Glory to Jesus Christ!

As requested by our Administrator, I hope to explain why some of the music in the Green Book is a good change, and defend it against the charge of "bad accents". Please excuse the examples, but I think they will help explain our respective views. (I am posting here rather than in Kliros because I honestly believe this goes beyond cantorship, and ask the moderators to let it stay.)



Here's the new music being referred to:



John's assertion is that the B flats ("all the" and "-rious") are accented - that is, sung with emphasis; if this is correct, he is right, and the Music Commission is wrong.

But there is nothing innate in those notes that make them accented; accents come either from musical context, or from the way the singer interprets them. The pattern of three half notes G - Bflat - A is itself indifferent; John knows to consistently accent the middle half note, based on his experience, and so sings the new music in an unpleasing way.

So let's look at WHY that B flat is accented.

Here's the first antiphon in Slavonic, from Father Sokol's widely-used Plain Chant (1955):



We see three half notes, G Bflat A, at the end of each phrase. I once asked a fellow cantor how we know to accent ZEMl'a and JEho, and he confidently sang me the Nativity hymn, Nebo i zem'la - NE-bo i ZEM-l'a, NE-bo i ZEM-l'a.... "Interesting," I said at the time. That certainly would put the accent on the B flat!

So with that in mind, let's look at how the Music Commission set the antiphons in 1965. (These examples are from John's 1997 Divine Liturgies book, which uses the 1965/1970 music.) Sometimes we have the three half notes, with the accent on the middle one:



But sometimes the next to last syllable ISN'T accented. So what do we do? Sometimes we just omit the B-flat:



Sometimes we omit the G:



Sometimes we REVERSE the G and the B:



And sometimes we reverse the G and B flat, AND add an A in the middle!



...all to make sure that an accent, and only an accent, goes on that B flat.

Now, it's a myth that "we ignore accents when singing in Slavonic"; it may be true that when singing an arbitrary text, say, at Vespers, we sometimes apply the melody in a way that ignores Slavonic accents. But in SPOKEN texts, we CERTAINLY use proper accents in Slavonic; in fact, even prayer books in Latin characters (like the Preshov Velikij Sbornik) were marked throughout with accents, and my first chant teachers (one Catholic from Europe, one Orthodox) were very insistant that we accept Slavonic texts correctly.

Not only that, but the chant books were often marked with accents as well! Here is the first antiphon in the 1906 Bokshai Prostopinije, from Uzhorod:



How odd - there are accents on zemL'A and jeHO. A quick check of the Papp Irmologion (Preshov, 1970) shows the same thing - in fact, here are the first and second antiphon:



Note the G-Bflat-A patterns: VSJA zemL'A; chvla-L'i je-HO; po-MI-luj NY; po-JU-shchy-ja-TI. Clearly, something is wrong with our original expectations; whether in Uzhorod 1n 1906, or Preshov in 1970 (or Pennsylvania in 1955 - note "pomiluj nas" on page 1 of Plain Chant) the following hold true:

1. The first half note (G) is usually accented

2. The second half note (B flat) is NEVER accented

3. The third half note (B) is always accented (look at Papp)

Maybe our original assumption was wrong? Yes indeed. "Zeml'a" is accented on the SECOND syllable, in both Church Slavonic, and modern Rusyn (see Paul Magocsi's Let's Speak Rusyn (Carpatho-Rusyn Research Center, 1979), p. 58).

Let's look at Sokol again - which is still used at Slavonic liturgies at Uniontown, and is on cantor stands across the Metropolia:



Remember that the first and last half notes of the pattern G Bflat A may be accented, but the middle half note is never accented. Try singing it that way to the English text, and you will likely sing it as found in the IEMC setting:

[img]http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/other_files/examples/FirstAntiphonIEMC.GIF[/img]

The cadence (G Bflat A) is just as in Sokol - and when sung the same way we sing Slavonic, respects the English accents exactly.

Why use this setting?

I. It is TRADITIONAL.

Once can switch back and forth between the Slavonic and English without having to re-arrange all the notes.

