^GKM's Response to questions raised by Dr. P. Papadimitriou (PDP) in his analysis of various historic references concerning 'Chronos and Rhythmos" in Psaltiki.

ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΗ ΜΟΥΣΙΚΗ

PSALTIKI

Θεωρητικές Σημειώσεις

Notes on Theory

THREE ARTICLES

The first is the only to have been commented thus far, and this, according to version 0.6.

Version 0.7 has been uploaded recently, and the comments will be added in due time.

The original article, in unicode polytonic Greek, appears here:

http://music.analogion.net/Theory/ru0mosxronos.html

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an attempt to defend o/aural tradition of chronos and its applications.

It counters methods that do not emanate from Patriarchal tradition.


I (GKM) consider that Dr. P.D. Papadimitriou (PDP) is an excellent researcher as far as Psaltiki is concerned.  I hope he will use his knowledge of computers to help clarify many issues that have until now been simply "described", at times with quite inaccurate use of various words and definitions.

His excellent work on intervals is quite encouraging.

My translation may be used, even without my comments, for those who need it (just mention "as translated by GKM, France, 2006").

My cynical comments are meant to motivate psaltis to learn mainly by LISTENING rather than by “extrapolating” and “generalising” concepts they read about.

I have been taught “thesis to thesis” chronos counting with one chronos per ONE or MORE than one beat(s) by the late Stylianos TSOLAKIDIS, Protocanarchos and later on helper of Iakovos NAFPLIOTIS.

I am no expert in musicology, nor have I read even a fraction of what most musicologists have read, thus making them much more competent to comment on what is written in this article, as well as in the references cited. Nevertheless, I have some idea of what o/aural psaltic tradition is all about, and the weight of this tradition that have people thinking in terms of the traditional audio references I have given in the past.

The important issue here is that one cannot learn to « read » some language –the orally expressed form of anything written is music in itself – without listening, repeating, being corrected and practicing. The same goes for psaltiki. One can write pages and pages on « descriptions » of psaltiki, which, if not accompanied by audio samples, can and will be interpreted in whichever way, which is exactly what is happening in our time: too much theory and no praxis.

None of those having written from antiquity to our times has left us any credible recording of what they were trying to describe. Most of the recordings on analogion.net are the pure example of achronos singing, either due to exaggerated prolongations of pulsations that impede upon the overall regularity and fluidity of a psaltic hymn, or simply due to inefficient pulsation. Therefore, the descriptions of those singers are not to be considered as emanating from authorities that serve as an example of correct chronos and psaltiki. Even Stanitsas, who chanted across Pringos for approximately two decades never managed to obtain the overall fluidity (which eventually turned into mechanical singing when he went to Athens) of Pringos and all those having learnt beside Iakovos Nafpliotis. Psaltic fluidity is not limited to the Patriarcate: listen to some traditional monks [Dositheos, Alexios, Paisije, Ephraim, all on (www.analogion.com)], and you’ll understand the difference between « theory and practice ». Although one can “describe” and “interpret descriptions”, written or oral, in just about any direction (as you will soon find out while reading through this presentation), one’s singing can be easily classified as traditional (serious, precise, fluid, etc.). Notice, I don’t make any mention of other, more contemporary schools that have supposedly pierced through the mysteries of psaltiki by “palaeographical” and “rhythmological” considerations. It is precisely their artificial, non traditional way of singing what they read that has re-ignited the “chronos vs. rhythmos” debate that is probably as old as philosophical and musical manuscripts themselves.

Listen to the recordings of all those cited, compare to the “standards” I acclaim without cease, and then determine if it’s better to read/write books about psaltiki or to simply listen to good psaltiki so as to imitate it to the point it will become part of your identity (“ktema” = property =appropriation), which, just as your proper name, will have no need for any further description or definition.
GKM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original article, in unicode polytonic Greek, appears here:

http://music.analogion.net/Theory/ru0mosxronos.html

Τὶ εἶναι χρόνος στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Βυζαντινὴ Μουσική;

______________________________________________

______________________________________________

______________________________________________

ARTICLE ONE

Ὁ Χρόνος καὶ ὁ Ῥυθμός στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική Βυζαντινή Μουσική

τοῦ Παναγιώτη Δ. Παπαδημητρίου

Chronos and Rhythmos in Psaltiki (Ecclesiastical Byzantine Music)

by Dr. Panayiotis D. PAPADIMITRIOU (PDP),

translated and commented by Georgios K. MICHALAKIS (GKM)

GKM: I have systematically translated” Ἐκκλησιαστική Βυζαντινή Μουσική “as “Psaltiki”, in my obstinate concern to distinguish this art from all influences it is consistently being subjected to.

to understand most of GKM’s comments below, one must read:

a) Answers/questions on “rhythmos and Chronos”;

(http://analogion.com/ChronosRhythmAnswers.html)

b) Comments of Katsoulis’ mention of syneptigmenos

(http://analogion.com/Katsoulis-GKM-Comments.html)

π ρ ό χ ε ι ρ η   ἔ κ δ ο σ η,  0 . 7

temporary version 0.7 , 06/11/2006

GKM commented version 0.1

List of topics covered in Article one.)_

Topic 1

Τὶ εἶναι χρόνος στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Βυζαντινὴ Μουσική;

What is “chronos” in Ecclesiastical Byzantine Music.

(GKM: We do not need to “perpetuate” mistakes… there is no such thing as “Ecclesiastical” “Byzantine” music… in church, anything chanted (or even read) is, and should be, called “Psaltiki”, which obeys to rules and principles brought forth by tradition..

Topic 2

Τὶ εἶναι ὁ Ἁπλὸς Χρόνος καὶ τὶ εἶναι ὁ Μονὸς Χρόνος;

What is “Haplos” =”simple” chronos and what is “monos” = “single” or “unitary” chronos

Topic 3

Πῶς γνωρίζεται ἡ ποιότης τῆς μελωδίας;

How is the quality of a melody to be recognised?

Topic 4

Πῶς καταμετρεῖται ὁ χρόνος στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Βυζαντινὴ Μουσική;

How is chronos counted in Psaltiki?

Ἐγὼ λέω ὅτι αὐτὸ ποὺ μᾶς λές "2 κινήσεις = 1 χρόνος" εἶναι δική σου θεωρία! Αὐτὸ ποὺ λένε στὶς παραπάνω ἀναφορὲς εἶναι 1 κίνηση = 1 χρόνος. Τῖ ἔχεις νὰ πεῖς περὶ τούτου;

I say that, your “2 movements equal one chonos” is your own invention! What the references tell us is that “ONE” movement is ONE chronos. What have ou to say about all this?

Πῶς νὰ προλάβει τὸ χέρι νὰ χτυπάει τὸν Χρόνο, ὅταν ψέλνουμε τοὺς Κανόνες (σὲ ταχεία ἀγωγή);

How can one’s hand be speedy enough to dictate chronos, when one is chanting a Canon (in quick tempo)?

