www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship The Kliros New Music

....oopps, that should be Hellenophile. I honestly can say I don't know of any Helen's that I love.

Ungcsertezs

Nick, I'm sure you heard at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute that the settings are the work of all five members of the commission, so I'm not sure why you keep naming one member only. I've worked on over 500 pages of music with Michael Thompson and while he won't talk about the internal decisions of the Commission, I can say with confidence that some of the things you complain about are things he was not the driving force behind - because he sets things a little differently on other projects.

Questions were certainly asked and answered at the MCI as to why certain choices in settings were made. If you have specific suggestions for improving the musical settings for the new translations, please send them in!

((Comments about "Theotokos" removed; sorry, didn't see the moderator's request at first))

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

I've said this before..(this is my o p i n i o n)

What "new" music?

If you look at the source material, Bokshai, Ratcin, Papp, you will see that there isn't much innovation and certainly nothing "new" about this allegedly "new music". The music is that which was used for centuries proir to the change to English in the mid 20th century.

Regarding the new translations set to the ORIGINAL music, the IEMC has directed some changes to the settings which ISTM were a step back toward the 1964 music. Keep in mind that the 1964/65 music was a deliberate simplification of the original melodies. In doing so at that time new music was created rather than old music being preserved. There was discontent back then over the loss of the original music. The only difference was there weren't internet forums to post such opinions available to thousands in an instant at that time.

Now, a few generations later, some are lamenting the introduction of "new" music into church life when the reality is that we had already learned new music and are actually returning to the original music.

The confusion seems to be more that the translation changes came at the same time as the return to the original music. Things may have moved too fast for a church still struggling with its identity. I think that the Byzantine Catholic Church will survive despite the cries of doom and gloom over the coming changes.

That said, I generally agree with and applaud the efforts to return to our original music.

Steve Petach

Dear Nicholas,

Even though I am but a whippersnapper of a cantor, I would like to comment if I may.


New things are always awkward and clumsy for the most part, this is part of everyday life.

Forty years you say.....that's not a long time in the life of the Church. Is this "new way" in keeping with what's been done for the past thousand years? Cause if it's not, then we have a case.

There's perfect reason to change it to Theotokos, that's what Byzantines call the Mother of God. That's truer to our roots than the current translation for sure.

Again, it's "new". Cut it some slack, and after about a month or so of chanting it, then compare it. Till then wait.

I know that as a teen I don't have much right to speak, and that I've probably ticked everyone off here far more than what I'm worth. But please realize: whether you like the new music or not, if the bishops command it to be spread, you and everyone else here who is a cantor has the duty and responsibility to obey the bishop, otherwise you spread rebellion and many many sins that normally wouldn't be yours will be on your head.

Just something to think about.

Hoping that he's been more courteous this time,
Nathan Augustine, son of Joe Sebastion

I'm sure you heard at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute that the settings are the work of all five members of the commission, so I'm not sure why you keep naming one member only. I've worked on over 500 pages of music with Michael Thompson and while he won't talk about the internal decisions of the Commission, I can say with confidence that some of the things you complain about are things he was not the driving force behind - because he sets things a little differently on other projects.

Jeff �

Glory be to Jesus Christ!
Glory Forever!

After reading your posting, I felt compelled to suggest that speculating "with confidence" about the contributions of the members of the Commission to the music of the proposed People's Edition is not appropriate since you are not a member of the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission.

All of the members of the Commission (with the exception of Professor Sir Knight Daniel J. Kavka of Passaic, who is now deceased) are able to speak to their own contributions and I presume that they could/would do so if/when they deem it appropriate.

Those reviewing the music that has been shared via the MCI website can certainly engage their Eparchy�s representative should they wish to better understand that individual�s role in the process.

Any comments on the contributions of the Commission members to the musical settings within the proposed People's Edition should come directly from a member of the Commission, so as to ensure that no one is misquoted or that misunderstandings do not occur.

Thanks,
JKF

JKF, I think that ByzKat is trying to accurately represent the work within the commission itself, not the work of anyone in particular. Some of our contributors give the impression that Professor Thompson is solely responsible or accountable for the music associated with the new service translation. That apparently is not correct, and can be misleading.

Dear Steve, Your point is well taken (and was anticipated by putting "new music" in quotation marks in the opening post). At the same time these settings are in fact new - the original sources are in Slavonic. And the manner attaching text to a tone is not entirely obvious, and "comes naturally to no one" (Sokol, Basic chant). I am happy that ByzKat is open to some feedback.