II. It is FLEXIBLE.

In the 1970 setting, to keep the accent on the B flat, one must go through all sort of contortions to move notes around. But if we simply use the Slavonic musical accents, find the last accent (other than the final syllable, which always goes on the ending A) and place is at the G, we can use the same melody whether that internal accent is followed by one, two or three syllables:

[img]http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/other_files/examples/AntiphonEndingsIEMC.GIF[/img]

Compare this with the collection of endings using ZEMl'a:

[img]http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/other_files/examples/AntiphonEndingsAll1970.GIF[/img]

Now, when you sing festal antiphons, or even just three antiphons, how do you know which one to use? With the Inter-eparchial Music Commission's choice in the new books, two accent marks completely show how to sing an antiphon, even if no music is available: one accent mark at the start of the reciting tone, and one accent mark at the drop to G.

Musical settings which are easy to sing allow more concentration on the text. Musical settings which require you to guess which ending to use, are not easy to sing.

III. It sings well.

In fact, when sung properly, it's a lovely melodic formula. And if you feel that it's UNlovely - would you recommend that we change the Slavonic? Were our ancestors just musical no-nothings? Or have we somehow created just plain better music than they had?

IV. It helps cantors avoid common pitfalls.

Singers tend to "reach" for a high or low note - there is a natural urge to enjoy belting a melody out, perhaps. But plainchant - and prostopinije in particular - avoid that kind of excess. The musical accents sometimes seem chosen to prevent the obvious "big climax" for having as much of an impact as we might be tempted to give it. This is a spiritual lesson, involving patience, consistency, and flow. This is also the sort of issue that is brought out in cantor schools, whether old or new, and I could point out more examples (such as the Holy God #3 that John mentioned).

John, it may be that people have managed to memorize all the difference antiphon endings, at least for one verse of each antiphon. But putting the accent on that Bflat is wrong musically, textually (because it does NOT leave room for additional English syllables), and historically - and the 1970 version is NOT the only one in use anyway!

The Advanced Cantor's School materials (from the 1980's, and still distributed by Jerry Jumba) kept the G Bflat A pattern; the primary difference is that is is notated with explicit rhythm for the reciting tone, and uses quarter notes instead of half notes for the basic unit. But this music (which I have run into all over the Metropolia) is much closer to the Slavonic - and in some cases matches the IEMC cadences closely.

The Carpatho-Russian Orthodox service books (1987, for example) keep the three half notes, G Bflat A. They do have some bad accents. But in two places, they slur the G and Bflat together - which is done in the IEMC settings where appropriate, and is the exact opposite of the 1970 procedure, since it makes the Bflat the weakest note of the three. So we also have point #5:

V. This setting is ECUMENICAL.

A Johnstown cantor can make the switch to using the IEMC antiphon setting in about 30 seconds, and will discover that the "bad accents" he is used to are gone. It would take memorization to use the 1970 settings, and they would often be sung incorrectly since the cantor is trying to put the accents in the wrong places.

John, this is precisely the problem you are experiencing, based on what you say above. There is NO NEED for you to sing that B flat strongly, unless you are trying to make the music sound bad. A congregation can pick up on the change from one week to the next; it was the first point in my own parish where the faithful started taking a new setting perfectly, even the ones who were listening rather than following the music.

I would be REALLY interested in knowing where else you see bad accents, whether syllabic or textual - but please trying singing the new music AS WRITTEN, with as few pre-conceptions as possible, first. You might be surprised.

Yours in Christ - and thank you for your patience! -

Jeff Mierzejewski

I would maintain that in any language, words take precedence over music in such cases. There is a good choice of melodies available in Church-Slavonic for the Antiphons; if one seems to require accents which are incorrect (or silly, as Jeff properly describes at least one of them), then rather than producing a musical equivalent of Rube Goldberg, choose another melody!

Fr. Serge

Father Serge, bless!

Of course. The point is that there IS NO "automatic stress on the high note" - it is stressed if the singer chooses to stress it, not otherwise. The point is not that this melody requires bad accents, but that John is CHOOSING to sing it with bad accents, then criticizing the arrangement.

In fact, since English OFTEN has two or weak more syllables following an accented internal syllable (see Saintsbury for reasons why!), the 1965 setting is MORE likely to cause "collisions", not less likely. As witness how many ways the melody needed to be changed to "work."

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff,

The high note is a stressed note. The highest note in a cadence, is a place for a stressed syllable...

It is what happens when you try to cram English words into rigidly fixed melodies composed for another language. It just doesn't work.