Ὑπάρχουν ἐπίσης ἄλλες ἀπόψεις στὰ παλαιὰ θεωρητικά;

Are there any other views in older theory books?

Ἐγὼ λέω ὅτι ὁ Χουρμούζιος δὲν ἀναφέρει τίποτα περὶ καταμετρήσεως τοῦ χρόνου κατὰ ρυθμόν (εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ, δες Μαργαζιώτη, σ. 27-28), ἐπειδὴ ἔγραψε Εἰσαγωγικὸ Θεωρητικό. Τὶ ἔχεις νὰ πεῖς περὶ τούτου;

I say that Chourmouzios does not refer in any manner to the so called “kata rhythmon” way of counting chronos (which is an occidental method, see the Theory book by Ioannis Margaziotis, pg.27-28). What have you to say about all this?

Ὑπάρχουν ἐπίσης ἄλλες ἀπόψεις στὰ ὑπόλοιπα θεωρητικὰ ποὺ ἀνέφερες;

Are there other views in the remaining theory books you have referred to?

Topic 5

Εἶναι δυνατὸν νὰ Ψάλλει κάποιος χωρὶς Χρόνο;

Is it possible for one to chant without chronos?

Topic 6

Τὶ σημαίνει, «μετροῦν τὸν χρόνο κατὰ τὸν ῥυθμό, τουτέστιν Εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ»;

What is meant by “they maintain chronos according to rhythmos, that is, in occidental manner”?

GKM: it means that we are trying to describe what the computer analyses, but that we unfortunately apply a common term that is applied DIFFERENTLY in occidental/oriental music as opposed to PSALTIKI. It means that we must revise our vocabulary and use audio and visual examples with PRECISE definitions of what we are trying to describe. It means that THEORY cannot replace PRACTICE, and that there is something in PRACTICE that theory has thus far had a hard time to describe. It means that terms such as “rubato” and “complex rhythmos because of variable unit of time duration” should be coined as well. It means that those learning and teaching from books whose authors they have never heard or who themselves have no psaltic lineage whatsoever to any of their students, have completely DEMOLISHED psaltiki because of their INTERPRETATIONS based on whatever some author supposedly “intended” to say in the past.

Ἀνισόχρονη ψαλμωδία

Anisochronous psalmody

GKM: Finally, we hear the root word “PSALM” in all this theoretical chaos.

Topic 7

Ποιὸς εἰσήγαγε τὸ «εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ» μέτρημα τοῦ χρόνου στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Βυζαντινὴ Μουσική;

Who introduced the “occidental method” of maintaining chronos in Psaltiki?

GKM: those who have introduced NON-TRADITIONAL paedogogical methods, those who do not know how to do a correct parallagi at a very slow tempo, and those who think that BOUDOURIS did not know what he was talking about when dealing with chronos. Boudouris had the intelligence to understand rhythmic irregularity in PRACTICE, which all the “traditionalist” gurus, be they sissy or drunken sailor singers, SOMETIMES perform, because SOME tradition has not yet been washed off by their “intellectual” “watering down” of psaltiki.

As a reminder, Psachos, who eventually understood “rhythmos” as applied to PRACTICE (which is the end RESULT of good, traditional psaltiki) left behind students who in turn left behind students that certainly do keep VERY DECENT chronos (Theor. Cheantziteodoros, some of his students, Dim. Sourlantzis…). Who are all the drunken sailor singers who criticise some decent descriptions made by psaltis whose students can perform CHRONOS superbly?

8)

Ὑπάρχει Συνεπτυγμένος Ῥυθμὸς (ἐκ Παραδόσεως) στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική Βυζαντινή Μουσική;

Is there such a thing as “syneptigmenos rhythmos” (ie. hande down by tradition) in Psaltiki?

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Τὶ εἶναι χρόνος στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Βυζαντινὴ Μουσική;

What is “chronos” in Ecclesiastical Byzantine Music.

(GKM: We do not need to “perpetuate” mistakes… there is no such thing as “Ecclesiastical” “Byzantine” music… in church, we call it “Psaltiki”. PSALTIKI, regardless of the “musical” descriptions given by the “Theoreticians” is not to be taught differently from what our Church FATHERS tell us about its PRACTICE. The Church Fathers didn’t care about instruments and numbers. This does not mean that there is no science to psaltiki. It means that this SCIENCE CANNOT be left in the hands of those who have not LEARNT things CORRECTLY. In the NAME of this “psaltic science”, one CAN and SHOULD pass things through a computer these days so as to COMPARE and POINT out discrepancies and ERRORS. We no longer need “written” descriptions, but rather, “comparisons” with “LIVE” performances.

What decent recordings of CHRONOS do we have in psaltiki in terms of “close to LIVE” performance? I say we have PROUSSALIS, Dositheos Monachos, Pringos, Stylianos Tsolakidis, and a few others. In terms of PAEDAGOGICAL chronos, we have Nafpliotis, of course, as well as Kon. Katsoulis.

THESE are the people whose performances we should run through the computer so as to TRY understanding what is happening in PSALTIKI.

My CHRONOS arguments are based on SUCH performances. The rest of the debate will end up revolving around TERMS that everyone understands DIFFERENTLY.

As concerns those who PREACH about CHRONOS, the computer shows that they PERFORM OTHER things as opposed to what they preach. The same happened with the monks of Solesmes (France)… they wrote tons of books on “rhythmology”… but a simple recording and “rhythmograph analysis” showed that “they PREACHED one thing and PERFORMED another”.

Ἀπάντησις:

Answer

1. Χρύσανθος (Θεωρητικὸν Μέγα τῆς Μουσικῆς 1832, ἔτοιμο πρὸς ἔκδοση περὶ τὸ 1816), σ. 52.

Chrysanthos, “Great Treatise of Music”, completed 1816 version, edited in 1832, pg. 52

§114. Χρόνος εἶναι, κατὰ τοὺς φιλοσόφους, καταμέτρησις τῆς κινήσεως τοῦ κινουμένου. [...]

According to the philosophers it is the measurement of movement of an object in motion.

GKM: Don’t confuse “chronos” = TIME, “chronos” = TEMPO, “chronos” = DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH), “chronos” = METHOD of measuring any of the above, etc…

In other words, there is NOT ONE definiton of CHRONOS: the word is used in DIFFERENT circonstances and can be shown to mean DIFFERENT things.

§115. Ἕκαστος χαρακτὴρ, ὅς τις φανερόνει ἕνα φθόγγον, ἐξοδεύει ἕνα χρόνον· ἡ δὲ Ὑποῤῥοὴ, ἥ τις ἐξοδεύει δύο συνεχεῖς φθόγγους, ἐξοδεύει δύο χρόνους, καὶ λαμβάνει πάλιν ἕκαστος φθόγγος αὐτῆς ἀνὰ χρόνον ἕνα.

