ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ « ΕΝΔΟ - ΙΛΑΡΟΧΟΡΕΥΤΙΚΟ - ΣΙΜΩΝΟΚΑΡΑΔΟΦΩΝΟΝ » ;	WHAT IS THE «ENDO – HILARO CHOREUTIC SIMONOKARADOPHONON»?
Ποῦ ὀφείλεται ἡ ΕΛΛΕΙΨΙΣ ΠΑΡΑΔΟΣΙΑΚΩΝ ΠΑΡΕΣΤΙΓΜΕΝΩΝ ἐν τῇ #ἀντι#γραφῇ, καὶ ἡ ΕΙΣΗΓΗΣΙΣ ΑΠΛΟΠΟΙΗΜΕΝΩΝ ΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΩΝ ἀλλὰ καὶ ΑΝΥΠΑΡΚΤΩΝ (εἰς ἠχογραφήσεις ΠΡΟ τοῦ #ἐπους# Καρᾶ) ΦΑΛΤΣΟ παρεστιγμένων ΛΑΡΥΓΓΙΣΜΩΝ; == ΑΡΧΗ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΕΩΝ καί ΠΡΟΤΡΟΠΗ διά #ἔρευναν# περὶ τοῦ ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ « ΕΝΔΟ - ΙΛΑΡΟΧΟΡΕΥΤΙΚΟ - ΣΙΜΩΝΟΚΑΡΑΔΟΦΩΝΟΝ »	Why is there a LACK of TRADITIONAL UNEQUAL temporal DIVISIONS in older edition « re »productions coupled to an INTRODUCTION of SIMPLIFIED as well as INEXISTANT (at least as concerns RECORDINGS that exist BEFORE the Simon Karas « era »), FALSTO – divided VOCALISATIONS ? == Question PRIMER and INSTIGATION for further #research# as to WHAT IS THE « ENDO – HILARO CHOREUTIC SIMONOKARADOPHONON»
Ἡ μονάδα χρόνου ἐν τῇ ψαλτικῇ ἀντιπροσωπεύεται παρὰ ἑνὸς ἀδιαιρέτου ἀλλὰ καὶ μὴ αὐξημένου ἴσου .	The UNIT OF TIME used in psaltiki is represented by an UNDIVIDED and UNAUGMENTED ISON
	This is usually transcribed as a QUARTER note in Occidental music. The fractions presented below refer to the value of such a quarter note. To obtain fraction equivalents for occidental music notation, one must FURTHER multiply each given fraction by (1/4)
Αὔτη ἡ μονάδα χρόνου δύναται ἴνα ΔΙΑΙΡΕΘΗ κατὰ τρὸπον == συμμετρικόν, τουτέστιν ΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΩΣ, χάρην εἰς τὸ ΓΟΡΓΟΝ	This unit of time can be DIVIDED in manner that is either == symmetrical, i.e. ISOCHRONOUS, by making use of the GORGON.
== ἢ ἀσύμμετρον , τουτέστιν ΑΝΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΩΣ, χάρην εἰς τὴν ΤΕΛΕΙΑΝ,	== or asymmetrical, i.e. ANISOCHRONOUS, by making use of a DOT
δημιοργοῦσα ΓΟΡΓΟΝ μετὰ ΠΑΡΕΣΤΙΓΜΕΝΟΥ	creating thus a “PUNCTATE” gorgon ( « ΓΟΡΓΟΝ μετὰ ΠΑΡΕΣΤΙΓΜΕΝΟΥ »)
π.χ.	e.g..
ἢ καὶ	or
Αἱ διάφοραι ὑποδιαιρέσεις δύνανται νὰ προσδιορισθοῦν διὰ τοῦ ἐξῆς τύπου,	The various subdivisions that can be made within a one-unit of time ISON can be represented by the following mathematical expression:
ὄπου G = Συνολικὸς ἀριθμὸς γοργῶν D = ἀριθμὸς τελειῶν εἰς καθ’ἐκάστην ὑποδιαίρεσιν	where G = Total number of Gorgons D = number of dots PER subdivision category
Ὁ τύπος οὗτος προσδιωρίζει (G+1) κατηγορίες, αἱ ὀποῖαι δύνανται νὰ εἶναι ΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΕΣ ἐν ἐλλείψῃ τελείας, ἢ ΑΝΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΕΣ ἐν τυχοῦσᾳ παρουσίᾳ αὐτῆς.	This formula defines (G+1) subdivision categories, which can all be ISOCHRONOUS in the case of no dot addition whatsoever or ANISOCHRONOUS in the presence of even one dot.
Αἱ τελείαι ἐξ ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΩΝ γοργοῦ τινὸς συναριθμήζονται μὲ τὸ ὰντίστοιχον « n » τοῦ γοργοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἐνῷ αἱ ἐκ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ συναριθήζονται μὲ τὸ το ΠΡΟΣΕΧΕΣ « n », τουτέστη « n+1 »	Dots placed on the LEFT of a gorgon are considered as being part of the « n »^th subdivision category, whereas those placed on RIGHT of a gorgon are considered as being part of the SUBSEQUENT , i.e. the « n^th+1 » subdivision category
Ἀκολουθοῦν διάφορα πρακτικὰ ἢ και θεωριτηκά παραδείγματα.	What follows is a number of practical or even simply theoretical examples of how psaltic notation division symbols can be used.
