Originally posted by Sharon Mech:
I have a couple of concerns. One is almost philosophical - a couple years ago I heard a factoid that the Ukrainian Catholics in Brazil were coming up with new tones because Samoilka clashed with Portugese. I do wonder whether we SHOULD have a discussion about whether ALL Prostopinije tones are appropriate with English. I'm not saying it is or it isn't - it's just a discussion I've not even heard, and I'd sure like to.
Dear Sharon,
I absolutely and completely agree with you about the Cathedral's acoustics!
If you will forgive me, I would like to share something of my thoughts on this other matter you raise, about the old tones, and the English language?
I am cautious to speak, as for two years I was involved in the Cantor School in Pittsburgh. I wouldn't want to seem to be criticizing anyone, and anyone might rightly criticize me for speaking. They would be right to think it was poor form of me to offer thoughts on the direction the School has taken since I was involved. I know I should be silent... But, since I used to be involved, I have given some thought to this 'philosophical' question you raise, and I would like to say something of my own philosophy and approach to our liturgical music.
About this philosophical question or 'concern', I share a fear.
If we take the old cantor editions of the prostopinije in slavonic, it seems there have been two approaches... a) faithful restore the melodies, and fit the english pharse to them in the best way possible; or b) sacrifice the old melody when we need to, in order to make it 'work' with the English.
I remember the Roman Liturgy in the 60's, when they were just beginning to use the English language. I remember the first time I heard the Mass in English, was it the 1st Sunday of Advent of '64? Am I dating myself?
There were some efforts to set the Gregorian Chant melodies to the English introits. They would take the Gregorian notation, and erase the Latin words, and put the English words in their place. This was a disaster. As an experiment in musical archaeology, it did not survive, it was not successful, it was not workable, and it was abandoned. The Anglo-Catholics tried something like it in England, but it only worked in the most simple of settings. Nothing like the glory of a gradual, or one of the wonderful antiphons was ever successfully translated into English. Today if you hear Gregorian chant, the Latin language is needed.
Now the prostopinije is not nearly as elaborate as the gregorian was in places. But to merely take the slavonic melody, and say that its exact cadences and melodic integrity must be preserved as a treasure at all costs, is not a good idea. Because, in my view, the cost of this effort, is twofold. a. It can in places ignore the meaning and sentiments the words convey. Clearly, it is all about the meaning of the words, and the music should amplify, and never detract. b. It can be so complex, that many years at the Cantor Institute, and ideally a trained voice and a music degree is required to master it well. Clearly, this is beyond the abilities of most of us, and so we can ask if it is wise?
To return to my example of the Gregorian experiment in the Latin Church, the melodies, and even the principles of chant were abandoned, and they opted for metrical hymnody (first imported from the protestant tradition, and then home-grown), abandoning the ambition to sing the liturgical texts.
The Byzantine Tradition never real had that option, and we are forced to sing our Liturgy.
I am not up to date on what the Latins are doing now, but I have noticed a real move to downplay the use of 'hymns' as the only option for singing. I even attended a Liturgy at the Shrine in D.C., where there was an effort to re-introduce some 'chant-like' music. In this, they are not digging in the Usualis, to retrieve lost treasures only... I heard this one Liturgy in Washington D.C. a couple of years ago, and the Mass settings were a new composition. It recalled the best principles of chant singing, but it was a new composition inspired by the English phrase and the vernacular text. It was faithful to the principles of chant, but it was not a slave to any one old melody. It did what the chant did, when it worked best... it was a meditation on the meaning of the text, and inspired deeper prayer. If this is happening among the Latins, I am delighted, it is to be encouraged.
Back to the 'philosophy' of prostopinije, and an comment about the way forward....
As has been reviewed here, not too long after English was first introduced in the Byzantine Liturgy, and when I first cantored in the '70's there was only the green liturgy book, and the black book, from which to take the tropar tones. I now know that much of the integrity of the melody in some of the tones was sacrificed for the sake of simplicity and ease. Some of the tones lost their introductions, their distinctive cadence etc. It went too far. Clearly we have come a long way since then.
The temptation is to go back to the old prostopinije as to the 'bible', and print out the melody line exactly, and try again to set the english words beneath them. This can be done beautifully and quickly, with the computer generated printing processses. It is possible to 'restore' the tone, and save the original melody perfectly. This task is lauded as 'a faithful restoration' of what was lost, and a heroic effort. In one sense that is true...
I am not so sure that it is completely true, even though the claim cannot be disputed.
The task is much more complicated. I have the greatest respect for those who are better trained musical technicians than I am. I have an even greater respect for composers.
Recall the Gregorian example. It is possible to dig up a melody, and set the English syllables in the best way possible, but even in the best way possible, sometimes it just doesn't work. The melody just doesn't amplify the meaning of the words. In fact, it will detract from the meaning, and distract from the prayer.
I wonder if this is the source of the rich Podoben tradition? When a hymn called for a certain set tone in Slavonic, if the meaning did not match the sentiments and genuis of the extant melody in the original tone, did community feel free, did they have a certain liberty to use a different or even original tone? And so some marvelous tunes were employed at certain feasts and occasions, that evoked an appropriate setting for the words of the festal occasion. They were not slaves.
So now, we must not be slaves, we must feel the freedom that they did. Though it requires great maturity in the tradition. In our case, are we still infants in English?