Each neume that reveals one note (GKM: undivided and non-extended) takes up ONE chronos (GKM=DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH) criterion); the “hyporrhoe”, which takes up two consecutive notes, takes up two chonos, and each note takes up one chronos.

GKM: In other words, each undivided non-extended note that is written on paper should have an EQUAL TEMPORAL DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH), or “UNIT” which is here referred to as “chronos”… ONE” chronos” here means “one unit of time” which will serve as a “reference” so as to obtain some “temporal duration (temporal length) regularity”

2. Χρύσανθος (Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ Θεωρητικὸν καὶ Πρακτικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, 1821), σ. 12.

Chrysanthos,(Introduction to the Theoretical and Practical [aspects] of Ecclesiastical Music, 1821, pg. 12)

β᾿. Καταμετρεῖται δὲ ὁ χρόνος, μὲ τὸ νὰ κινῆται ἡ χεὶρ ἄνω καὶ κάτω, κρούουσα τὸ γόνυ. Ὁ καιρὸς λοιπὸν, ὁποῦ ἐξοδεύεται ἀπὸ τὴν μίαν κροῦσιν ἕως εἰς τὴν ἄλλην, λογαριάζεται ἕνας χρόνος.

“Chronos” is measured by an upward/downward motion of the hand, which hits upon the knee. The DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH) (“kairos”) of one hit (“striking of knee”) to the NEXT is considered as one chronos.

GKM: There’s nothing new here. This is exactly what I’ve said about CHRONOS = duration (temporal length) = one complete cycle (i.e. PERIOD) can be obtained by an elliptical” motion of the hand, hitting upon the knee. So as to maintain “regularity”, I stated that the “ellipse should not go beyond the forehead (it does NOT necessarily mean that the LEVEL of the forehead is some REFERENCE point for the ARSIS……).

3. Χουρμούζιος Χαρτοφύλαξ (1829), σ. 51.

Chourmouzios the Chartophylax (1829), pg. 51

(γ'.) Ἕνας χαρακτὴρ ἢ μία σύνθεσις ὁποῦ φανερώνει ἕνα φθόγγον, ἐξοδεύει ἕναν χρόνον, ἡ δὲ ὑποῤῥοὴ ὁποῦ φανερώνει δύω συνεχεῖς φθόγγους, ἐξοδεύει δύω χρόνους.

One NEUME or one “synthesis=combination of neumes” equivalent to one “note”, uses up ONE CHRONOS. The Hyporrhoe, which “reveals” or “is to be interpreted as” two notes uses up TWO chronos.

So, here chronos is the UNIT of time of one UNDIVIDED-NON-PROLONGED neume.

(δ'.) Τὸ κλάσμα, ὅπου ἤθελε τεθῇ, θέλει ὁποῦ ὁ φθόγγος τοῦ χαρακτῆρος νὰ ἐξοδεύει δύω χρόνους, ἕνα διὰ τὸν χαρακτῆρα καὶ ἕνα διὰ τὸ κλάσμα. [...]

Adding a “klasma” prolongation requires that neume will use up TWO chronos, one for the neume and one for the klasma.

GKM: Chronos = DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH).

4. Παναγιώτης Ἀγαθοκλέους, Θεωρητικόν (Ἀθῆνα 1855), σ. 86.

Panayiotis Agathokleous, Theory, Athens 1866, pg 86

[...] Εἶναι δὲ ὁ χρόνος κατὰ τοὺς Μουσικοὺς καιρὸς, ὅστις ἐξοδεύεται ἀπὸ μιᾶς κρούσεως τῆς χειρός ἕως τῆς ἀκολούθου, ὁμαλῶς κινουμένης πρὸς τὰ ἄνω, καὶ κρουούσης κατὰ τοῦ γόνατος. Μία δὲ κροῦσις καὶ μία ἄρσις εἶναι τὰ συστατικὰ τοῦ χρόνου [...].

Chronos is, according to the musicians, the TIME TAKEN = DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH) from one HIT/strike on the knee (“krousis”) of a “smoothly = homogeneously” moving hand to the next. One “hit” and an “elevation”= arsis constitute a Chronos.

GKM: how many times have I said that a CHRONOS is a “Cyclical phenomenon, that can be described by an elliptical motion, and that “thesis” duration (temporal length) is not ALWAYS equal to “arsis duration (temporal length)” (depnding on the type of chronos used). How many times have I also written that what counts is some regularity from THESIS to THESIS.

What we will try to determine in this discussion is the following:

is “thesis to thesis”

= one chronos limited to just one undivided non-extended neume,

OR

can it, as I have been taught, ALSO be USED OTHERWISE, to GROUP MORE NEUMES, depending on the TYPE of chronos one wishes to perform.

In other words, is there only ONE way of distributing neumes for every cycle = one “cycle” per neume, in which case there must be ISOCHRONICITY among all undivided, non-extended neumes

or

are there OTHER ways as well, which take into account MORE than one undivided non-extended neume.

Note that the above definition of “chronos” does not divide the “cycle” (“ellipse” in my case) into “parts” of equal or unequal duration (temporal length). It just says that the hand moves down and up, and that all this motion is “homogeneous = regular = smooth” and that it is repetitive (it thus constitutes what we call in math and physics “a cycle” having a well-defined duration or “period”, that can be described by a sinusoidal graphical representation. Note that, in the above definition, that the “krousis” is NOT a DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH), but an INSTANT. Note, also, that the “arsis” is NOT a duration (temporal length), but a description of an upward motion of the hand.

5. Μισαὴλ Μισαηλίδου, Νέον Θεωρητικόν (ἐν Ἀθῆναις 1902), σ. 51.

Misael Misaelides, New theory book, Athens, 1902, pg. 51

Χρόνος λέγεται ἡ τακτικὴ καὶ σύγχρονος πρὸς τὴν ἐξαγγελίαν ἑκάστου φθόγγου κίνησις τῆς χειρὸς δι' ἄρσεων καὶ θέσεων.

Chronos is the REGULAR as well as synchoronous movement of the hand doing “arsis” and “thesis”, in a manner that coincides with the emission (phonation) of each note.

6. Εὐθυμιάδης, Θεωρητικόν (Θεσσαλονίκη 1997), σ. 20.

Euthymiades, Theory book, Thessaliniki, 1997, pg 20

Ὁ προσδιορισμὸς τῆς διαρκείας τῶν φθόγγων ὀνομάζεται χρόνος. [...]

Defining the DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH) of notes is called CHRONOS.

GKM: this is a much “larger” view of the “definition”. He says: one can call “chronos” the duration (temporal length) of the ONE or MANY fthongos (fthongos is in plural)

Had he been writing for just ONE fthongos, he should have written: tou “kath’ekastou” fthongou (in SINGULAR form).

Anyhow, let’s give PDP the benefit of the doubt, and assume that Euthymiades means:

one can call c “chronos” the duration (temporal length) of the ONE fthongos.