G = 1, διότι ἕνα καί μόνον γοργόν, n = 1 καὶ 2 (G+1 = 1+1 = 2), ἄρα 2 κατηγορίες D1 = 0 (οὐδεμία τελεία ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ), D2 = 1 (μία τελεία ΔΕΞΙΑ), Σ() = 3 = (1 + G + D1 + D2) (1 + 1 + 0 + 1) = 3 Kατηγορία n = 1 : (1+D1)/3= (1+0)/3= 1/3 Kατηγορία n = 2 : (1+D2)/3= (1+2)/3= 2/3	G = 1, because there is only ONE gorgon n = 1 and 2 (G+1 = 1+1 = 2) = 2 subdivision categories (groups) D1 = 0 (no dot to the LEFT), D2 = 1 (one dot on the RIGHT), Σ() = 3 = (1 + G + D1 + D2) (1 + 1 + 0 + 1) = 3 Group n = 1 : (1+D1)/3= (1+0)/3= 1/3 Group n = 2 : (1+D2)/3= (1+2)/3= 2/3
Αἱ τελείαι τῶν παρεστιγμένων γοργῶν τίθονται ἐξ ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑΣ πλευρᾶς. ΜΟΝΟΝ τὸ ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΟΝ γοργὸν δύναται νά φέρει ΕΠΙΣΗΣ τελείαν ἐκ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ. Ἐν ΠΑΣΗ περιπτώσει ὄπου τὸ ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΟΝ γοργὸν φέρει τελεία(ν, ς) ἐκ ΔΕΞΙΩΝ, (ἀνεξαρτήτως παρουσίας ἢ ἀπουσίας εἰς τὴν ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑΝ αὐτοῦ πλευράν), αὔται καταλογήζονται μετά τῆς τελευταίας κατηγορίας. Ἐν ΠΑΣΗ περιπτώσει ὄπου τὸ ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΟΝ γοργὸν φέρει τελεία(ν, ς) ἐξ ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΩΝ (ἀνεξαρτήτως παρουσίας .ἢ ἀπουσίας εἰς τὴν ΔΕΞΙΑΝ αὐτοῦ πλευράν), αὔται καταλογήζονται μετά τῆς ΠΡΟ τελευταίας κατηγορίας.	Dots of punctate Gorgons are placed on the LEFT side. Only the FINAL (rightmost, “ending”) gorgon can further bear dots to its RIGHT. In every case where the RIGHTMOST (final) gorgon bears a dot to its RIGHT (whether in presence or absence of dots to its LEFT), it is to be counted as part of the FINAL group. In every case where the RIGHTMOST (final) gorgon bears a dot to its LEFT (whether in presence or absence of dots to its RIGHT), it is to be counted as part of the PRE FINAL group.
G = 3, διότι τρία γοργά, n = 1, 2, 3 καὶ 4 ====(G+1 = 3+1 = 4), ἄρα 4 κατηγορίες D1 = 1 (μία τελεία ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ), D2 = 1 (μία τελεία ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ), D3 = 1 (μία τελεία ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ), D4 = 0 (οὐδεμία τελεία ΔΕΞΙΑ), Σ() = 7 = (1 + G + D1 + D2 + D3 + D4) (1 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 ) = 7 Kατηγορία n = 1 : (1+D1)/7= (1+1)/7= 2/7 Kατηγορία n = 2 : (1+D2)/7= (1+1)/7= 2/7 Kατηγορία n = 3 : (1+D3)/7= (1+1)/7= 2/7 Kατηγορία n = 4 : (1+D4)/7= (1+0)/7= 1/7	G = 3, because there are 3 gorgons n = 1, 2, 3 and 4 ====(G+1 = 3+1 = 4), therefore 4 groups D1 = 1 (one dot on the LEFT), D2 = 1 (one dot on the LEFT), D3 = 1 (one dot on the LEFT), D4 = 0 (no dot whatsoever on the RIGHT), Σ() = 7 = (1 + G + D1 + D2 + D3 + D4) (1 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 ) = 7 Group n = 1 : (1+D1)/7= (1+1)/7= 2/7 Group n = 2 : (1+D2)/7= (1+1)/7= 2/7 Group n = 3 : (1+D3)/7= (1+1)/7= 2/7 Group n = 4 : (1+D4)/7= (1+0)/7= 1/7
G = 3, διότι τρία γοργά, n = 1, 2, 3 καὶ 4 ==== (διότι G+1 = 3+1 = 4), ἄρα 4 κατηγορίες D1 = 3 (τρεῖς τελείες ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ), D2 = 0 (οὐδεμία τελεία ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ), D3 = 2 (δύο τελείες ΑΡΙΣΤΕΡΑ), D4 = 3 (τρεῖς τελείες ΔΕΞΙΑ), Σ() = 12 = (1 + G + D1 + D2 + D3 + D4) (1 + 3 + 3 + 0 + 2 + 3 ) = 12 Kατηγορία n = 1 : (1+D1)/12= (1+3)/12= 4/12 Kατηγορία n = 2 : (1+D2)/12= (1+0)/12= 1/12 Kατηγορία n = 3 : (1+D3)/12= (1+2)/12= 3/12 Kατηγορία n = 4 : (1+D4)/12= (1+3)/12= 4/12	G = 3, because there are 3 gorgons, n = 1, 2, 3 and 4 ==== (because G+1 = 3+1 = 4), therefore 4 categories D1 = 3 (three dost on the LEFT), D2 = 0 (no dot whatsoever on the LEFT), D3 = 2 (two dots on the LEFT), D4 = 3 (three dost on the RIGHT), Σ() = 12 = (1 + G + D1 + D2 + D3 + D4) (1 + 3 + 3 + 0 + 2 + 3 ) = 12 Group n = 1 : (1+D1)/12= (1+3)/12= 4/12 Group n = 2 : (1+D2)/12= (1+0)/12= 1/12 Group n = 3 : (1+D3)/12= (1+2)/12= 3/12 Group n = 4 : (1+D4)/12= (1+3)/12= 4/12
