain the Church-Slavonic accent marks, the words are in fact stressed according to the general Hungarian style of accenting words. The result is that a fair number of even qualified Carpatho-Russian chanters are not particularly concerned about accents in English - when told that the music gives a wrong accent to such-and-such an English world, they would respond byi remarking, quite correctly, that the accent on the corresponding Church-Slavonic word is also "incorrect", but had become traditional (even though this sometimes affected the meaning in peculiar ways).

The point, then, is that retaining Carpatho-Russian prostopinije while requiring that the chant respect the accent of the words (which in English is necessary) requires a serious reconsideration of the relationship of the words to the melodies.

Fr. Serge

Father Serge,

You have a talent of presenting a whole argument in a few short sentences. Thank you!

OK, all you Slavonic lovers out there. Here is a specific example of what Father Serge is talking about. Think of the melody for “Svjaty Boze” provided on page 1 of this thread by Jeff and the even more common one sung in most of our parishes that is not notated in Boksaj.

In the one notated on page 1 we sing:

Svjatyj Boze, Svjatyj Kripkij, …

In the other favorite one we sing:

Svjatyj Boze, Svjatyj Kripkij, …

The accentuation in Slavonic is dependent sometimes upon the melody and not on the text.

OK, you non-Slavonic singers out there will understand this if you read the following, putting the accents on the syllables that are in bold:

Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy and Immortal….

That’s what I mean when I speak of the need for the chant to always (in every case) serve the text. Since chant is merely words dancing to a melody the words always need to be propery accented.

John

I'm at work right now and can't write much, so...

Father Serge, your blessing!

Of course you are right; in fact, whereas our liturgical books AND chant books indicate accents, the musical accents and text accents in the Slavonic settings do not coincide. I think if you look into it further you will see that many of these issues go back much further than Hungarian influence, leading to much earlier complaints about Carpathian cantors (and even Old Believers in some cases) singing "without accents". I was taught early on that when Slavonic is READ, we respect the accents, while when we sing plainchant we follow the music.

One cantor I sang with was MUCH more relaxed when the musical accents did NOT match the text accents. He said that was the way chant was SUPPOSED to sound; that it made the music holier and less "worldly."

Having said that, the 1970 Irmologion of Fr. Stefan Papp made numerous adjustments in melodies to preserve these accents, while retaining the melodic line. In many cases, it was study of these re-arrangements that determined how we "tweaked" prostopinije for English in the MCI settings. Of course, these settings had little or not real effect on how we sing Slavonic in the United States.

John:

(a) You turned my "might not be desirable" into an "is not desirable."
(b) I do not agree that the IEMC setting has a "bad accent"; "Now" is an accented syllable, and part of a triplet (Now, ever, forever) each of which should be emphasized, corresponding to the triple in the first phrase (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). When sung properly, "Now" is certainly not emphasized unduly unless one sings the last note with WAY too much emphasis - that second half note is NOT held, since the breath stolen at the bar line comes out of it.
(c) You claim I am comfortable with bad accents - which I deny. Please demonstrate any place you like where an unaccented text syllable, or a TRULY unimportant word, is musically more prominent than an adjacent accented syllable or important word.

By alignment, I meant that the overall melody (with three internal accents) matches the three key points in the text, nothing more - in other words, that the music DOES serve the text, but without "clipping". (And if you DID omit the first two notes, and just sing the half notes, your singers will go flat immediately.)

The 1970 settings set EVERY troparion in a given tone differently, to "make the music serve the text." This failed, because it meant every troparion - sometimes each phrase - had essentially it's own "version" of the tone. This approach was ABANDONED in favor of much more consistent settings of each melody - as can be see n in your own troparion settings that you distribute.

We have abundant evidence in the prostopinije corpus for how to lengthen, shorten, or adjust almost any melody when needed, WITHOUT changing the flow or sense of the melodic line, in order to fit the text.

Singing "Now" correctly (i.e. with slight emphasis on the first note, less on the second, greater on the third, and shortening and deemphasizing the last - it IS a little dance) makes the line perfectly intelligible and smooth.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. THANK YOU for the example, John! Can you find any examples like that in the IEMC setting - that is, where a weak syllable is emphasized?

Jeff,

Thanks for your post!

Thank you especially for the better explanation of what you consider to be proper accentuation of English text.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I understood your comment that “might not be desirable if we were writing new text rather than using a liturgical one” as an acknowledgement that the setting “might not be desirable”. It seems to me that if you thought it the best setting possible you would not have qualified it with the note that you would not use such accentuation if you were creating a new melody.

It further seems to me that if one sings the “Now-ow-ow-ow” (4 notes with 6 beats) the way it is written one will definitely emphasize the word “Now” as the most important word of the hymn. Americans just don’t go around emphasizing the word “now” in that manner. It reminds me very much of how Ed McMahon used to say “Hereeeeeeeeeeeeee’s Johnny!” (although that was intentional on Mr. McMahon’s part and the example is extreme).