Μία θέσις μαζὶ μὲ τὴν ἑπόμενή της ἄρσι ἀποτελοῦν ἕνα μουσικὸ χρόνο. Εἶναι, λοιπόν, ἡ θέσις καὶ ἡ ἄρσις τὰ δύο ἴσα ἡμιχρόνια τοῦ μουσικοῦ χρόνου.

One thesis and its subsequent (consecutive, one that comes immediately after) arsis constitute ONE musical chronos. They are, therefore, this thesis and this arsis, the two equal half-duration (temporal length) of a musical chronos.

GKM: All of a sudden, Euthymiades becomes “precise”. He doesn’t only speak of chronos as the duration (temporal length) of a cycle, but further breaks it down into two equal parts… Thesis is no longer a position, but rather a DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH). Arsis is not just the description of the hand’s elevation, but is a duration (temporal length) as well.

In other words, the terms “thesis” and “arsis” mean different things to different people….

7. Ἀστέριος Κ. Δεβρελῆς (Μέθοδος, Θεσσαλονίκη 1989), σ. 74.

Asterios K. Debrelis, “Method”, Thessaloniki, 1989, pg. 74

Χρόνος λέγεται ἡ σταθερὴ καὶ εὔτακτη κίνηση τοῦ χεριοῦ μὲ ἄρσεις καὶ θέσεις ἀναφορικὰ μὲ τὴν ἐξαγγελία τῶν φθόγγων. Κάθε χαρακτήρας ἔχει ἀξία μιᾶς χρονικῆς μονάδας, δηλαδὴ ἑνὸς χρόνου (μιᾶς θέσης καὶ μιᾶς ἄρσης).

One calls “chronos” the stable and ordered movement of the hand, with elevations (“arsis”) and position-taking descents (“thesis”) in reference to the emission of notes. Each character has a value of one unit of time, that is one “chronos” (which consists of) one thesis and one arsis.

Δὲς ἐπίσης [Πρόγραμμα ταχύῤῥυθμης ἐκμάθησης..., Θεσσαλονίκη 1990)]: Ἀναλυτικὰ παραδείγματα ἁπλοῦ χρόνου, σ. 9, 10.

See also “Program=Method for a quick learning rate … Thessaloniki, 1990”.

Analytical examples of simple (“haplos”) chronos, pgs 9 and 10.

8. Δημήτριος Ἰωαννίδης, Θεωρητικόν (Ἀθῆναι 2005), σ. 22.

Dimitrios Ioannides, Theory book, Athens, 2005, pg. 22

GKM: Since most readers, of which almost all the authors of newer “simpler” theory books, barely understand what is written in the older ones, why do they OBSTINATELY add to the confusion with their “contributions”. Just like in “dogmatics”, if one sticks to the “written”” law without referring to the “unwritten tradition” that is transmitted by the actual “practice”, one will never understand how to apply written precepts correctly. If you have three or four old theory books in your library, you don’t need any more contemporary “exegetic versions”.

"...Χρόνος, λέγεται ἡ διάρκεια ποὺ ἔχει κάθε χαρακτήρας κατὰ τὴν ἐκτέλεσή του. Ὁ χρόνος διαιρεῖται σὲ 2 μέρη: Στὴ Θέση καὶ στὴν Ἄρση.

One calls “chronos” the duration of each character (neume) during interpretation (“ektelesis”). (Each) chronos is divided into two parts: thesis and arsis.

Θέση λέγεται τὸ κάτω σημεῖο τοῦ χρόνου (δηλαδὴ τὸ κτύπημα τοῦ χεριοῦ στὸ τραπέζι ἢ στὸ πόδι μας). Ἄρση λέγεται τὸ πάνω σημεῖο τοῦ χρόνου (δηλαδὴ ὅταν σηκώνουμε τὸ χέρι).

One calls “thesis” the down(most) semeion=position (this cannot really be translated as “component”) of chronos (that is, the hitting of the hand on the table or on the “foot”…GKM: he means “thigh” or “knee”). Arsis is the upper(most?) semeion=position (component?)= of chronos (that is, when one lifts one’s hand).

Κάθε χαρακτήρας ποσότητος, δικαιοῦται ἕναν (1) ὀλόκληρο χρόνο (δηλαδή μία Θέση καὶ μία Ἄρση). Ἕνας λοιπόν ὀλόκληρος χρόνος, μία θέση καὶ μιὰ ἄρση, ἰσχύουν γιὰ κάθε χαρακτήρα τῆς Β.Μ. Ὅλα τὰ ἄλλα περὶ συνεπτυγμένων μέτρων καὶ ῥυθμῶν, εἶναι ἀνυπόστατα τερτίπια τῶν Εὐρωπαϊστῶν καὶ τίποτε ἄλλο".

Each quantitative neume has the right to (is “allocated) one full chronos (that is, one thesis and one arsis). Therefore, one full chronos is allocated to each psaltic neume. Anything else concerning “combined” or “composed” = “syneptigmenos” rhythmos is nothing more tha non-substantial evocations made by occidentalising (psaltis).

9. Θρασύβουλος Στανίτσας (ἀπὸ συνέντευξη, Φεβρ. 1987 - Χρήστος Ἀ. Τσιούνης).

Thrasyboulos Stanitsas (from an interview, Feb. 1987, Christos A. TSIOUNIS)

«κάθε χαρακτῆρας μὲ ἁπλὸ χρόνο βέβαια ἔχει μιὰ θέση καὶ μιὰ ἄρση».

“each neume having a simple (“haplos”) chronos has, of course, one thesis and one arsis.

10. Μὲ ἁπλὰ λόγια, σύμφωνα με τὶς ἀνωτέρω ἀναφορές:

10. In simple terms, and according to all of the above references.

Ἕνας Χρόνος = Ἕνας φθόγγος (τὸ '=' σημαίνει ἰσοδυναμεῖ σὲ χρονική διάρκεια).

One “chronos” = “one neume, one note” (the “=” means “is equivalent to in terms of duration”

Δύο Χρόνοι = Δύο φθόγγοι ἢ ἕνας φθόγγος μὲ κλάσμα ἢ ἕνας φθόγγος μὲ ἁπλή.

Two “chonos” = two neumes, or one neume with klasma, or one neume with hapli.

GKM: the above discussion shows that we have

1) a definition of chronos as being a REGULAR, repetitive movement of the hand

2) that is supposed to be allocated to ONE neume only

I maintain that this is the SIMPLEST definition one can give, and can only obtain a VERY SIMPLE performance/interpretation of a hymn.

Computer analysis shows that the traditional psaltis referred to above DO NOT maintain regular duration AMONG EACH neume, but among SETS of neumes.

Can we thus say that they are “Occidentalising” psaltis?

No, but we can say that there is something more to tradition than what is in the books.