↓	↓
Τὸ Ἑλληνικὸν δημῶδες ᾄσμα (π.χ. [1], [2) δύναται νὰ διαφέρει τῆς ψαλτικῆς ὄταν χρησιμοποιεῖ ΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΕΣ διαιρέσεις ΠΕΡΑΝ τῶν τεσσάρων ὑποδιαρέσεων («κατηγοριῶν», δηλαδὴ n>4), τὶς ὀποῖες χρησιμοποιοῦν καὶ ἄλλες παραδόσεις (π.χ. ἐν ταῖς Ἰνδίαις, συνήθως ἐν τῷ τέλει τῶν ᾀσμάτων [1], [2]).	The Hellenic traditional FOLK song repertoire (e.g. [1], [2]) contains a category of songs that differ from the psaltic repertoire in that its songs contain ISOCHRONOUS divisions within groups of n>4, which can also be found in other traditions, such as Hindu songs, especially in the song’s conclusion(i.e. [1], [2]).
Ἐν τῇ ψαλτικῇ τέχνῃ, ἐπίσης, σπανίως ὁ παρανομαστὴς νὰ περάσει τὸν ἀριθμὸν 6. Οὖτως, λοιπόν, ἐν τῇ κλασσικῇ γραφῇ τῆς ψαλτικῆς, δὲν εἴθηστε νὰ τοποθετοῦνται πλείωνα == τῆς 1 τελείας εἰς τετράγοργον (n=5) == τῶν 2 τελειῶν εἰς τρίγοργον (n=4) == τῶν 3 τελειῶν εἰς δίγοργον (n=3) == τῶν 4 τελειῶν εἰς γοργόν (n=2)	It rare in psaltiki that a traditional psaltis will chant temporal divisions where the denominator is greater than 6 (i.e.24 in occidental music since [1/6]x[1/4] = [1/24]) Therefore, in the CLASSICAL notation of psaltiki, there is no need to use more than == 1 dot within a set of four gorgons (n=5) == 2 dots within a set of three gorgons (n=4) == 3 dots within a set of two gorgons (n=3) ==4 dots within a set of one gorgon (n=2)
Ἀντιθέτως, τούτον ΕΠΙΤΡΕΠΕΤΑΙ ἀλλὰ εἶναι και ἐπιθυμητὸν εἰς ᾄσματα τύπου « (ἀ)μανές » ἢ ἄλλων παρομίων ᾀσμάτων (π.χ.. [1]). Ἄξιον προσοχῆς ὁ ΣΕΒΑΣΜΟΣ τῶν ἐλλατομένων ὑποδιαιρέσεων, καὶ ἡ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΠΟΙΗΣΙΣ παρὰ παραδοσιακῶν ᾀηδῶν ἀναμεταξὺ ὕμνων ὲκτὸς (ἄνωθι link) καὶ ἐντὸς ἱεροῦ χώρου (π. χ.. [2] { προσοχὴ: ἡ ψαλτικὴ ΔΕΝ χρήζη τῆς «αὐλομιμήσεως » })	To the contrary, this is PERMITTED and is even a PREREQUISITE for correct « (a)manes » and other interpretations (e.g. [1]). Notice how the traditional Turkish singer in the preceding link keeps divisions to a MINIMUM when chanting a RELIGIOUS repertoire (e.g. [2]), from which psaltiki differs in that it does NOT use “flute imitation” (« αὐλομίμησις »). .
Ὁ ψάλτης ὁ ΜΗ ἔχων διδαχθῇ ΠΟΛΥΠΛΟΚΕΣ ΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΕΣ διαιρέσεις (ἐφ’ὄσον ΔΕΝ τοῦ χρειάζονται ἐν τῇ ψαλτικῇ), ΑΣΤΟΧΕΙ ἐν τῇ προσπάθειά του ὄπως ἐκτελέσει αὐτὰς, ὑποδιαιρεῖ ἐὼς 4 κατηγορίας (ἄκρον =maximum ἐν τῇ ψαλτικῇ), προστίθει καὶ τελείας, καὶ ἀκούγονται ΠΑΥΣΕΙΣ εἰς τὰς ἀνόδους καὶ καθόδους τῆς φωνῆς, δίνοντας οὔτως ἀκουσμα ΨΑΛΤΙΚΗΣ ἀντὶ ΔΗΜΩΔΟΥΣ ΑΣΜΑΤΟΣ (π. χ. Στανίτσας).	Any chanter NOT having learned COMPLEX ISOCHRONOUS divisions (given that they are of no use in traditional psaltiki) MISSES out upon attempts to interpret such vocalisations, because he will usually not go beyond 4 groups (= “maximum” in psaltiki), and will add dots instead, thus giving a sort of “PAUSE” within the melody and an overall interpretation that resembles more to psaltiki than to DEMOTIC FOLK song (e.g. this is what Stanitsas does when singing folk songs).