I can accept that you are not intentionally comfortable with improper accents. In looking over the book that was linked in the other thread I see a number of improper accents. They are each different but they are not unlike the “Now-ow-ow-ow” that I find unacceptable in that setting. It seems to me that those who prepared the 1964 / 1970 settings (although improperly notated) felt the same way since they chose not to use such a setting for “Holy God”.

My expectation at this point is that since you think “Now-ow-ow-ow” is perfectly acceptable that we will disagree on any examples I put forth.

Although none of my comments thus far have been about the changeable texts of the Divine Liturgy (esp. troparia) I do agree with your comment that there was great inconsistency in the application of the tones in the 1970 BLC. I do not see this problem as the fault of an adaptation of the music but rather because different people set each troparion and they do not seem to have been reviewed for consistency of application. There are certainly different approaches to setting a fixed text to a particular melody (as in a hymn like “Holy God” or the Cherubic Hymn) and applying the same melody to many different texts (as in troparia and other hymns that are assigned one of the 8 tones).

John

Dear John,

Thanks for your response.

If you can't find any incorrect accents of the type in your Svjatyj Boze example, but only places where you dislike the length of a note or melisma, we may indeed have to agree to disagree - but I would STILL like to see (by email or on paper if that's easier) which places you think are real problems. Remember, this all started with statements that the music was worse than "awful."

Thanks!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. Also, your explanation doesn't account for the fact that in the 1970 troparia, even within a single troparion, the A or B phrase was often set differently from one occurrence to the next. It seems that the individuals involved felt free to come up with new melodic and rhythmic patterns whenever they wished. That is part of what I mean when I object to abandoning the melodic line.

We've seen some feedback presented via this Forum (e.g., “Now-ow-ow-ow”) but the responses from those closest to the project can seem to be very defensive and argumentative (at times), which can quickly defuse the spirit of collaboration between those offering and receiving the feedback.

If the requests for feedback are truly made in earnest, here is a suggestion for an effective and truly collaborative process:

(1) Explain the premise and guiding principles for the work of the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission (IEMC);

(2) Provide each Cantor serving in the Metropolia with a complete copy of the proposed music;

(3) Set a deadline and ask the Cantors to submit their written feedback;

(4) The Commission could compile the feedback received and review it to determine if some "tweaks" are necessary to best serve the needs of our Church;

(5) A final draft could then be mailed to the Cantors who participated in the review process.

Cantor Jkf,

Wouldn't that be considered the last sign of the Apocalypse?

Ungcsertezs

Dear Cantor JKF,

The basic principles were enumerated on page vi of the MCI Sunday Vespers book more than two years ago. For all that time, your contribution, even when asked for input, has consisted essentially of warning people not to use the MCI materials.

If you don't understand why something was set a certain way, ask. If you have suggestions, make them and I can pass them on, but two years ago it would have been more helpful.

I have never heard of input being solicited in 1906, 1964, or 1970. In this particular case, music was available and questions/comments requested for more than a year and a half in advance of any possible official distribution, largely through the offices of the MCI. Changes were made based on suggestions received from cantors in several eparchies.

On the other hand, the instructional materials being prepared to accompany the new music are not yet available. Maybe you should give the IEMC at least as much a benefit of the doubt as you in retrospect grant to the people who did the work in 1964 and 1970? They made drastic changes to the chant, many protested, and according to you it ENDED UP working.

Professor Thompson just gave a presentation on the proposed music to our largest monastic community, and they sang through the proposed Divine Liturgy music with no appreciable stumbling - and many commented afterwards that "that's how we USED to sing it."

I'm willing to try and explain the IEMC procedure, answer questions, and collect and route feedback - as I've been doing for years. Any more than that would probably rely on your convincing the bishops that you want to help rather than obstruct the work of the Music Commission.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

JKF - interesting ideas; I mentioned in another thread the UGCC approach in the "Anthology" (new English Zbornik) of pooling some very prominent cantors together and having them cooperatively hash out the best, most sensible settings of the usual melodies - and then making those drafts readily available for testing out. It can and did work, but it did not happen overnight.
FDD

Dear Jeff,
The blessing of the Lord!

You could be right in suggesting that the custom of the emphasis on the wrong syllable predates the Hungarian influence; I've not studied the question scientifically. In either event, the problem in English remains the same.

There is nothing "holy", let alone holier, about mispronouncing words, especially in a language which one expects to be understandable. Such mispronunciation will convey either the impression of ignorance or the impression of mystification.

The same even applies in "dead" languages (no language which remains in use for liturgical purposes is really all that dead). A change of syllabic stress can, and often does, change the meaning, sometimes in a ludicrous direction. Those who are literate in whatever language this is happening in will attempt to control themselves but could be pardoned for involuntarily bursting out with laughter. I have some specific examples in mind, but I'll spare you the agony of telling you what they are!

For comparison's sake, imagine the havoc that can be caused by simply changing - even by accident - the spelling of just one letter in a word (enser vs. censor is a good example).