All of the above examples teach chronos according to the TRADITIONAL paedagogy of psaltiki, which is, of course, different from that of occidental music, in that we LEARN each neume SEPARATELY in psaltiki. Nevertheless, we do NOT perform it separately.

This will become evident below. When it comes down to performance, the “Neratziotes” provide NO EXPLANATION as to what occurs. And their teachings, which are supposed to counter the Simonokaraïtic artificial-singing and invertebrate chronos counting (because they KNOW that there is something more in chronos than just the SIMPLE THEORETICAL descriptions given above, yet, they never learned how to perform it correctly) are just as UNACADEMIC as their “drunken sailor” singing.

Stanitsas was at least honest: he said that he did not ACCEPT the principle of syneptigmenos, but that he did, however, perform syneptigmenos.

The question is: WHAT EXACTLY do all these people MEAN by syneptigmenos?

In general terms, regardless of how each one counts it, they all mean “thesis to thesis” chronos (just as described above), encompassing MANY neumes. Some will however “decorticate” the “cycle”, just as Euthymiades has done (one “thesis = a DURATION that is equal to one “arsis” duration). I guess this is used in the Simonokaraïtic method, where some intensity variations are added as well and, given the result, there is no doubt that those who contest syneptigmenos actually contest the ERRONEOUS performance of syneptigmenos, not the ACTUAL syneptigmenos in itself. The traditional psaltis chant with neumatic duration IRREGULARITIES yet with neumatic AGGLOMERATE (SET-organised) regularity. So, there is something in the various performances that is consistent with “grouping” of individual neumes into a chronos, that is DIFFERENT in PERFORMANCE (anisochronous individual neumes) as opposed to LEARNING (isochronous: all neumes are integer or fraction multiples of a common PROTOS chronos, or “standard unit of time) which is the “chronos” described in the above citations. See more below.

κτλ.

etc

*     *     *

Έρώτησις: Τὶ εἶναι ὁ Ἁπλὸς Χρόνος καὶ τὶ εἶναι ὁ Μονὸς Χρόνος;

What is “Haplos” =”simple” chronos and what is “monos” = “unit” chronos

Ἀπάντησις:

Πρόκειται περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πράγματος (δές ἐδώ), ἁπλὰ ὁ ὅρος «μονὸς χρόνος» ἐμφανίζεται στὸ βιβλίο τοῦ κ. Νεραντζῆ ὡς ἐναλλακτικὴ ὀρολογία τοῦ Ἁπλοῦ Χρόνου (δὲς καὶ τὰ ἠχητικὰ παραδείγματα παρακάτω).

“Haplos” =”simple” chronos and “monos” = “unit” chronos are the exact, same thing (see here). Simply, the terms “monos = unit” chronos appears in the book by Nerantzis as an “exchangeable” term for “Haplos=simple” chronos (listen to the sound sample s below).

GKM: Boudouris was a diligent student of Iakovos and would have made a great researcher, had he at his disposal today’s entire technological arsenal. He was so diligent, in fact, that he had noted that”in actual performance, there are bits and pieces of a “measure” that seem to be cut off, so as not to burden what the EAR listens to with an otherwise THEORETICALLY more coherent performance, yet more CUMBERSOME to the ear”. In other terms, Boudouris noticed that there are psycho-acoustics not only in INTERVALS, as I claim, but in RHYTHM as well (by means of the way CHRONOS is counted).

I invite you to read the following:

A NUMERICAL THEORY OF RHYTHM APPLIED TO ORIENTAL MUSIC ANALYSIS

http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/filoyletras/jsango/a_numerical_theory_of_rhythm.htm#1.1.%20Order%20and%20disorder

http://tinyurl.com/y3vops

by

Francisco Javier Sánchez González

at

http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/filoyletras/jsango/

http://tinyurl.com/qnmk2

Although the article deals with RHYTHMIC consonance and dissonance as applied to oriental music (which is NOT the object of our present study), it has the merit of analysing what happens WITHIN ONE REGULAR cycle that includes MORE THAN ONE undivided non-extended neume, which is the way chronos is counted in actual PERFORMANCE (regardless of all the junk proposed by drunken-sailor singers such as “rhythm acquired and made inherent”… the vocal cords must ALWAYS be controlled by the hand… PERIOD…)

The REGULARITY in oriental music is complex, yet homogeneous (we can decorticate it using superposition of different rhythms, as is suggested by the author referred to above).

The regularity in psaltiki is complex, yet INHOMOGENEOUS…. there is regularity in what I call “rhythmic nodal points” which is not exactly “Stroke coincidences” of superposed rhythms: in psaltiki, we have “signposts” determined by the accentuation of words, among which a certain regularity must be obtained… we may wish to eventually call this RUBATO, with the additional condition of “some CHRONOS regularity from one accentuated syllable to the next [which is not the same as “from one NEUME to the next) is necessary… (I’m dealing with heirmologikon and stichirarikon melos here… the same goes for papadic, but since there are many neumes to a syllable, it’s the THESIS to THESIS counting that should be used to describe RUBATO).

So the whole question is “does one apply the SIMPLE chronos” using “one chronos = one neume” EVERYWHRE, or can one use “one CHRONOS = one, two and even more neumes”?

Since Neratzis pretends to be some “researcher”, he has “coined” terms so as to add to the ongoing confusion. Furthermore, as we will see below, he REDEFINES words, and has people debating on issues they never even touched upon (I’m referring to “rhythmic emphasis”, which Chysanthos uses as an element of MELOPOIIA = COMPOSITIONAL criterion, and which Nerantzis redefines as an INTRA-RHYTHMIC INTENSITY CHANGE, where occidental performers VARY the intensity or even the attack of a note, depending on its position within a given measure. I guess it’s this man’s specialty, and that of those who use his writings as a “reference to tradition”, to AMPLIFY the confusion, instead of giving GOOD audio samples and examples of GOOD psaltiki.

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Πῶς γνωρίζεται ἡ ποιότης τῆς μελωδίας;

How can the quality of a melody be determined?

Ἀπάντησις:

1. Χρύσανθος (Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ Θεωρητικὸν καὶ Πρακτικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, 1821), σ. 12.

Chrysanthos,(Introduction to the Theoretical and Practical [aspects] of Ecclesiastical Music, 1821, pg. 12)

α᾿. Γνωρίζεται τὸ ποιὸν τῆς μελῳδίας διττῶς· διὰ τῆς καταμετρήσεως τοῦ χρόνου, ὁποῦ ἐξοδεύεται εἰς τὴν μελῳδίαν, καὶ διὰ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς ἐξαγωγῆς τῶν φθόγγων. Διὰ τοῦτο καὶ αἱ ὑποστάσεις, ἤγουν τὰ σημεῖα δι' ὧν γράφεται τὸ ποιὸν τῆς μελῳδίας, εἶναι ἄλλαι μὲν ἔγχρονοι, ἄλλαι δὲ, ἄχρονοι.