It requires a skilled musician and a great technician to set the English to the extant tones. Clearly, where these had been gravely oversimplified, it is time to patiently restore the integrity and identity of the tone to the extant that it is possible in the English idiom. But it is my opinion, that the English idiom will put certain limits on what is possible. If we try to restore some of the most complicated cadences of notes, I think it is probable that we might go too far in that restoration.
We cannot be slaves to that old book. In fact, we have in our Church, musicians of great ability. Heroic efforts are being made at the seminary, and in other places too. Can we get inside the principles of 'chant' and create a tradition inspired by the prostopinije heritage, but which serves a new language and carries it successfully to prayer? Archeology is not enough. We need composers, inspired and within the chant tradition, to have the freedom to be bold, and let God inspire them. Some such efforts may be taken up, and prove lasting. Others may not endure.
I think the work of restoration I have seen in some cases does work, and I am delighted to see it. I think by and large, the effort to restore a fuller version of the tones is opportune and appropriate. Some of the simplifications were gross and not needed. In other places, I have seen some things that in the end, 'just don't sing'. Some of what I have seen printed recently is inspired and a definite improvement. But not all of it is.
Ideally I would hope that we can be inspired by the musical heritage, and let it breathe in a new situation. In this situation, the melodies are never a prison for the words, but rather more like a lampstand for the light. I hate to say, but I have felt that some of the things I have seen fall a bit short of this goal, even if they can be lauded as 'faithful restorations of old prostopinije melodies'. What can be in one sense a success and technically a 'faithful restoration', can be at the same time, and in other sense a failure.
Two people have been to the same Church, and one person could sing-a-long, and another couldn't. One thought it was wonderful, and another thought it was dreadful? What is to be decided about that?
Well, the principle is there. We have to admit that there is also a subjective element here. We cannot just point to the old book, and say "look here, the notes are exactly right now" and so it is a successful conclusion to the process. Another criterion is needed. It must be, does it work in good Liturgy? Will the congregation be enabled by this setting, and with this setting, to sing, to participate, to express themselves in prayer and worship, and be carried along with the meaning and sentiments of what they are singing. This is an instictive reaction for our people, and even if they can articulate it or can't... they recognize what works.
I think some of the things I have seen produced at the seminary and circulated work very well indeed. I think that the time is right to move even further in restoring some of the integrity of the tones, and in some cases what I have seen has been a great step forward.
In some of the things I have seen, I do not think it is a step forward, I have that 'feeling' that sometimes words have been imprisoned unwisely in a melody which is too complicated, more difficult to sing and serve, in a way that does not adequately compliment the meaning of the words and the sentiment of the prayer.
I would love to think that we had the scope to be inspired and compose anew, within the tradition melodies and cadencies suited to the new language and situation.
Am I inconsistent? That is a reasonable accusation. Where in another place, I argue for rigorous fidelity to the tradition (eg. with the preservation of the integrity of the Liturgikon, and the careful and authentic translation of the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom from the normative slavonic language, into the closest English version possible), in this place I do not think that we must treat these melodies as sacrosanct and inspired in the same way... The melodies are not the same as the inspired liturical texts. About the texts I am radically conservative. My position about the music, is that the vocation of the melody, is to serve the text. They have no other duty, they have no other rights to existence.
The melodies must serve the texts, or they do not serve. The faithful way to preserve their genius, is to live and 'be' within their inspiration, and preserve their essence and true nature, which is to make the meaning soar.
Even in the Slavonic book, there was liberty in setting one tone, in one text and another. We cannot be more rigid than they were. In English, we must be ready to adapt, if it is needed. Those books (as I understand them) were always meant to be only guides. The real genius is taking another text from the music-less book, and singing it 'inspired' by the model, but not as a slave to it.
The "I liked it" and "I did not like it" argument will pass, and what will endure is that which eventually works, and that which congregations accept, sing, and make their own.
Of course this will take time. But I don't think it is enough to simply radically restore melodies that had been 'corrupted' in earlier attempts.
So given the two approaches a) completely restoring the melody, and setting the english in the best way possible, or b) sacrificing the integrity of the melody, when the nature of the english language demands it... I favor the first option, but shy short of completely restoring the melody, especially the more complicated ones. I think the genius of the melody, and the integrity of the tone can be restored to a large extent, and yet fall short of the complete resurrection of every note from the Slavonic model. I would like to think we could move further still, so that the integrity of the melody never really needs to be sacrificed. But I do not feel that means that the exact cadences from the Slavonic book need to be everywhere retained.
The key question for me is, ... are we within the genuis that inspired the original. I think we can be, without restoring every note.
The meaning of the words is more important, and the integrity of the text speaks to my heart. I would like to think that the freedom that introduced podoben compositions, and that brought popular and singable folk melodies to the fixed parts of our Liturgy, might inspire us again.
Such an event and flowering of prayer that gave us the 'prostopinije' inheritance was the product of generations of parish singing and tradition. It cannot be devised in at a desk, or set in a computer, now matter how helpful we find this timely work.
It is such a challenge, and we will rise to that challenge in every place where the liturgy is celebrated with love and devotion, where we pray the music, and where we live what we sing.
I am sorry, but words like 'mandated' and 'promulgated' and 'this is what is coming' make me nervous. I am sorry, but I think the evolution will be a slower process.
Many people are contributing to this wonderful work, and I thank them all. I offer apologies if anyone feels that I condemn or unfairly criticize anyone's work. I am responding with my 'philosophy' and was prompted to do so, by my friend Sharon's timely question.
In the end, I believe that the music will continue to evolve, and this is a sign that our Church is alive, and our worship vital.
