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

The MCI webpage [metropolitancantorinstitute.org] now has a lot of "new music" on it. Anyone interested in comparing notes on what works well or less well. Likes and dislikes?

The revised texts are very awkward and clumsy.

Ungcsertezs

UC: Your message doesn't make clear what you are talking about. But neither does mine. I was referring the recent material on the home page:
The files contain a hymn, antiphons 1,2, hymn of the incarnation, antiphon 3, entrance hymn, tropar, kondak, trisagion, prokimenon, alleluia, Cheribic hymn, We praise You, It is truly proper, and communion hymn. If you look at these files you will find very little revision of the texts: Glory to... vs. Glory be to...; Theotokos, and limited rewording in the Tropar, Kondak, and Prokimenon.

But I think that some of the choices in the settings are awkward, at least to my ears - which I stipulate may be only misinformed by local practice.

Resurrectional tone 7 is used for the hymn of the incarnation (and the propers on 9/4, for example. I think a characteristic feature of the tone is the articulation of the final phrase,

fa ... (MI re) mi fa mi re do.

The first mi is always accented and the mi re in parentheses is one syllable, slurred (the next mi fa and mi re are sometimes similarly articulated). Accordingly, the setting of Glory to... in the propers or in the hymn of the Incarnation is really awkard to sing and alien to the tone. I think it's better done like this:

and for (E -) (ver -) (A -) men

akin to

which Thy (RIGHT -) hand hath plan - ted
con sub (STAN -) (tial -) Tri-ni-ty

Same problem on the tropar

gran-TING great mer-cy to the world
seems more naturally rendered
granting great (MER -) (cy -) to the world

The kondak misses the characteristic articulation but at leasts gets the accent in the right spot.

Looking at the music for the 20th Sunday after Pentecost (10/2), we sang Tone 3, not Tone 4 as was given on the website. Did I miss something?

Also, what is an "anamnesis acclamation?" :rolleyes:

A single typo on my part. I updated the page last night to remove the days already past, and updated next Sunday to 21st Sunday and Tone 4, but didn't change that DATE from October 4 to 11; sorry about that. The propers for last Sunday were Tone 3.

The Sunday proper PDFs include some material that is not precisely proper, and would be included in the body of the new divine liturgies book, and is given here to be looked over. "Anamnesis acclamation" is the technical term for "We praise you, we bless you", coming as it does after the anamnesis

As DJS pointed out, many of the texts are unchanged; and of course any musical setting might be improved, and inconsistences should be either justified, or corrected. (For example, I have a number of printed settings from cantors NOT associated with the MCI or IEMC who don't slur the two "always-slurred" notes in the last phrase of tone 7 tropar.)

I hope to make the 8 tones material for Sundays available entire on the MCI website shortly (now that the archbishop has given his blessing for their use at MCI classes); please sent any comments to me, or post them on the prostopinije list at yahoogroups.com, and any that I can't answer will be passed on to members of the IEMC.

www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org [metropolitancantorinstitute.org]

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Djs,

The text of the First Antiphon:
...."Through the pray'rs(?) of the The-o-to-kos, O Sav-ior, save us"... is clumsy. The older version using Mother of God is easier to sing by all. ... "Through the prayers of the Mo-ther of God, O Savior save us."...

Ungcsertezs

But Ung, the Greek and Slavonic don't say "Mother of God", and some Orthodox feel that "Bohomater" and "Bohoroditsa" express different meanings. "God-bearer" is ambigious, since it could either mean Theotokos or Christokos (like the saints); in fact, we refer to our "god-bearing fathers". So in English, for a literal translation we could use "Birth-giver of God", but that's kinda clumsy AND wouldn't sing easily in this context.

There is NO reason our people can't learn the word "Theotokos", and I think you will find it easier to sing when you're more used to it.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

I'd like to remind everyone that Kliros is a forum to address concerns of cantors in the performance of their duties. If translations need to be discussed still further, take the discussion to the Faith & Worship forum, instead.

I see no problems with the new settings musically. The previous standard was a more watered down version of the chants from the old country than was actually necessary.