The quality of a melody can be recognized in terms of two criteria: the counting of the chronos that is used up by the melody and by the way the notes are “output” (the “emission of notes”). It is so, therefore, that the hypostaseis, that is, the neumes by which is annotated the quality of a melody, are of two sorts: those that are “enchronos =temporal” and those that are “achronos=intemporal”.

2. Χουρμούζιος Χαρτοφύλακας (1829), σ. 50 (α').

Chourmouzios the Chartophylax (1829), pg. 50, a)

Γνωρίζεται ἡ ποιότης τῆς μελῳδίας διττῶς: ἀπὸ τὴν καταμέτρησιν τοῦ χρόνου, ὁποῦ ἐξοδεύεται εἰς τὴν μελῳδίαν, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ τρόπου τῆς ἐξαγωγῆς τῶν φθόγγων.

The quality of a melody can be recognized in terms of two criteria: the counting the of chronos that is used up by the melody and by the way the notes are “output” (the “emission of notes”).

3. Θεόδωρος Φωκαεύς, Κρηπίς (Θεσσαλονίκη 1912), σ. 23.

Theodoros from Phoka, “Kripis =”shoe, piedestal” meaning the BASICS, the FUNDAMENTALS”, Thessaloniki, 1912, pg. 23

Ἐρ. Ἡ ποιότης ἁπλῶς ἀπὸ πόσα τινὰ γνωρίζεται;

How is the quality per se of a melody to be recognised?

Ἀπ. Ἀπὸ δύο· οἷον ἀπὸ τὴν καταμέτρησιν τοῦ χρόνου, ἤγουν τοῦ καιροῦ, ὅστις ἀπερνᾷ εἰς τὴν μελωδίαν, καὶ ἀπὸ τὸν τρόπον τῆς ἐκφωνήσεως τῶν φθόγγων, ἐν ᾧ ψάλλεται τὸ μέλος.

The quality of a melody can be recognized in terms of two criteria: the counting of the chronos that is used up by the melody and by the way the notes are “output” (the “emission of notes”), DURING THE performance of the hymn (while the hymn is being chanted).

4. Μὲ ἁπλὰ λόγια, σύμφωνα με τὶς ἀνωτέρω ἀναφορές:

In simple terms, and according to the above references:

Ἡ ποιότητα, τὸ ἄκουσμα δηλαδὴ τῆς μελωδίας, ἐξαρτᾶται μόνο ἀπὸ δύο πράγματα:

The QUALITY, that is the way the melody lends itself to be heard, depends only on two elements:

1. Καταμέτρηση τοῦ χρόνου.

the counting of chronos

2. Τρόπος ἐξαγωγῆς τῶν φθόγγων ἐνῶ ψάλλουμε τὸ μέλος.

the way notes are emitted while one chants a melos.

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Πῶς καταμετρεῖται ὁ χρόνος στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Βυζαντινὴ Μουσική;

How is chronos counted in Psaltiki?

Ἀπάντησις:

1. Χρύσανθος (Θεωρητικὸν Μέγα τῆς Μουσικῆς 1832, ἔτοιμο πρὸς ἔκδοση περὶ τὸ 1816), σ. 52.

Chrysanthos, “Great Treatise of Music”, completed 1816 version, edited in 1832, pg 52

§114. [...]. Ἐν ᾧ λοιπὸν ἀπαγγέλεται τὸ μέλος, ἄς κινῆται ἤ ὁ ποῦς [σημ. ΠΔΠ: εἴμαστε κατὰ τῆς κινήσεως τοῦ ποδός], ἤ ἡ χεὶρ τοῦ μουσικοῦ πρὸς τὰ ἄνω καὶ πρὸς τὰ κάτω, κρούουσα τὸ γόνυ· καὶ μετρουμένη ἡ κίνησις τῆς χειρός, ἀποδίδει τὸν χρόνον· διότι ὁ καιρὸς ὅς τις ἐξοδεύεται ἀπὸ τὴν μίαν κροῦσιν ἕως εἰς τὴν ἄλλην, λογαριάζεται ἕνας χρόνος.

While the melos is being chanted, it is warranted that be continuously moving, either one’s (the “muscian’s”) foot (PDP: we are against the moving of the foot GKM:the objective being to avoid making noise, either make light, acoustically imperceptible movements, use a pillow below, or add a cushion on the shoe sole) or one’s (the “musician’s”) hand upwards and downwards, hitting upon(striking) the knee. The counting of this movement gives the “chronos” because, the time that elapses from one hit to the next is considered as one chronos.

2. Χρύσανθος (Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ Θεωρητικὸν καὶ Πρακτικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, 1821), σ. 12.

Chrysanthos, (Introduction to the Theoretical and Practical [aspects] of Ecclesiastical Music, 1821, pg. 12)

β᾿. Καταμετρεῖται δὲ ὁ χρόνος, μὲ τὸ νὰ κινῆται ἡ χεὶρ ἄνω καὶ κάτω, κρούουσα τὸ γόνυ. Ὁ καιρὸς λοιπὸν, ὁποῦ ἐξοδεύεται ἀπὸ τὴν μίαν κροῦσιν ἕως εἰς τὴν ἄλλην, λογαριάζεται ἕνας χρόνος.

“Chronos” is measured by an upward/downward motion of the hand, which hits upon the knee. The DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH) (“kairos”) of one hit (“striking of knee) to the NEXT is considered as one chronos.

GKM: There’s nothing new here. This is exactly what I’ve said about CHRONOS = duration (temporal length) = one complete “cyclical or elliptical” motion of the hand, hitting upon the knee. So as to maintain “regularity”, I stated that the “ellipse should not go beyond the forehead.

3. Χουρμούζιος Χαρτοφύλαξ (1829), σ. 51.

Chourmouzios the Chartophylax (1829), pg. 51

(β'.) Καταμετρεῖται δὲ ὁ χρόνος μὲ τὸ νὰ κινῆται ἡ χεὶρ ἄνω καὶ κάτω, κρούουσα τὸ γόνυ. Λοιπόν ὁ καιρός, ὁποῦ ἐξοδεύεται ἀπὸ τὴν μίαν κροῦσιν ἕως τὴν ἄλλην λογαριάζεται ἕνας χρόνος.

“Chronos” is measured by an upward/downward motion of the hand, which hits upon the knee. The DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH) (“kairos”) of one hit (“striking of knee) to the NEXT is considered as one chronos.

4. Θεόδωρος Φωκαεύς, Κρηπίς (Θεσσαλονίκη 1912), σ. 29, σ. 30, σ. 31.

