This is a post I prepared for the now locked thread which provides its context.



Jeff,

Thanks for your very detailed answers here and elsewhere, for your posts and illustrations in previous threads. And thank you also to those who offer different viewpoints with similar conviction and a shared devotion to our tradition of congregational singing.

My question about an oral tradition had to do with the Alleluia's. Why would an oral tradition for singing Alleluia (Slavonic Liturgy) need to be changed when introducing English? It seems it could have been retained as is, automatically.

Also, for tone 1 for instance, if the model was Bokshai, why restore all but four notes? Having gone that far, why not go all the way? This would also keep the integrity of the setting intact for a situation where it is possible to do so, since the words are the same. I grant that for me at least, Bokshai's phrasing has some surprises but by that fact also a certain charm and uniqueness.

Let me go out on a limb on the whole accent, music/text issue. We all agree that the text is the primary thing; what we sing should come across as intelligibly as well-spoken English. Yet when we add melody/chant to the words let's not kid ourselves, they are affected. This is especially so for melismatic phrases: when I speak I don't say He--ar me O--o--- Lo---rd. I think the text in fact does make a certain accommodation to the music and the two are, in a sense, wedded, i.e the music is more spouse than slave. The bottom line is, how does it sound overall, music and words together.

So one can produce settings according to the best modern theories and standards, and a choir or a professional will find it a breeze to sing, but the peasant in the pew like me wants, for lack of a better term, regularity, something that as directly as possible conveys the pacing and flow and allows us to anticipate the coming inflections. It can be melismatic as long as it is not too demanding in technique; and even if simple, it must not disrupt the flow, the pacing, because of rigid demands on accentuation etc.. Something fine tuned can seem harder and awkward to sing because it is too customized. And while such theoretically correct settings may impress the music professional and show our sophistication based on current standards, the purpose is defeated if (the polls haven't closed yet) the melodic expression is obscured in that the people can't sing it.

So maybe our chant must be accommodated on its own terms: a certain flexibility in expression that generates its intangible but discernible and essential duch.

Dn. Anthony

re:ByzKat ...
It is great to see detailed critiques and questions about the "RDL" coming from musical professionals, and admitting that we need some flexibility of expression -- all should read Deacon Anthony's comments, above, carefully. What good is "perfection" in music, if no one sings?

This discussion illustrates the insights of Patriarch Tikhon who when asked to insist that all churches sing the Obikhod melodies insisted that in America the beauty of the entire eastern tradition should be expressed and that churches should be free to sing the best of the best and to choose from the variety of liturgical melodies that exist.

We are blessed in America to have trained musicians working on Church music (see orthodoxpsalm.org for an example). These musicians come from all of the eastern traditions and work very hard to be faithful to the tradition while emphasizing good english phraseology. I would hope that all eastern Christians would rejoice in this ongoing musical work and would be able to appreciate the remarkable achievements of these musicians.

*I would also note that because of the difference between English and Slavonic, it is impossible to sing the "melodies" exactly -- translation implies change.

That's one thing I very much like about the UGCC Anthology . While certainly preserving good and singeable settings of Galician Samoylka and Kyivan chants (the particular traditions) it does not attempt to limit all of the congregational singing to one particular rendition or interpretation of one particular subtradition.

In addition to the base corpus of Samyolka and Kyivan chants composed choral variations (Bortnyansky, etc.) as well as other chant traditions, including Bulgarian, Greek, Melkite and even Alaskan variants are included. We've had great fun learning to sing the beatiful variations.
FDRLB

What do you exactly refer to by Samoylka? What are the common sources for it?

I am asking this question as (an Orthodox) chant scholar, as I have been unable to figure out if this term refers to

A) the common monophonic chant repertory of the Galician tradition (as it appears in Heirmologia and collections like Polotnjuk's Napivnik and/or Basilian chant books); or

B) some sort of a polyphonic performance practice of Galician chant; or

C) some combination of these two.

Can anyone clarify this, please?

"C" according to your schema. The general parochial usage has come to be polyphonic in most cases of commonly sung propers (SATB or other similar four-part harmonizations); some podobny, samopodobny and znamenny melodies (dogmatica at Vespers, etc.) are still sung monophonically; and there are always exceptions like the Galician renderings of Bulharski which are sung monophonically or sometimes with one simple harmony line.

The written music is a complex issue; the L'viv Irmologion of the early 1900s is itself a collection of znamenny, single line Galician melodies (which were often harmonized), bulharski and various podobny/samopodobny melodies. Similarly Polotnyuk's melodies were also commonly harmonized, but he only gives the melody line as well as other chants which are monody; these are not further clarified as to which are which.

In some more recent books such as the Studite Tserkovny Naspivi only the melody lines are given; this does not imply the chant is intended to be monodic, but that the various possibilities for harmonization are many and are not included.

The Ukrainian Catholic University has a monody research project underway http://www.ils.org.ua

I would also recommend the work of Dr. Stephen Reynolds of the University of Oregon who has done much work into the development of various chant subtraditions, the relationship of Kyivan to Galician chant, etc. Joseph Roll also wrote an article briefly summarizing the history of Galician chant. Von Gardner also discusses this somewhat, but only in generalities.