Τουναντίον, οὐχ ὀλίγοι #ψάλται# εἰσήγαγον ΠΟΛΥΠΛΟΚΕΣ ΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΕΣ (δημοτικο ᾀσματικὲς) (Μηλιώνης, Ἀηδονίδης-Καραντζὴ) ἢ καὶ ΠΟΛΥΠΛΟΚΕΣ ΑΝΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΕΣ ([α]μανο-ᾀσματικὲς) ὑποδιαιρέσεις (π. χ. Στανίτσας) ἐν δημοσίοις παραστάσεις - #συναυλίας# (concert) ἤ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ναοῖς.	In contrast, not so few are the “psaltis” who have introduced COMPLEX ISOCHRONOUS (“demotiko-asmatic”) (Μηλιώνης, Ἀηδονίδης-Καραντζὴ) or even COMPLEX ANISOCHRONOUS ([a]mano-asmatic) subdivisions (e.g. Stanitsas) in public presentations, concerts or even within the holy churches.
Τὰ ἐλατώματα αὐτὰ ἀποκαθιστοῦν ΛΑΝΘΑΣΜΕΝΗΝ χρῆσιν ΠΑΡΑΔΟΣΙΑΚΩΝ λαρυγγισμῶν.	Such “habits” have become the source of a MISADAPTED and, by consequence, FAULTY use of TRADITIONAL vocalisations.
Χάριν εἰς τὸν #ΜΗ ΓΝΩΡΙΖΟΝ#, κατὰ τὸν Ἰάκωβον Ναυπλιώτην, τὴν μουσικὴν ἡμῶν, Σίμωνα ΚΑΡΑ, ἔχομεν ὕστερον ἀπὸ τὴν #μέθοδον καὶ διδακαλίαν# του, ΕΝΑ ΝΕΟΦΑΝΕΣ, ΑΝΙΚΟΥΣΤΟΝ ἐν τῇ ΠΡΟ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΗΧΟΓΡΑΦΗΜΕΝΗ Ἑλληνικῇ παράδοσῃ , ΑΚΟΥΣΜΑ, περιέχοντα ΠΑΘΟΓΝΩΜΟΝΙΚΑ στοιχεῖα ΔΙΑΓΝΩΣΗΣ αὐτῆς τῆς λοίμωξις.	Thanks to him who, according to Iakovos NAFPLIOTIS, #IS NOT ACQUAINTED# with OUR music, Simon Karas, our contemporary “tradition” has obtained, as a “complement” to his #methods and teachings# , a NOVEL SOUND in the Hellenic musical tradition, unheard of in ANY recordings that PRECEDE anything he and his followers have recorded, which contains PATHOGNOMONIC elements that permit a quick and certain DIAGNOSIS of this new PANDEMIC.
Ἀναφορικῶς, ὄσον ἀφορᾶ τὰ διαστηματικὰ φάλτσα, πρὸκειτε περὶ ==χρήσεως ΔΥΤΙΚΟΥ τόνου 200 cents, χάριν εἰς τὴν ΚΑΤΑ ΓΡΑΜΜΑ (καὶ οὐχὶ ΚΑΤΑ ΠΑΡΑΔΟΣΙΝ) ἑρμηνεία τῆς ΔΥΤΙΚΟ ΕΠΗΡΕΑΣΜΕΝΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ του 1881, (τῆς ὀποῖας ἐναντιώθηκε ο Κιλτζανίδης, πρόϊν μέλος αὐτῆς) μὲ συγγερασμὸν τὸνου 12/72 μορίων ΤΟΥΤΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΚΡΙΒΩΣ ΙΔΙΟΝ τῆς συγγερασμένης κλίμακος τῆς ΔΥΣΕΩΣ (200 cents) (Κείμενον), (1), (ἠχητικὸ παράδειγμα) == ΑΠΟΡΡΗΨΙΣ τῆς ΧΡΥΣΑΝΘΙΚΗΣ ΔΙΦΩΝΙΑΣ (πίναξ) (Χάρης Συμεωνίδης κείμενον) == ΕΙΣΗΓΗΣΙΝ ΔΥΤΙΚΗΠΡΕΠΟΥΣ τέταρτο ΤΟΝΙΑΙΟΥ διαστήματος (50 cents) ὡς ἐλκτικὴν δίεσιν (ἐν ἀντιθέσῃ μὲ τὰ παραδοσιακὰ τὰ ὀποία εἶναι μεγαλύτερα ἢ μικρότερα τῶν 50 cents. == ΕΙΣΗΓΗΣΙΝ ΕΛΑΤΩΣΙΣ ἐν τῷ ἀριθμῷ τῶν ΑΝΑΛΥΣΕΩΝ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ΣΥΣΤΗΜΑΤΙΚΟΠΟΙΣΕΩΣ σὺν ΚΟΥΡΑΣΤΙΚΗΣ ΕΠΑΝΑΛΗΨΕΩΣ αὐτῶν.	In passing, one may simply quote the various interval or diastematic FALTSOS, which are ==the use of an OCCIDENTAL tone of 200 cents, thanks to a LITERAL (and not a TRADITIONAL O/AURAL) interpretation of the results published by the OCCIDENTAL influenced Committee of 1881 (against which turned Kiltzanides, a former Committee member himself ) which introduced a tempered scale tone of 12/72 units which is EXACTLY THE SAME as the tempered tone used in OCCIDENTAL music (200 cents) (Text), (1), (audio samples) ==the REJECTION of the CHRYSANTHIC DIPHONIC third (table) (Χάρης Συμεωνίδης text) ==the INTRODUCTION of a OCCIDENTAL-like quarter tone interval (50 cents) as an “attraction” sharp (accident, “diesis”) (in contrast to the TRADITIONAL accidents which are either GREATER or SMALLER than 50 cents). ==the introduction of a REDUCED number of DEVELOPMENTS (“analysis”), as well as their SYSTEMATISATION followed by a FATIGUING, REPETITIVE use thereof.