DJS is asking for comments about the music itself. Some of it will take time to get used to. Unfortunately, some folks don't like change whether it is worthwhile or not, but all of us as cantors deal with that from time to time. Some of the resistance has less than a virtuous motivation. It can even be driven by plain ole laziness. Singing on auto-pilot is hardly worshipping from the heart. Worship needs to be more thoughtful than that.

Please keep this thread to the topic of effectiveness with regard to implementation of the music. Thanks.

In Christ,
Jim Sprinkle, moderator

Actually, in that particular context, it works quite well. Just look at the ACROD music.

Dave

Jim:
Agreed, but ...

I really appreciate ByzKat's spirit here, and hope that a discussion of the music will be considered OK. And let me repeat that my own ear was trained by listening to relatively few priests and cantors. So I offer comments with the hope of either justification of revision without much preference for one or the other. I am interested in learning about others's practices.

ByzKat:
IMO a salient characteristic of the tone is lost if one puts a syllable under each of the notes. But I agree that this can work. On the other hand, the moving the accent from the MI - not to mention slurring the next two notes - is really awkward - at least for me.

UC:
Theotokos works easily. And what is the objection to "pray'rs"? Who would sing that word with two syllables (unless the meaning is: people who are praying)?

The new settings are awkward and clumsy.

In the version of �Shout joyfully� that we have been singing for 40 years the emphasis has been on the words �Lord� and �earth� (1/2 note on �A� for both) with the �all the� being given quarter notes on �G�. The Thompson settings are clumsy. The important words are now �all the� because you have to jump up to the �Bb�. There is absolutely nothing incorrect about the way we have sung it for 40 years. This change is change for change�s sake.

There is no reason to change �Mother of God� to �Theotokos.� The whole English-speaking world knows who the Mother of God is.

The slur on �Spirit� in the �Glory� and the movement on the �forever. Amen� sounds dumb. The current version is better on the ears.

In the Second Antiphon the �bless ess us� sounds dumb. The current setting which hits the �bless� cleanly is much better.

In the existing setting we have the emphasis in the refrain �O Son of God� on �risen� and �dead.� In the new setting we have the emphasis on the words �from� and �the� (since there is movement and they are given half notes).

In the Hymn of the Incarnation we can see that the new settings emphasize the words �and� (in the first line) with a run, �O� in the second line, �who-oo� and �be-ee-ing� in the third line, etc. There are major problems on every line.

In the �Holy God� the important word is obviously �on� (in �have mercy on-on-on-on us�). It has 4 notes.

I could go on, but the settings are horrible. No wonder the archbishop has decided not to give copies to the clergy until after it�s been promulgated.

Nicholas: I disagree for the most part with your comments on the antiphons. First, the authentic music has each verse ending the lenghtened mi fa re; I am glad that the deviations from the original settings is fixed. Second, unlike many of our liturgical hymns which have been elaborated into "song" the antiphon are simple chant and should be rendered as such. This is about getting it right within our own tradition, and cannot be correctly called change merely for change's sake. I agree with your criticism of the third antiphon, but I would do:
from the dea - ead
re re fa (1/2) mi (1/2).
From your criticism of ble-ess, I would guess you wouldn't like that. But I don't understand your aversion ble-ess either.

I think it's fun to look at Eastern Christian liturgical languages and see the precedent for using a translated term (even a wordy one).


Original Greek: Theotokos

Slavonic (and, in similar forms, other Slavic languages): Bohorodica

Romanian: Nascatoare de Dumnezeu

Arabic: Walidatal-Illah (?)

Armenian: Asdvadzadzin

Syriac: Yoldath Aloho

Georgian: (?)


Any other languages?

BTW, "Bohorodica" and "Birth-giver of God" both have five syllables and both start with "B."

Dave

BOHORODITSE in Ukrainian.

I'd prefer ..."Through the prayers of the Bohorodice, O Savior, save us."...

Ungcsertezs (Stara-Slavan'skophile yes, Helenophile, no!)