The principles on which the whole revision was done were fundamentally flawed. It is too bad that they didn't ask some of our more experienced cantors to be involved (and then listen to them, instead of dismissing them as stupid hunkies who don't know better), instead of importing 'professional' Roman Catholics (should I call them 'cake eaters'?) to re-arrange the way we sing.

What a fiasco.

Nick

Jeff,

I wonder how many parishes will watch their collection shrink, and how many families will walk out of our churches, and how many former parishioners toss their envelope boxes in the garbage can, before someone actually notices that the people are not happy?

Do our bishops care? Does anybody care? Is anybody listening?

Nick

Dear Nicholas,

So when we sing Vs'i T'a Chory, the accent is on "of" in

Holy Paraclete, O Lord OF might?

In puzzlement,
Jeff

P.S.The prostopinije melodies are not rigidly fixed; they are wonderfully flexible, and even the exemplars show ranges of variaion WITHOUT changing the melody.

Those are perfect examples of bad accents, exactly what I'm talking about. They've always been bad marriages of fixed hymn tunes that don't fit the English words.

Is that the standard that the revised music is also following?

also puzzled,
Nick

Jeff,

It�s pretty clear that you are unable to see the problems with the new notation, probably because you are so very pleased that it is a very literal application of Bok�aj.

I can only recommend that you take a good look at the 1965 setting. The 1965 Commission surely considered a number of settings. And since they included the traditional melody (A to G to B-flat to A) in other parts of the antiphons one cannot claim that they were simplifying for the sake of simplifying. It appears that they chose not to set this part of the First Antiphon in this way because they did not wish to emphasize the �RI�. To understand this one must realize that giving a particular note (syllable) a longer duration is not the only way to emphasize a note. Putting the �RI� on the B-flat in the new setting greatly emphasizes it (even if it has a shorter duration) because one jumps from the �Glo� at the lower note (G). The 1965 Commission got around this problem by correctly accenting the �GLO� by putting it as the highest note. I think that in a natural development the people have made this clearer by treating the �him� as a quarter note and the �GLO� as a half note. To see a similar application one can look at the settings for these antiphons published by St. Vladimir�s in �Pascha: The Resurrection of Christ� (1980) pages 202-205. While they are using a variant on the same Znamenny Chant and a different translation, the effort to best emphasize the important words and syllables is evident in that they were not slavish to the notes but used music to best serve text. [Their setting is a masterpiece.

To understand this take the words and compose a new melody for them. Chances are that you will emphasize �GLO� more then you will emphasize �RI� (both by duration and pitch).

The same problem is also evident earlier in the same antiphon. The 1965 Commission accented the word �Lord� by giving in a half note and then putting the two following words (�all the�) on a lower note (as quarter notes) to de-emphasize them. To see this look at the new setting above (the first one Jeff gave) and change the Lord from a �G� up to a �B-flat�. When sung one can see how the mandated setting on a �G� de-emphasizes the word �Lord� while singing it as a �B-flat� (the highest pitch in the setting with a half note) gives it brilliance.

But then again, you�ve argued that the new settings are not bad (when clearly they are) rather then showing how they are such an improvement over the old settings that the old settings need to be prohibited. You never seem to answer the questions put to you and instead always change the subject!

And as to bad accents, think of the two most common melodies in Slavonic for �Svajaty Bo�e� (one is #1 in Bok�aj and other is from oral tradition). In one we sing �Svjaty Bo�e� and in the other we sing �Svajaty Bo�e�.

Face it, Jeff, the new settings are ones in which the text serves the chant rather then the chant serving the text. Read my other post in which I mentioned the problems with the �Now and ever� in �Holy God #A� in the new pew book (where one actually finds �now-ow-ow-ow� or �Holy God #C� where were one finds the equivalent of �have mercy on-on-on-on us� making �on� the most important word in the phrase �have mercy on us�). The new music makes a lot of the mistakes that the 1965 Commission clearly sought to avoid.

Finally, that you keep pretending that no one has mentioned these, or that because people do not prepare a list for you to pass judgment on, does not mean that the problems don�t exist. I believe that the problems with all the elements of the Revised Divine Liturgy (rubrics, texts and music) are very great indeed. I also believe that the people at the cathedral in Munhall have seen this and are making their position know with their feet.