Your humble servant understands Church-Slavonic and can sight-translate it, so I pick up mis-placed accents even without looking for them. I have a good number of CDs from the Old Ritualists, and have not noticed any mis-placed accents, although it is true that recension of Church-Slavonic which the Old-Ritualists retain is different from that of the Nikonian books.

Anyway, we simply cannot get away with bad stress in English.

with every blessing, and with my thanks for your re;ly,

Fr. Serge

Jeff,

Thanks for your post.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. If you (and, more importantly, the commission) see no problem with a setting that includes an improper accent like “Now-ow-ow-ow” (making it the most important word in the hymn) then it is unlikely you will see any problems in similarly improperly accented texts in the rest of the proposed new settings. So it really makes no sense for me to prepare a catalog of improperly accented texts for the settings in the book linked at the start of the other thread.

Again, I admire your dedication (and that of the commission) and the hard work that has been done. It seems to me that they have been so intent on restoring and preserving our chant that they are willing to accept improperly accented English.

Always remember that the phrase “That’s how we USED to sing it” means absolutely nothing. “How we used to sing it” can include many settings that improperly accent the English text.

John

Dear John,

WHERE is the bad accent? And as far as timing:

The word NOW receives exactly 3 pulses

the words AND EVER receive exactly 3 pulses

the words AND FOREVER receive 3 pulses and a bit more

the word AMEN receives exactly 3 pulses

This is entirely balanced, and matching the preceding phrase's invocation of the Trinity.

FOR COMPARISION, in the 1964 setting, "Now" is three beats, "and ever" is three beats, "and forever" is four beats - note that "Now" is held three times longer than each of the next five syllables, and twice as long as "-ev-" in forever - and it sounds JUST FINE to our ears.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. Many people have referred to "dumbed down" chant. One principal simplification that took place in 1964 was a severe reduction of melismas - more specifically, of any slur of 3 or more notes. (There were other simplfications as well, in both melody and rhythm.) Actual prostopinije is simply more florid and expressive than the people composing the (greatly abbreviated!) 1964 booklet were prepared to deal with. We have been working our way back, in 1970, in your work and that of the IEMC, Jerry Jumba, and others.

But unless a melismatized word is TRULY less important than the words around it (as in "then he went up the-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e road"), there need be no real problem at all with it. Length in melismatic music is "God's time", and if a word has any theological meaning at all, singing it over several notes should not be a problem - unless someone just wants to hurry up so we can arise and worthily put on our coats!

THAT'S what I mean by saying "Now" on four notes is fine. We're not rushed. "Forever" may be important, but "now" - the still point of the turning world - is important too.

Jeff:
In the statement above, you appear to be accusing me of obstructing the work of the Music Commission - which is completely untrue.

If you are, indeed, making such an allegation, I am very disappointed by both your apparent lack of integrity and Christian charity when presented with an opportunity for discussion & dialogue with a fellow Cantor, and I would expect an apology from you.

Please provide me with specific examples of where I have ever personally done anything to "obstruct" the work of the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission.

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Mierzejewski, you were not been made a member of the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission nor do you have an official role as their "Spokesperson."

I believe that some of us may have given you a false sense of authority by engaging you in discussions about the IEMC's work. Since you weren't a participant in any of their closed sessions, you're probably not in the best position to comment on their efforts.

Lest there be any confusion from other Forum readers....

The point of my post from last evening was to suggest that the IEMC's efforts might be better served if the proposed music is shared in its entirety to a larger body of Cantors.

Balanced feedback is an important component of any change process. Based on what has been shared via this Forum from some members of the MCI (many of whom have studied the music) and, apparently, those who participated in a recent presentation given by Michael Thompson, there has been positive feedback on the proposed music.

Some the changes that I have seen proposed could be good improvements. (Since there seems to be a perception that I have not said anything positive about these materials: One example I can think of is including an arrangement for Resurrection Tone 2 Troparion/Kontakion which has a bit more "character" than the simplified arrangement from 1964/1970 and, candidly, one that reflects the way that I and most Cantors I know actually sing Resurrection Tone 2 Troparion/Kontakion.)

There should be no hesitation to share these materials with a broader group (via a mechanism other than the Internet, for some of our older Cantors) and ask for their feedback. That would allow a very diverse group to review the music (assuming that some, but not all, of our Cantors have formal music training and/or varying degrees of knowledge of Prostopinije) and it would be interesting to see what the composite feedback could look like.

Will there be some positive feedback and "glowing" reviews?
Yes

Will there be some constructive criticism and suggestions for "improvement"?
Yes

Will there be some people who will still write back and say "This new stuff stinks! I wanna sing the black book stuff" and offer no constructive advice to make it better?
Unfortunately, yes. That's human nature.

By the way, the idea to send out proposed changes is not "new," either. I believe Father Serge suggested that something similar be done with the proposed changes to the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and our own Administrator has been doing it for 20+ years with his musical handouts.

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