Ἐπειδὴ τὸ θέμα ἀφορᾶ τὰς δαιρέσεις χρόνου, παρατηρεῖται ΕΠΙ ΠΛΕΟΝ ΕΙΣΗΓΗΣΙΣ == ΑΠΛΩΝ ΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΩΝ ὺποδιαρέσεων, λόγου, ἐπίσης, ΚΑΤΑ ΓΡΑΜΜΑ ἐκτελέσεως ΝΕΑΣ ἀλλὰ ΠΑΝΤΟΤΕ ΣΤΕΝΟΓΡΑΦΙΚΗΣ γραφῆς (ἡ ἀνθολογία τοῦ Πέτρου Ἐφεσίου ὰποδεικνύει ΑΚΡΙΒΩΣ αὐτὸ τὸ ὀποῖον ΟΧΙ ΜΟΝΟ δέν ἀναφέρετε εἰς τὸν πρόλογον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ὀποῖον, ΙΣΩΣ ΛΟΓΟΥ ΣΧΟΛΗΣ, ΑΠΟΡΙΠΤΕΤΑΙ ἐν τῇ #ΑΝΤΙ#ΓΡΑΦΗ (ὡς παραδείγματα ἐν τῷ #ἀντὶ# προλόγῳ) διαφόρων γραμμῶν πηγαζόντων ἐκ τῶν ἐξηγήσεων τοῦ Πέτρου αἱ ὀποῖαι δύναται ἴνα θεωρηθοῦν ὡς #σπουδαῖα τεκμήρεια στὴν ἔρευνα# ΟΧΙ τόσον διὰ #τὶς ἐνέργειες# ὄπως τὶς ἀντιλαμβάνονται ἢ καὶ συστηματικοποιοῦν ὀρισμένοι, ΟΣΟ διὰ τὴν ΕΠΙΜΟΝΟΝ παρὰ τῷ Πέτρῳ Ἐφεσσίῳ ΚΑΤΑΓΡΑΦΗΝ ΠΑΡΕΣΤΙΓΜΕΝΩΝ ΓΟΡΓΩΝ ἡ ὀποῖα ΑΠΟΔΕΙΚΝΥΕΙ ΑΛΛΗΝ ΠΑΡΑΔΟΣΙΝ καὶ ἐκτέλεσιν ἀπ’αὐτὴν τὴν ὀποῖαν ἀκούγωμεν ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμερῶν μας.	Since the present topic concerns TEMPORAL DIVISIONS, one further notices the INTRODUCTION of == SIMPLE ISOCHRONOUS subdivisions, based upon, once again, the LITERARY interpretation of the NEW (“Three teacher reform” or “Contemporary psaltic notation = CPN) method which REMAINS a STENOGRAPHIC notation (the ANTHOLOGY by Petros from Ephessos proves EXACTLY THIS = in his concern to DEMONSTRATE the COMPLEXITY of what is chanted as opposed to what is written in simple form, Petros makes USE of ANISCOCHRONOUS divisions, although he LIMITS himself from adding too much detail, given that he is concerned about making the score too complex) which NOT ONLY IS NOT mentioned but is also SYSTEMATICALLY ABOLISHED within the introduction text where, in examples chosen by its « editor » (= follower and preacher of this school’s IDIOSYNCRATIC musical philosophy) is supposed to provide an EXACT COPY (#ΑΝΤΙ#ΓΡΑΦΗ) of the book’s CONTENT . The various lines chosen are not so much to be considered as “important #elements# for research” ( #σπουδαῖα τεκμήρεια στὴν ἔρευνα#) because of, as claims the re-edition’s author, the “energies = actions# (#ἐνέργειες#) as he and his school of thought PERCEIVE or SYSTEMATISE them, but RATHER because of the OBSTINATE transcription of such ANISOCHRONOUS divisions by Petros from Ephessos, which is PROOF enough that there exists some OTHER PSALTIKI TRADITION both written and chanted, as opposed to that which is presented to us today, both in concerts and in church, by a GREAT number of “specialists” and “musicologists” who also have a “special way” of “copying” and “presenting” examples.
