www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy "New" music - Holy God 1

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":
[Linked Image]

(A sound file [metropolitancantorinstitute.org] 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:

[Linked Image]

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

[Linked Image]

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:

[Linked Image]

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:

[Linked Image]

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:

[Linked Image]

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":

[Linked Image]

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 [b]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? [/b]

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:

[Linked Image]

Here it is in 1964 :

[Linked Image]

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:

[Linked Image]

and here it is in the proposed IEMC setting:

[Linked Image]

(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:

[Linked Image]

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

[Linked Image]

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

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image]

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 [metropolitancantorinstitute.org] 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.

[Linked Image]

"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:

[Linked Image]

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

[Linked Image]

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:

[Linked Image]

and the prokeimenon:

[Linked Image]

Here [metropolitancantorinstitute.org] 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