www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News In Defense of Cantors, Prostopinije and the like

--Steve wrote: Frank, You say " not in a single parish". how do you get your information?
If "no one" includes all the people of the cathedral parish, do you by extension of that logic exclude the cantor? If so, how unchristian!--

My information is from the people of the cathedral parish and from two of our priests. The cathedral and the seminary are the only two churches that are using the new music for the Divine Liturgy. The fact that there are only one or two seminarians left is proof that they have been driven away by this junk. The fact that cathedral attendance is down and collections have been cut in half since this new �cantor� came here is proof that his junk is driving people away.


--Steve wrote: With those changes the parishioners could and did learn how to sing the liturgy in english, so why should it be different for relatively small changes of resetting the translation to the original music today?--

The changes to the antiphons and other texts of the Divine Liturgy are not �relatively small changes�. If they were �relatively small changes� no one would have noticed. �relatively small changes do not drive people away from the church.


--Steve wrote: Do you just sing the liturgy by memory with thinking of what the liturgy means. If so then the liturgy becomes just a part of a weekly routine with no real meaning. --

With this new junk the people need to spend all their time simply trying to understand the words that are being sung. If the words being sung cannot be easily understood then the music is junk.

I would like to step in here and remind everyone of the rules for participation in The Byzantine Forum. All posts are to be made with Christian charity. What does this mean? It means be nice and don�t attack others. A critical analysis of anyone�s setting of our chant can be fruitful and helpful to the building up of the Church. Such an analytical discussion can be conduced with Christian charity.

I've been attending the MCI for those five years. No one has yet "graduated" from the school, but there are many folks who currently attend AND currently serve as cantors in their respective parishes.


As to the "new" music. As has been observed, it really isn't new save that the full tones have never before been set to English words in any books that had wide distribution.

I have sung the Divine Liturgy in the "new" setting a number of times, when I have been at the Seminary. My firmly held opinion is that I'm not used to it yet.

As time goes on, I am becoming MORE accustomed to it. I think there a couple of bits that I don't like, but I am pretty sure that (once I become accustomed to the "new" words, rhythms and music) that there's much more that I will like - a lot. They make musical sense - where an awful lot of what we've been singing for years doesn't.

Note: I am no, Not, NOT belittling the efforts of Monsignor Levkulic, whose hard work provided us all with SOMETHING to sing from when we went to English.

I have a couple of concerns. One is almost philisophical - 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.

My second concern is pastoral. I'm in the Parma Eparchy. Well over a decade ago, Parma put out a buncha new liturgical books with new translations, re-arrangements, etc. (One of those books was the Presanctified service that is now also in use in Passaic.) None of these new books had music in them. There was no real preparation in the parishes either - the books simply appeared, the "old" ones were put away, and the results were predictable. Most parishes ended up with homegrown music, as cantors struggled to cope. The music scholars and Prostopinije adepts could go to Bokshai and Papp to get the right tones. Folks for whom that wasn't an option went to the old Levkulic books and pieced together stichera tones from the "old" books. Every parish was different. When the Passaic Presanctified books came out, folks JUMPED at them, because there was music in 'em. Some of us don't like all the music in them (I think there are some serious truncations in some o' the Samohlasen tones) but they have become the de-facto standard in an awful lot of parishes - at least those where the priest or cantor(s) read music.

The "new" version has music in it - so we are over that specific hurdle. The pastoral hurdle I am concerned about has to do with preparation in the parishes, buy-in from clergy and cantors, education, etc. It can't just be dropped in. From wat I have heard, there is every intention to do preparation (and I believe the MCI is supposed to be part of that preparation) but I'd like to know more about what is planned. To be perfectly frank, many of the concerns expressed at the MCI are about how to get the clergy on board, because if the pastor doesn't support it, it won't fly in the parish.

About the service of the Antiphons - apparently all three verses of all three WILL be available in an accompanying "resource" book, so parishes that WANT to use 'em can. The decision to truncate the service was by no means universally supported, but as we know, the Church is not a democracy.

I guess personally I'd also really like for the new stuff to be "pilot tested" in a couple more parishes. I work for a software company. When we beta test stuff, geographic proximity doesn't count as much as competence. I think that liturgical "beta testing" should happen in parishes who sing well now - and not just in Pittsburgh.

I am hopeful about the new version. Perhaps cautious, but hopeful. A TREMENDOUS amount of work has gone into it, and nusically it makes sense. As for whether or not the words are understandable - well, some folks don't enunciate very well with what we have now! Diction is critical for any singer, the more so for cantors, who sing music that is always in service to the words.

With respect to the new version, I think we should be discussing strategies for success.

In Chrst,

Sharon

P.S. Steve - I agree about the Pittsburgh Cathedral's acoustics! AAAAARRRRRGHHHHHHH!!!!

Frank,

First, I don't want to get into a flame war here. I respect your opinion, and your genuine concern for the future of our Church. However, I also need to make a few points of my own.