Ὡσὰν νὰ μὴ ἐπαρκοῦν τὰ ΑΚΟΥΣΤΙΚΑ δείγματα, ἰδοὺ καὶ τὰ ΓΡΑΠΤΑ. Ὄστις θέλει ἴνα ΕΞΑΣΚΗΣΕΙ τὴν ΟΠΤΙΚΗΝ αὐτοῦ αἴσθησιν ὦστε νὰ ΕΛΕΓΞΗ καὶ ΑΛΛΑ κείμενα (π.χ. #ΕΠΑΝΕΚΔΟΣΕΙΣ# κλασσικῶν βιβλίων μετὰ ΠΡΟΣΘΑΦΑΙΡΕΣΕΩΝ #ἔλξεων# ὑπὸ τοῦ Γ. Κ. Παπαχρόνη), ἄς ἐξετάση ΛΕΠΤΟΜΕΡΩΣ τὸ ὡς κάτωθι δεῖγμα, καὶ ἄς συγκρίνει μὲ ὄτι εὐρίσκεται ἐντὸς κύκλων εἰς τὸ μεθ’ἐπώμενο κείμενο.	As if the audio samples (listen to examples provided below) were not sufficient, here are WRITTEN examples as well. Whoever might wish to EXERCISE one’s OPTICAL perception capacities so as to COMPARE OTHER re-editions to their ORIGINALS (e.g.. #RE#-editions of classical pslatic books, #supplemented# mainly ADDITIONAL #accidents# (or #elxis# = flats and sharps) by G. Κ. Papachronis), is invited to examine in DETAIL the following EXAMPLE (examples quoted by Lycourgos Angelopoulos in his introduction as opposed to the ORIGINAL versions of Petros from Ephesoss [in blue] provided within the very same book) and to “grade” oneself after comparing it to the “solution” provided even further below.
Ἰδοὺ ἐνδεικτυκῶς καὶ ἡ #πιστότης# τῆς #αντι#γραφῆς	Solution : check the “specialist’s” “copying fidelity”
Διακρίνει τις == τήν ΧΡΗΣΙΝ φθορᾱς ΛΕΓΕΤΟΥ εἰς τὸν Ζω τοῦ ΒΑΡΕΩΣ ἦχου (ἡ ὀποῖα ΔΕΝ ὑπάρχει εἰς τὰ αὐτούσια κείμενα) == τὴν ἀντικατάστασιν ΧΡΩΜΑΤΙΚΗΣ μαρτυρίας τοῦ Ζω διὰ ΔΙΑΤΟΝΙΚΗΣ (2.04) == καὶ τήν ΣΥΣΤΗΜΑΤΙΚΗΝ ἀπόρρηψιν ΠΑΡΕΣΤΙΓΜΕΝΩΝ! == ὡς καὶ διάφορα #τυποργραφικὰ# λάθη, ἴσως διὰ νὰ δικαιολογηθοῦν, #ἐν ὥρα ἀνάγκης#, τὰ #ὑπόλοιπα#.	One can distinguish == the USE of the modulating sign (#fthora#) of #LEGETOS = BOU# on the Ζω of the #Barys diatonic# mode (which DOES NOT exist as such in ANY of the quoted material) == the replacement of the CHROMATIC witness APPENDIX of Ζω by that of a DIATONIC one (ex. 2.04) == the SYSTEMATIC removal of unequal division signs (punctate [dotted] gorgons)! == as well as a number of other #typographical# errors, surely so as to dispose of some EXCUSE when the #time cometh# to explain the “remaining”, that is, the aforementioned #DISCRPENCIES#.
Ἐφοδιαμένος πλέον ὁ ἀναγνώστης μὲ τὰ μαθηματικὰ καῖ γραφικὰ παραδείγματα (ὄπως ἐν τῇ ΑΥΤΟΥΣΙΑ γραφῇ Πέτρου τοῦ ἐξ Ἐφέσσου) τῶν παρεστιγμένων γοργῶν, καὶ συγγρίνωντας μετὰ τὴν ὡς ἄνωθι #ἀντι#γραφὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων ἠχητικῶν παραδειγμάτων εὔκολα θα καταλάβῃ	The reader, now armed with mathematical as well as graphical examples of UNEQUAL TEMPORAL divisions = PUNCTATE gorgons (“παρεστιγμένων γοργῶν ») (such as those found in the ORIGINAL, AUTHENTIC texts written by Petros from Ephessos), and after having compared them to the above “specialist’s” special “COPYING” procedure is invited to indulge”, as well, in the audio samples that follow so as to concretely understand
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙ ΤΟ « ΕΝΔΟ - ΙΛΑΡΟΧΟΡΕΥΤΙΚΟ – ΣΙΜΩΝΟΚΑΡΑΔΟΦΩΝΟΝ »	WHAT IS THE ”ENDO – HILARO- CHOREUTIC SIMONOKARADOPHONON”
Ὀρισμός:	Definition:
Τὸ ΕΝΔΟ - ΙΛΑΡΟΧΟΡΕΥΤΙΚΟ – ΣΙΜΩΝΟΚΑΡΑΔΟΦΩΝΟΝ ἐστὶ ΑΝΑΠΡΟΣΑΡΜΟΣΤΟΣ ΠΑΥΣΙΣ (ΠΑΡΕΣΤΙΓΜΕΝΟΝ !) εἰς γοργὸν ΠΡΟ ΤΟΥ ΤΕΛΕΥΤΑΙΟΥ ἐντὸς μονάδως χρόνου περικυκλωμένης παρὰ ἄλλων, ΑΠΛΟ - ΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΙΚΩΣ διηρημένων μονάδων, ἡ ὀποῖα δημιουργεῖ ΑΚΟΥΣΤΙΚΗΝ ἢ καὶ ῬΥΘΜΙΚΗΝ διατάραξην τε καὶ ἀνισοροπείαν	The “ENDO - HILAROCHOREUTIC SIMONOKARADOPHON” is an UNADAPTED PAUSE (obtained by the use of an UNEQUALY divided unit of time!) at a PRE - TERMINAL « gorgon », within a unit of time that is surrounded by other, SIMPLE and ISOCHRONOUSLY divided units of time, that creates an ACOUSTIC as well as RHYTHIC PERTURBATION and IMBALANCE
ἠχητικὰ παραδείγματα τοῦ νεοφανοῦς « ΕΝΔΟ - ΙΛΑΡΟΧΟΡΕΥΤΙΚΟ – ΣΙΜΩΝΟΚΑΡΑΔΟΦΩΝΟΝ » παρὰ τῶν ἐν τῇ ψαλτικῇ #ἐφευρετῶν#, #εἰσηγητῶν# καὶ ἀνὰ τὴν οὶκουμένην #φορέων# καὶ #μεταλαμπαδευτῶν# αὐτοῦ.	audio samples of this NOVEL ”ENDO - HILAROCHOREUTIC SIMONOKARADOPHONON” as it has been introduced by those who have #DISCOVERED#, #INTRODUCED# and who #CARRY# and #TRANSMIT# it throughout the ENTIRE PLANET.