Theodoros from Phoka, “Kripis =”shoe, piedestal” meaning the BASICS, the FUNDAMENTALS”, Thessaloniki, 1912, re-editon of the 2^nd edition of 1864, the first edition being that of 1842), pgs. 29, 30 and 31

[...] Μετρεῖται ὁ χρόνος ἤγουν ὁ καιρὸς εἰς τὴν Μουσικὴν ὅταν ἡ χεὶρ κινῆται κάτω καὶ ἄνω μὲ εὐταξίαν τύπτουσα τὸ γόνυ· ὁ δαπανώμενος καιρὸς λοιπὸν τῆς πρώτης θέσεως, ἤγουν τοῦ κρούσματος, ὅστις γίνεται διὰ τῆς χειρός, ἕως τὴν τελείαν ἄρσιν, ὅπου ἄρχεται ἡ χεὶρ νὰ καταβαίνῃ πρὸς τὴν θέσιν, ἐννοεῖται ἕνας χρόνος καί, ἄρχεται νὰ μετρεῖται ὁ δεύτερος· διὰ τοῦτο τὸ ἐκτελεστικὸν αἴτιον τοῦ χρόνου εἶναι ἡ πᾶσα κροῦσις, εἴτε τῆς ἐμφώνου Μουσικῆς εἴτε τῶν ὀργάνων [...]

Chronos, that is the “kairos” = DURATION, is counted in music when the hand is moved downwards and upwards in orderly manner, striking the knee. The elapsed time from the first “thesis”, that is the “krousis”= “striking of knee” when this is done using one’s hand, to the end of (uppermost limit of) arsis=UPLIFTED HAND, wherefrom the hand starts its descent towards thesis, is to be considered as one chronos, from which ‘endpoint) arises thecounting of the second chronos. It is for this reason that the PERFORMANCE “raison d’être”=”purpose of being” of chronos is each and every KROUSIS (striking upon the knee), be it for vocal or instrumental music…

Notice that the “duration” from “teleia arsis” = uppermost limit of arsis to thesis is NOT mentionned.

So, WHERE does the SECOND chronos start… at the end of the arsis, or at the next thesis?

A good psaltis does NOT do a CONSTANT speed elliptical movement of the hand. Once the BASICS have been lernd with REGULAR, AMPLE movements, one does a NERVOUS = FAST strike upon the knee, and a QUICK return upwards (where the hand “slows down, and then drops at almost constant velocity, only to accelerate DRASTICALLY in the last part, so as to HIT (strike) the knee.

Can this description be incoherent with Theodoros’ explanations?

Notice once again: he calls ONE chronos the “duration” from a PUCTUAL, POSITIONAL reference (the knee STRIKE) to another: the MOST ELEVATED point of arsis (the arsis “maximum”).

Here it becomes evident that ARSIS for Theodoros is just a movement that brings the hand up. What counts is a POSITIONAL THESIS (the STRIKE) and its PREPARATION (which he deos not mention, but which can be “implied”, given that his “chronos” seems to “end” on arsis…. recall LIPSIS chronou… ENGAGEMENT into chronos which is MARKED by the THESIS…….

5. Δημήτριος Ἐμμ. Νεραντζῆς, Συμβολή στὴν ἐρμηνεία τοῦ Ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ Μέλους (Ἠράκλειον Κρήτης 1997), σ. 190-194:

Dimitrios Emm. Nerantzis “Contribution to the interpretation of the Ecclesiastical Melos”, Herakleion, Crete, 1997 pg. 190

GKM: “Further contribution to the ongoing CONFUSION concerning the already allaxophotised interpretations of the Ecclesiastical melos”.

[...] Ἀπὸ τὴν ἀρχὴ τοῦ αἰώνα μας ἡ μουσική μας δανείστηκε ἀπὸ τὴν εὐρωπαϊκὴ τὸ γνωστὸ τρόπο ποὺ μετροῦμε τὸ 2σημο, 3σημο καὶ 4σημο ῥυθμό. Ὁ Ἰούλιος Ἔνιγγ στὸ "ἐγχειρίδιο φωνητικῆς εὐρωπαϊκῆς μουσικῆς" στὸ κεφάλ. "περὶ ῥυθμοῦ" (σελ. 10-14) γράφει ότι:

Ever since the beginning of the 20^th century, our music has borrowed from the occidental music the well-known 2, 3 and 4 beast to a bar method of counting rhythm. J. Henig(?), in his “manual of occidental vocal music”, writes in the chapter concerning “rhythm (pgs. 10 to 14):

«Ὁ δίμετρος ῥυθμὸς ἔχει θέσιν καὶ ἄρσιν. Ἕν ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἕν ἀσθενὲς πάθος. Ὁ τρίμετρος ἔχει θέσιν, ἠμίαρσιν καὶ ἄρσιν. Ἕν ἰσχυρόν, ἕν ἀσθενές καὶ ἕν ἀσθενέστατον. Ὁ τετράμετρος ἔχει θέσιν, ἠμίαρσιν, δευτέραν ἠμίαρσιν καὶ ἄρσιν. Ἕν ἰσχυρὸν πάθος, ἕν ἀσθενές, ἕν ημιϊσχυρόν καὶ ἕν ἀσθενέστατον».

“The 2 beats to a bar rhythm has a thesis and an arsis, that is, intense and a weak components. The 3 beats to a bar rhythm has a thesis, hemi-arsis and arsis, that is, intense, weak and most weak components. The four beats to a bar rhythm has a thesis, a hemi-arsis, another hemi-arsis and an arsis that is, intense, weak, semi-intense and most weak components.

Οἱ πιὸ πάνω κανόνες ῥυθμικῆς ἔκφρασης ἔχουν ἐφαρμογὴ μόνο στὴ χορευτικὴ μουσική. Στὴν Ἐκκλησία πρέπει να μετροῦμε μὲ διακριτικότητα μονὸ χρόνο.

The above rules of “rhythmic ekphrasis” (“rhythmic expression”)

GKM: here, Neratsis introduces the psaltic community to a definition of “rhythmic emphasis” OTHER than the compositional definition given by Chrysanthos, where the latter refers to the number of CHRONOS (units) per syllable, and not to the INTENSITY variations within a given measure”…. Nerantzis indirectly equates ““rhythmic ekphrasis” (“rhythmic expression”)

to “rhythmic emphasis” and thus confusion is added to confusion by the contemporary “hermeneutes”= “interpreters” of practical as well as theoretical tradition.

Εἶναι ἀνώφελο νὰ μετροῦμε τὸ χρόνο μὲ τὶς κινήσεις τῆς Εὐρωπαϊκῆς Μουσικῆς, γιατὶ ἐνὼ ὁ χρόνος εἶναι ἴδιος, χάνεται ὁ παλμὸς τοῦ μονοῦ χρόνου, ποὺ δίνει στὸ μέλος ἰδιαίτερη χάρη. Ὁ μονὸς χρόνος εἶναι ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ μέλους. Οἱ χτύποι στὸ μονὸ χρόνο εἶναι ἰσόχρονοι ἀντίθετα μὲ τὶς κινήσεις τῆς Εὐρωπαϊκῆς Μουσικῆς, ὅπου εἶναι ἀδύνατο νὰ πετύχεις παλμὸ λόγῳ τῆς ἰσχυρῆς θέσης καὶ τῆς ἀσθενοῦς ἄρσης. [...]