John

John,

I had never heard version C until I heard at the Seminary this past year and I like it alot. I don't think because on has four notes assigned to it, it becomes the most important word. It seems to me reducing on to one note would imbalance the hymn and creat an abrupt ending.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear John,

I take some issue with your statement, "Finally, that you keep pretending that no one has mentioned these, or that because people do not prepare a list for you to pass judgment on, does not mean that the problems don�t exist." I have commented over and over on the fact that people DO mention "lots and lots of problems." So far we have three. I am trying to understand your points - and they seem to come down to "I have Western musical assumptions, I can't sing any other way, and prostopinije doesn't work unless it is altered to suit Western presumptions." *shrug*

So yes, more examples would help - if there really are "lots and lots."

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Well I'll be jiggered!!

Nobody knew what Oblation meant till Father David introduced us to "Anaphora"...and ALL of our old musicians had a "Western" ear.

Now ain't that just sumpin'!!

And all those years...centuries!!...nobody knew.

M.

Dear Mary,

No, the idea that any high note is automatically stressed is a gross symplification of Western melody, and this is even clearer in non-Western music. John and Nicholas are the only ones here who have claimed this, and they are certainly not "ALL our old musicians."

I'm in fact claiming that our traditional cantors had a NON-Western ear - and that we oughtn't "Westernize" the music without a good cause.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

All right. I was pokin' fun. I admit.

Back to our regular programmin'!

M.

And it's only taken the BCC 40 years to catch the "spirit of Vatican 2".

I do have a musical criticism, though not specific to the Antiphons. Where two words are sung over a run of four notes it is not always best to assign the notes evenly: 2-2. This seems to be a rule followed throughout (though I confess I haven't checked every instance). At times it sounds better to split 3-1, or even 1-3.

Father Deacon,

I grew up singing �Version C� in Slavonic (#4 in the �Blue Book�). And I later learned it in English. Even in high school I understood why those who set it chose not to set the �have mercy on us� as �have mercy on-on-on-on us�. I�m sorry, but giving the word �on� four beats and movement most certainly does emphasize it (consider that it has as many beats as the word �mercy� AND movement).

You have not commented that much on music. Jeff does not seem to be willing to explain why the existing settings � those memorized by most of our people � are so bad that they cannot be allowed to be used. Maybe you can take a crack at explaining?

John

That's the million dollar question. Why does my 76 year old father, a lifelong Greek Catholic, have to learn new music at this stage of his life? His attendance at church has dropped off lately.

I hope the hierarchy and commissions are happy with what can be called "The wreck of the old 97"!

Dear John,

You asked why the new ones were good. I answered, using your first example. Now you ask why the old ones were bad.

The old settings were not bad as music, I suppose, but they were not prostopinije; they were a new set of music constructed using materials from prostopinije, simplified and truncated, and in the process making them harder to use unless one memorized every variation. Please reread Father Sokol's comment, posted in the introduction here on your own website.

As far as what I said: the posts are there. I never said that the "point" of the Cantor School was to solicit input; but it was accepted and used (and solicited via the website). As to who contributed - six are members here, none of them publicly "pro-RDL". I'll let them identify themselves if they like.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff,

I take issue with your repeated requests because you insist that if people do not convince you that there is a problem then there really is no problem. Last autumn after someone snuck a copy of the new settings out of the MCI and posted it on the web we had a discussion about a few of the issues (some we have re-discussed today). Your response at that time made it clear that you consider literal faithfulness to Boksaj paramount and the accentuation of the text secondary. The discussion went nowhere and I see no reason to repeat it, especially when the bishops have made clear that the new settings are now mandated, that there is no room for review and improvement. Because of this there is really no point to the discussion.

As to your suggestion that I am really a Latin and speak from a Western musical assumption I�m not sure how to respond. Given that the texts are being set for singing in English in America one should consider how they are heard by an American ear. To consider the culture of the unchurched American people who we should be inviting into our parishes is something far different than latinizing.

As to you thinking in necessary for me to provide lots and lots of examples, I don�t see any need to. If I think it would be useful I would certainly provide them to those in authority who can effect change. Plus, if I were to provide ten or twenty you would want more. And if I provided 199 you would insist that it was not �hundreds�. So I�m not going there.

John

This is what has my head spinning John. This music has been "out" and under scrutiny, as you say, for better than nine months now.

How can Jeff NOT remember those discussions?