As an off-campus student at the seminary, I can personally testify that the new music has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there are only two seminarians left. I have spoken at great length with several of those who have left the seminary, and the new music was never even mentioned as a factor. In my humble opinion, the real reason that we have only two seminarians is because of mandatory celibacy, which is in complete opposition to our authentic Eastern tradition. (Also, I have heard through the grapevine that there are several new seminarians starting this fall... praise God!)

Also, I do visit the cathedral from time to time, since I don't live very far away. I attended liturgy there last month, and it appeared to me that quite a few parishioners were singing. Also, attendance didn't seem particularly dismal compared to when I attended there in previous years. I could be mistaken, but I honestly didn't notice any overwhelming silence or a mass exodus of parishioners.

Finally, as moderator I am requesting that you stop referring to the new music as "junk." You are free to criticize it and to voice your displeasure, but "junk" is a very loaded word. Actually, you are hurting your case by using it. You would probably persuade more people to your point of view by using a more constructive tone. And as I said previously, a great deal of hard work has gone into the new music, and calling it "junk" denotes great disrespect to those persons who have literally poured themselves into the project.

For the record, I have compared the new music side by side with Bokshaj, and it is virtually the same music. It is practically identical. The "new" music is really just the "old" music set to English. Whether or not it works for congregational singing is a different matter, but to characterize it as "junk" is far from fair.

Anthony

This sounds like hearsay. Generally not admissible as testimony. Can you hear the lawyer shouting, "Objection, your honor! This man is bearing false witness!"

Can this thread be closed too?

Anthony,

You are absolutely correct. In the investment world it would be akin to an undervalued stock, which is priced way below its real value.

We are fortunate in having dedicated and knowledgable people addressing our chant today. It is soooooooo needed!

Give it up for those who are returning our music back to us. We got our iconostases back! We got our liturgy back! Now, we get our chant back! The treasure-chest continues to open ...

Joe Thur

Joe,

I started this thread to derail the hijacking of the original thread in which Frank C. made his first dispariging remarks against a particular individual against whom he apparently has a great dislike of for reasons he will not elaborate.

Personally, I would hope this thread stays open. The situation needs a 'lightning rod" and I am willing to be 'it' rather than witness fellow cantors being belittled by narrow thinking individuals.

Frank C.,

you conveniently did not respond to my questions regarding the original use of english versus slavonic 30 years ago. The same thing happened then with all the nastiness, name calling and threats. Over time people such as you became accustomed to the English translations and are now fighting what is a different battle, not one of language but preference.


Steve

Sorry,

I see your point. I will stand with you as part of that lightning rod. Some people can really be sick, especially when they mouth off so much hearsay. Shame on them! If they only put as much effort into glorifying God.

It seems that this "Frank C" guy hopes that his hearsay evidence rallies the people for another bout of bashing the church. (If it isn't nash, kill it) I hope it backfires. Much of what he mentions doesn't make sense, is unintelligable, and is now suspect, especially about mandates (this is so new). Would anyone trust a person who makes a lot of wild claims about something he was never present there himself? Geez! We studied these types of claims in philosophy under the chapter entitled "Fallacies."

And if there are priests who are badmouthing such worthy individuals, especially talented cantors, tell them to call me for a chat. My phone number is 216-738-0540 and my e-mail address is josephthur@yahoo.com Tell them that we need to talk.

Thank you.

God bless!
Cantor Joe Thur

--Steve wrote: you conveniently did not respond to my questions regarding the original use of english versus slavonic 30 years ago. The same thing happened then with all the nastiness, name calling and threats. Over time people such as you became accustomed to the English translations and are now fighting what is a different battle, not one of language but preference.--

The English settings of the Divine Liturgy published in the 1960s were slightly different than the Slavonic originals. The people had no trouble learning them. The major issue then was not the settings. It was the use of English in the liturgy.

You still have not answered my question. What is so bad about the current settings that they need an entire rewrite? What is so wrong with leaving the liturgy alone?


--Joe Thur wrote: It seems that this "Frank C" guy hopes that his hearsay evidence rallies the people for another bout of bashing the church. (If it isn't nash, kill it) I hope it backfires. Much of what he mentions doesn't make sense, is unintelligable, and is now suspect, especially about mandates (this is so new). Would anyone trust a person who makes a lot of wild claims about something he was never present there himself?--

It�s not hearsay evidence, Joe. We are forced to endure it every Sunday at the cathedral. No one sings anymore and people are leaving. Come visit and hear for yourself.

Frank,

You just stated that your information comes from other people. Mr. Anthony Dragani's recent post contradicts yours. Who are we to believe?

Much of your posts works against the work and efforts of us cantors. It is demeaning and negative.

I am still trying to find an Alleluia tone that has 20 Al's, 20 le's, 20 lu's and 20 ia's. Did you actually count these notes youself or did "other people and two priests" tell you this?

I am unaware of any "mandate", especially since the liturgical text hasn't even been finalized ... unless "other people and two priests" told you this fable? Please, do tell us who and/or where you heard such a thing. Inquiring minds want to know.

I have witnessed the "new" (read: old) music being sung (I sang it too) and found it workable and exciting. I found it quite offensive that you called our chant "junk."