Σύγγρισης = #ἀπολαύσατε# κατ’ἐπανάληψιν « ΕΝΔΟ - ΙΛΑΡΟΧΟΡΕΥΤΙΚΟ – ΣΙΜΩΝΟΚΑΡΑΔΟΦΩΝΟΝ » (καὶ ἐντὸς #συνεπτιγμένου ῥυθμοῦ#) δηλαδὴ ΦΑΛΤΣΑ τὰ ὀποῖα δὲν παράγει κἄν ΠΑΙΔΑΣ κανονάνορχος ἐν τῷ Πατριαρχεὶῳ.	Compare = #enjoy# the REPETITIVE ”“ENDO – HILAROCHOREUTIC SIMONOKARADOPHONON” (especially within this school’s “understating” and “interpretation” of the now ”legendary” « COMPOSITE RHYTHM » [#συνεπτιγμένος ῥυθμός#]) that is a WHOLE LOT of “FALTSOS” which are AVOIDED EVEN by an approximately 7 or 8 year – old boy [“Canonarch], 1950’s, Patriarchate of Constantinople)
(ΘρΣτ Καν ΓΚΜ ΛΑ) (LA solo) (Ἀποσπάσματα ἐκ τοῦ solo)	(Thras Stan - Canonarch – GKM - LA) (LA solo) (Excerpts from the solo)
Ἐν συνεχείᾳ, παραχωρούνται ἠχητικὰ ἀποσπάσματα ὕστερον κάποιας διὰ τηλεφώνου αἰτήσεως τοῦ ἐνδιαφερομένου ὄπως τοῦ τὰ #ὑποδείξω#. Εἰς τὸ ἐξῆς ἠχητικὸν παράδειγμα ἀκούγονται, ΔΥΣΤΗΧΩΣ παρὰ μόνον ΟΛΙΓΑ ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΑ ΣΩΣΤΑ ἀλλὰ καὶ ΑΡΚΕΤΑ (περίπου ἕνα ἀνὰ λεπτὸν) ΕΝΔΟ - ΙΛΑΡΟΧΟΡΕΥΤΙΚΟ – ΣΙΜΩΝΟΚΑΡΑΔΟΦΩΝΑ	In the following audio samples excerpts, (provided at the REQUEST of Georgios Konstantinou, who “challenged” me to demonstrate what are to be considered as his “Simokaraïtic” tendencies in his “chanting”) one can hear only a FEW correct elements, incrusted within numerous interval instabilities and, of course, an approximately “one per minute”# set of ”ENDO – HILARO –CHROREUTIC SIMONOKARADOPHONONS”
(Γ Κωνσταντίνου Μυσταγωγον σου) (Ἀποσπάσματα ἐκ τοῦ solo)	(Γ Κωνσταντίνου Μυσταγωγον σου) (Excerpts form the solo)
Ἰδοὺ καὶ ὁ #δημιουργὸς# τοῦ ΕΝΔΟ - ΙΛΑΡΟΧΟΡΕΥΤΙΚΟ – ΣΙΜΩΝΟΚΑΡΑΔΟΦΩΝΟΥ (SK Μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς)	Finally, here is the “INVENTOR” of the ”ENDO – HILARO –CHROREUTIC SIMONOKARADOPHONONS” (SK Μὴ τῆς φθορᾶς)
(SK Ἐξέδυσάν με)	(SK Ἐξέδυσάν με)
(Ἀπόσπασμα ἐκ τοῦ solo Ἀκαθίστου Ὕμνου)	(solo excerpts from the Acathist Hymn Ἀκαθίστος Ὕμνος)
Οἱ τρεῖς ἑρμηνευτὲς παρουσιάζουν ΤΡΟΜΕΡΑΝ ΑΣΤΑΘΕΙΑΝ ΔΙΑΣΤΗΜΑΤΩΝ, ἰδιαιτέρως εἰς τὰς καταλήξεις, διότι ΔΕΝ παιρνοῦν #ἀπὸ κάτω#, ὀπως οἱ παραδοσιακοὶ ψάλτες. Παραδόξως, ὁ Καρὰς ΔΕΝ κάμνει πολλοὺς φάλτσο λαρυγγισμούς εὶς τὶς παλαιὲς ἠχογραφήσεις (Melpo Merlier, ἄνωθεν) == δυστυχῶς, φαλτσάρι εἰς διαστήματα καὶ «attacks », ΔΕΝ ἔχει ὁμογενὴν ἒκφρασιν, #τρώγει χρόνους# εἰς τὰ #solo#, κτλ. Ἀντιθέτως, ἐκτελεῖ ΣΩΣΤΗΝ πρόσληψιν συμφώνων, προσθέτη καὶ #κουτάλες# (glissando) τύπου Γρηγοριανοῦ παλαιογραφικοῦ « pes», καὶ ΔΕΝ εἶναι τόσον κουραστικὸς ὄπως οἱ « ἀκόλουθοι », «  θιασώται » καὶ « ὑποστηρικταὶ» αὐτοῦ. Ἐν συγγρίσει μὲ τοὺς μαθητές του, εἶναι πιὸ #παραδοσιακὸς#, καὶ καταλαβαίνω διατὶ μερικοὶ, οἱ ὀποῖοι ἴσως νὰ μὴν ἄκουσαν καλύτερους (ἢ καὶ νὰ μὴν εἶχαν τὴν ΔΙΑΘΕΣΙΝ νὰ ἀκούσουν καλύτερους) ψάλτες (ὄπως τὸν Ἰάκωβον Ναυπλιώτην ), #ἀσπάσθησαν Σιμωνοκαραϊτισμόν#.	