And how can it be said that the effort was a collaboration when access to the music was restricted to the Internet and to Pittsburgh?...and when the music finally did "get out" nothing that you or others said was taken into consideration.

I was only half joking when I drew the parallel between Jeff's responses here and Father David's claim that we were offering some indeterminate oblation for centuries.

Are you sure you aren't a large white rabbit with a pocket watch, John?

Love,

Alice

Dear John,

I never mentioned "Latin", in any way.

One can CERTAINLY sing "Amen" - do re do - with a pulse on the first and last note. There is nothing that "makes" you accent the middle syllable.

As you say - you are quite willing to make (inaccurate) "observations" about what I believe, think and feel, and I'm not willing to do the same here. You win!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

P.S. Mary - I have made no statements about collaboration (except one that was immediately altered to say something quite different). Specific comments - quite a few - were forwarded to the IEMC, and a number of changes were made because of them. I'm not going to deny the truth of that just to please someone here.

And no, for "all the discussion", two examples were proposed, and John has now provided a third - moments before telling me I could "stop pretending" that lots of examples had been posted. You win, too!

Jeff,

I most certainly did ask why the old ones were unacceptable.

But we do come to the heart of your position. You don�t reject the old settings as either not singable or useful to the Church. You reject them because they were not as faithful to Prostopinije as you would like. You are willing to force people to unlearn what they have memorized just to serve your personal desire to restore a very literal application of the Boksaj Prostopinije! And since we have parishes where people under 40 only know the 1965 English settings you are willing to force them to abandon what they grew up singing and adopt more literal settings. To what purpose? Does it say somewhere in the Gospel that we Ruthenians will all rot in hell if we drop a notes from Boksaj when we put it into new languages? And can you give me your personal phone number to give to all the people who are grieving because they are being forced to abandon music they have come to love?

Chant serves the text. The text does not serve chant. The Church can and does adapt chant to serve text in different languages. The task of the Ruthenian Church is to provide settings that best serve the English language. If Prostopinije serves this then great! If it does not we are free to invent something new. Don�t forget that the Slavs did not see a need to preserve the Greek Chant they received. They took it and turned it into something that better served Slavic culture. If we are to survive in America we will not do so by being an ethnic Church. We will do so by inviting unchurched Americans to become Byzantine Catholic. To do that we need to set our chant in a manner that is appealing to the American ear, and to allow completely new chant to grow up beside it. It can be done and the newly mandated settings do not accomplish this.

I�m still unsure of your comments on the purpose of the Cantor School. You have chided me for not being there when input was solicited. You have said that the call for input was not what it could have been. And now you say that soliciting input was not a main effort but was accepted, and that the solicitation for input occurred elsewhere. No wonder experienced cantors did not participate. Talk about changing stories and mixed messages!

But we're talking in circles now so there is no point in continuing. As I stated elsewhere I am the least important person in the Ruthenian Church. I'm not the one who needs convincing. The people who need to buy into the RDL are the people worshiping in our parishes. With the mandate taking effect on Friday of this week the RDL - rubrics, text and music - will now be judged on merit. For the sake of the Ruthenian Church I hope that you are proven right and I am proven wrong.

John

Yes. Where does this idea come from that there is some pure form of any chant, anywhere, east or west, to which we must return at any and all cost?

And this "mandate" that it will be the music provided and none other that is also curious. Is there precedent for this approach to musical settings in this Church, as Professor Thompson claimed yesterday...or the day before?

Oh well...I am still trying to figure out how one gets dated drafts from a liturgy that has long since been approved by Rome.

M.

I want to thank John and Jeff for this public discussion. I am beginning to understand the issues on each side more clearly now. I am looking forward to a continuation of the discussion and would be in favor of a "closed discussion" so to speak, which would limit posts to only those in direct response to the specific points of discussion.

I believe this type of discussion is very fruitful to have in public venues. Even if it did not happen before, there is no reason not to start now. We have been told that this promulgation is intended as an interim, so let's start at the grass roots level today for the next promulgation. If the information is publicly discussed, the hierarchs and cantors will have it to pull from in the future. In the mean time, it will educate the faithful and provide a working knowledge of the issues so that they can also have an ownership in the process.

Thank you both for devoting yourselves to our church and for being willing to address these issues in a public venue in order to educate us all.