Nothing what you now say will make sense since you prefer to be negative and demeaning. As the Administrator is found of asking: How does this build up the Church?

Maybe it is time for Frank C. to collect his toys and go home?

Cantor Joe Thur

Frank,

I will be there this fall (in September) and will be at the cathedral.

Steve

Gentlemen,

Be interested if "youse guys" have any thoughts on the concerns I mentioned...

Sharon

Ditto! The first key is to have the pastor on board. I have a wonderful and supporting pastor - as you well know - and marvels can happen when this is the case.

The second key is to have music in the hands of the people. They DO want to sing and they DO want to have it all. Forget the choir grumpies, the peanut gallery, and the troublemakers. The music is for the people to glorify God in the highest. They are NOT there for the parish warts. This is their time spent to be in community as Church to worship God. Shame on those who make a mockery and debacle of our liturgy. This is a grievous sin.

The third key is the adaptability of the children. Most 'ministers' of our parish are children! Ten boys and men serving at the altar; six girls and young women chanting the music in our tiny schola. What parent would be against our music if their children love to attend and sing at church? It is so nice to hear about a young girl who dreamed about joining our schola for several years and then is finally asked to join at age eight.

You probably would agree with me when I tell you the biggest complaint one ends up getting is when you DON'T have music for them for tones they are not familiar with. We are still learning.

Even those who were fuddy-duds about 'change' have given their approval and smiles to the efforts of those returning our chant back to them. Its a landmark day when a former complainer hands you a compliment about the schola and the old/new music now being sung.

God bless!
Cantor Joe Thur

Sharon, you raise an interesting point, but I think it less to do with language, and more with the musical idiom itself.

First, let me same that I see our prostopinije as a special legacy and treasure that we have a responsibility to cherish and keep vital. In a certain sense, I see it rather like the wooden churches of the Carpathians; but while European Hertiage foundations, UNESCO, and the like have identified the latter as a treasure worth preserving, the music is really up to us. Second, there is a special connection among all of the daughters of Uzhorod, that share this legacy. It was a remarkable experience for me to visit Greek Catholic churches in Hungary, Czech Rep., and Slovakia, and feel instantly at home and fully participating. It was literally awesome. Finally, as a familiar idiom, at least in those parts, it has had a demonstrated value as a means to learn and inculturate the liturgical message. There is a striking testimony to that effect in the study of Johann von Gardner that is alluded to here and there on the net.

But the last point in particular leads to a problem. Musically, we just aren't those people anymore, really. This answers one of Cizinec's questions: it is certainly easier for us to pick up popular tunes because the musical idiom is so much more natural to us. There is unusual chromaticism in our music, odd cadences on descending fourths, and peculiar, shuffling irrythtym and syncopation. Moreover, IMO prostopinije sounds better when sung (at least when sung simply in unison/octaves or thirds) with a clean, old world folk sonority; not bel canto. Little if any of these elements are common in popular American music. But I was given a tape of recent secular music from Presov and essentially all of them are present. (I sang our Paschal hypokoje at an Orthodox mission, and a parishioner said it sounded like gypsy music to her. )

Another major distinction, in particular in the tones, is the basic structure. Most western music is just so different in organizing principles - we would be better equipped for rendering out chant if we were trained in jazz or any motif-based improvisational form (Klezmer?) than in structured Western music.

A problem with some work that was done in shifting to English was, fundamentally, a lack of adherence to principles of the music. The earliest English settings of the troparia, alleluias etc. are faithful to Bokshaj and are terrific music. Subsequent work included a lot of disimprovements. Efforts to simplfy, in particular, were just not done very well, IMO. There was a mixture of keeping some of the characteristic qualities in, but smoothing others out; forcing what had been ornamentation into the basic melodic line, etc. Overall, this led to a lack, not just of integrity, but of musical interest. (Litmus test: what would you sing in the shower: Bokshaj tone 1 prokimenon, or the 1970 Black binder version?)

So what to do? Well, I haven't seen the new music, but every cogent remark about it sounds great. The more musical sense, the more musical sense. At the same time, while I love the prostopinije, it is a platform not a noose. Ultimately, just as the Carpathian wooden churches are "people's (folk) architecture", so also is the prostopinije people's music. (Over commitment to the notes on the sheet, is really antithetical to its proper execution anyway.) So you and other will make local adaptations, and perhaps some amendments and elaborations. And perhaps do some experiments and make some inventions. Your fellow parishioners will certainly provide a lot of feedback on what doesn't work! (And you'll just have to disregard their instinct to react badly on hearing anything new (to them) the first time.) And in Uniontownski, people in other churches will get to hear you and get some ideas. And so on. Our tones will evolve only at a glacial pace. But this evolution will come from people like you. (In Mal'cov, I heard the cherubic hymn sung to the tune of the Marian Hymn, "All the faithful come before you"; that's not in Bokshaj, but it was very, very cool.) Official versions can and should be promulgated to keep some coherence (and should be put together, ultimately, by listening to what people are doing). But they cannot be mandated any more than the tides, as the flatterers of King Canute discovered.

Just my (long) opinion.

djs