The three performers from the Simon Karas school of “thought” present with SEVERE INTERVAL INSTABILITIES, especially as concerns CONCLUDING cadences (#καταλήξεις#), because they simply haven’t learned how to “stabilise” such notes from “below”, as do ALL the traditional psaltis before the Simon Karas “era”. One should be honest, however, and admit that, PARADOXICALLY, Simon Karas DOES NOT perform a lot of “faltso” vocalisations in the old recordings (by Melpo Merlier) linked to above. == unfortunately, his intervals and «attacks » are quite unstable and “faltso”, he does NOT provide a HOMOGENEOUS expression, he “bites off” some units of time in his “solo” performances, etc . In CONTRAST, he DOES perform a CORRECT anticipation of CONSONANTS and adds a TRADITIONAL INITIAL #glissando” [NOT concluding] of the type seen within Gregorian chant palaeography (« pes»), and his performance is NOT as boring as that of his “followers” and “defenders”. As compared to his “students” or “followers”, he is MUCH MORE …. #TRADITIONAL#, and one can “understand” why some of them, who did not have the chance or even the WILL to listen to TRULY traditional psaltis (such as Iakovos NAFPLIOTIS) #converted” to “Simonokaraïticism#.
Εἰς τὸ μέλον θὰ παραχωρηθῇ καὶ φασματογραφικὴ ἀνάλυσις πρὸς εὐκολοτέραν κατανὸησιν αὐτῶν τῶν ΝΕΟΦΑΝΩΝ ψαλτοπαθειῶν.	In the future, this webpage will provide a SPECTRAL ANALYSIS of the above examples as well as other audio excerpts, so that these NOVEL PSALTIC PATHOLOGIES will become VISUALLY evident as well.
Τέλος, ὰπὸ τὴν στιγμὴν ὄπου ἀποδεικνύεται ὄτι ὁ Καρὰς ἦτο ΟΛΙΓΟΤΕΡΟ φάλτσος ἀπὸ τοὺς μαθητές του διερωτεῖτε τις:	Finally, given that there is sufficient proof that Simon Karas was LESS “faltsos” than his “students” and “followers”, one may ask oneself:
Ἡ ἀλλοίωσις ἐν τῇ ΑΝΤΙΓΡΑΦῌ καὶ ἐν τῇ ΦΩΝΗΤΙΚῌ ΑΠΟΔΩΣΕΙ τῶν ΠΑΡΕΣΤΙΓΜΕΝΩΝ γοργῶν καὶ ἡ ἀντικατάστασίς τους παρὰ ΙΣΟΧΡΟΝΩΝ διαιρέσεων ΕΙΝΑΙ ΘΕΜΑ ΦΩΝΗΣ (φωνητικῆς ἰδιομορφείας) ἢ μήπως εἶναι θέμα ΣΧΟΛΗΣ (σχολικῆς ἰδιοσυγγρασίας);	Are changes in COPYING and in PHONETIC rendering of PUNCTATE gorgons and their replacement by ISOCHRONOUS divisions a matter of VOCAL idiomorphism or rather a matter of ONE particular SCHOOL’s IDIO- SYNCRATISM?
Παρόμοιον ἄρθρον (ΑΛΛΟΙΩΣΙΣ ἢ ΟΧΙ)	Similar article (bilingual) (Bastardised or not)
« Συγκίνησις = ΑΥΤΟΜΑΤΟΣ μετάφρασις » [html]	« Synkinesis » [English Text]
Ἱλαροχορευτικὲς χορωδίες [html]	Hilaro-choreutic choirs [html]