To elaborate on the point I was making above, I think that the effect of the tone is not simply given by the sequence of notes, but also the articulation in the sequence, and the patterns of stress within a phrase.

As far as articulation goes, there are certain slurs on syllables that I hear as curical to the character of a tone: the pairs of eight notes in resurrectional tone 2; the second and third quater notes (ti do) of each repeating phrase in tone 3 tropar; the first two (re mi) and the second and third to last (fa mi) quarter notes in each repeating phrase of the tone 3 kondak; the (fa sol la) of the B phrase in tone 4 kondak; the eighth notes and the second and third to last notes of each repeating phrase in tone 5 and the melisma just before the end of the fianl phrase. The lovely falling away on two quater notes at the end of the B phrase of tone 6 tropar, and three consecutive pairs of quater notes in the B phrase of tone 8 tropar.

Just my opinon, but the settings need to be faithful to the sequence of notes, the patterns of articulation, and the shape of each phrase - as far as is possible with the English text (and the ubiquitous "the"). If deviations are the rule rather than the exception, then one is doing not only doing a new setting, but a new chant. And I don't think that that is what we are trying to get done.

On the other hand ...
In the Cantor verse book at the MCI, for the verses at the lamplighting, tone 1, there are at least distinct phrasings: (on 10, 8, 7, 5, 3); (on 9, 2, 1); (on 6,4) . I think that for the cantor verse this is OK. It takes just a little practice, but is very intersting, IMO. Is it, however, an authentic practice, or one forced by the English?

Because parishes in the old country were relatively isolated from each other, and because cantors used to learn their craft by rote, each parish's chant evolved locally in ways slightly different from the other. Nowadays, that poses a dilemma when it comes to determining what is authentic and what is not. So, the best hope has been to go back to published sources, then compare them, and come to some sort of consensus as to what the standard should be.

But, there are also folks who do not want their own parish's praxis tampered with.

Education is the key to understanding why it is feasible to establish the standard, I believe. After all, most Americans are not destined to stay in the same parish their entire lives, and will have to encounter different music if they go to another parish using the old way. With a national standard people can move about the country without having to radically change how they worship.

Honestly--the local variants of the chant are one of the things that make it so "folk." The fact that the music in say, 2 local parishes here in the US can be slightly different based on the point of origin of those who founded the church or where the original cantor came from is NOT a bad thing. I guess that I don't see the need to make everyone sing the same thing. It wasn't like that in the old country, and everyone got on fine. Returning the music to a more authentic version from the simplified music of the past is one thing. Even with new books, I'm betting local variations will still prevail and occur.

As to the translations I've read from the MCI website...

Just an example--kondak Tone 1 "...human nature praises you as God..." Can "human nature" praise God? I think that mankind (as we currently sing) can, or humankind, or humanity, but human nature? Is this truly what the original Greek and Slavonic says or implies??? I understand the current need to be PC in translations, but that seems like a stretch.

John K

I don't. Anyone feel up to explaining why?

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

The OCA translation says this as well:

As God, Thou didst rise from the tomb in glory, raising the world with Thyself. Human nature praises Thee as God, for death has vanished! Adam exults, O Master! Eve rejoices, for she is freed from bondage, and cries to Thee: Thou art the Giver of Resurrection to all, O Christ!

Dave

Define human nature first, then we can talk about it. Are you talking about the new elevated status humanity has, or the old corrupt one? Cause the former just by being praises Him.

Google fight, FWIW:

"Human nature praises Thee/You as God" 31 relevant hits, including websites from OCA, GOA, MP, ROCOR, ACROD.
"Mankind praises Thee/You as God" 3 hits, including websites from UGCC and Slovak GCC-Canada.
"Man praises Thee/You as God" 0 hits
"humankind praises Thee/You as God" 0 hits
"humanity praises Thee/You as God" 0 hits

It may be none of my business. However, Michael Thompson is a very dedicated individual and accomplished in his field. I don't think attacking him publically is correct. If you don't agree with his work, contact him personally. He isn't hard to find. Call the Seminary in Pittsburgh and talk one on one with him.
I don't know all the music ins and outs. What I heard at Uniontown'sky was nice. Sure it wasn't as Slavonic as it used to be per pilgrims saying so. But I enjoyed the Matins, etc... they were easy to sing and everone could sing them. They flow nicely.
The issue of the Theotokos.. that is the term she should be called.
And the slurring or certain words, I don't know what you mean specifically. When I sing I draw words up and down. This is different than the cut and dry to the measure of the music. It is beautiful. I can't do it here, as I am typing.
but if it relates to what I am talking about, it is pretty and doesn't make the music as choppy.