It is useless (for us) to count chronos using the movements of occidental music, because, although the chronos is the same (GKM: I suppose he means the “duration”), there is loss of the impulse (inherent to) “monos” chronos, which gives the melos a particular beauty. The “monos” chronos is the very soul of the melos. The ”chtypos”=”strikings” of “monos” chronos are all isochronous as opposed to occidental music, where it is impossible to obtain any impulse (or impetus), given that there is an intense thesis and a weak arsis.

GKM: Nerantzis supports that each BEAT should be counted with ONE cycle, called CHRONOS, where the thesis and arsis are BOTH constituents of this very beat, thus giving EVERY beat a certain impulse, which is not the case in “occidental music, where the beats are differentiated in terms of of intensity according to their position in a given measure.

I say that there is confusion between LEARNING and practice.

When learning, one should do so with AMPLE movements, with ONE chronos (thesis to thesis) per BEAT.

I guess Nerantzis is describing this, and this is quite traditional.

Then again, chronos in PRACTICE is NOT limited to just ONE beat, and this is where the debate can be resolvbed ONLY by computer analysis.

Panayiotopoulos very well defined the START of thesis as the striking upon the knee… this is the MAXIMUM intensity. Look at ANY good psaltis diretly in the mouth, and listen to what he chants AS HE STRIKES the chronos… he chants a VOWEL that EXPLODES.

THIS is what should be used as a reference point to determine REGULARITY in chronos.

Now, even when Neratzis chants on the analogion, the computer will show that from ONE peak to the next, we do NOT have regularity… that is, in an heirmologikos melody, one SYLLABLE is NOT of equal duration to the next, (perforamance anisochrony) EVEN THOUGH THEORETICALLY, both syllables are of EQUAL duration (theoretical isochrony) in written form (both annotated using an undivided, non-extended neume). In this case, we cannot say that the psaltis is counting chronos according to the so called “monosimos” or “one chronos per beat”, but rather something else: “two or even more beats” to a chronos. This can be shown on the wave function, where SOME regularity (ISOCHRONY) in performance CAN be shown to exist, ONLY when syllables are TREATED TOGETHER….(isochrony among GROUPS of neumes=beats, but ANISCOCHRONY among INDIVIDUAL neumes=beats).

So called “monosimos” is used ONLY for SLOW, paedagogical LEARNING. It may eventually be applied in performance, and Boudouris CORRECTLY calls it “kata chronon” (it’s the METRONOME that will dictate the ISOCHRONOUS temporal length or DURATION of each neume).

In actual performance, a good psaltis may decide to use “kata rhythmon”, where regularity cans be obtained by GROUPING neumes, and even INTERRUPTING regularity at places, by “nibbling off” or even adding small durations at melodic line non-final conclusions. This can also be called “rubato”. This exists in ALL traditional music that does not depend on any instrumental maintenance of chronos. For rubato, see below…

6. Παναγιώτης Ἀγαθοκλέους, Θεωρητικόν (Ἀθῆνα 1855), σ. 86.

Panayiotis Agathokleous, Theory, Athens 1866, pg 86

Ὅλα τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ μέλη ψάλλονται δι' ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ χρόνου, τοῦ ἔχοντος δηλαδὴ τὴν κίνησιν τῆς χειρὸς ἴσην, δι' ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ῥυθμοῦ, χωρὶς ἄλλων ῥυθμικῶν ποικιλιῶν [ΠΔΠ: μὲ αὐτὸ νομίζουμε ἐπεξηγεῖ τὸ προηγούμενο, δηλ. ψάλλουμε ἀπλῶς κινώντας τὴν χεῖρα ἄνω καὶ κάτω, χωρὶς τὶς ποικιλίες τῆς Εὐρωπαϊκῆς καὶ Ἐξωτερικῆς μουσικῆς, ὅπου χρησιμοποιοῦνται ἀκόμη καὶ αἱ δύο χεῖρες καὶ οἱ δύο πόδες (!) γιὰ τὴν καταμέτρηση τοῦ χρόνου, τὴν ὁποῖαν καταμέτρησιν χρόνου τὴν ταυτίζουν μὲ τὸν ῥυθμό]· διότι ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ μουσικὴ εἶναι μελῳδία, ἤτοι ἄῤῥυθμος πλοκὴ φθόγγων. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐνταῦθα λόγος περὶ ῥυθμικῆς δὲν γίνεται.

All ecclesiastical melodies are chanted with one, unique chronos, that which is obtained by an equal movement of the hand, with one, unique rhythm, without any other rhythmic variants (PDP: with this, we feel that the commentary just before is well explained that is, we chant by simply moving our hand upwards and downwards, with not other variations, such as thos eused in occidental and oriental music, where one may even use both hands and both feet(!), to count chronos, where the chronos is likened to (and defined by) rhythmos. Ecclesiastical music is a melody, that is, an arrhythmical combination of notes. It is for this reason that no discussion is made as concerns rhythm.

GKM: It is absolutely TRUE that we all learn psaltiki using “one chronos per beat”. Therefore, occidental and oriental paedagogy are indeed USELESS.

Nevertheless, the question is: can ALL our performances be OBTAINED or even described by using SIMPLE paedagogical chronos?

If you feel that chanting in church should be “note-reading” like monk Phirfiris, then this school of thought is good for you.

If you feel that chanting in church should be as expressive as Proussalis, Tsolakidis and monk Dositheos, then there is a GAP between PAEDAGOGY and PERFORMANCE that needs to be described.

For actual performance, Tsolakidis (and Iakovos, as he describe to me) did NOT use “one chronos per beat counting”. Yet, he ALWAYS counted chronos. In contrast, we will find out, as we read below, that the contemporary “hermeneutes”… feel that they are so “imbibed” with chronos, that it becomes “inherent” to their person. Talaiporoi! “poor ones”… ever since WHEN did a GOOD psaltis EVER chant without moving some part of his body, as discreet as this may need to be?

To fill the GAP between PAEDAGOGY and Performance, we need computer analysis.

Suppose we prove once and for all that “one chronos per beat” is used ONLY at times, especially when learning. WHAT, then, I ask, is used the REST of the time?

Suppose then that we find that “grouping of beats” is used at times, in some coherent manner. What then? Should we “decorticate” that as well, and go about teaching like Simonokaraïtes?

All in all, it’s not because non-traditional singers apply kata rhythmon BADLY that all drunken sailor singers should bring chronos down to “learning monosimos so well, to a point (about 3 years!!!!) that it will become “inherent””.

CHRONOS is learnt TRADITIONALLY, just as is dancing and all these other things we “annotate simply” knowing that they are in fact QUITE complicated, and that they will be “transmitted with lots of repetition and work”.

7. Κυριακὸς Φιλοξένους, Θεωρητικόν (Κωνσταντινούπολη, 1859), σ. 43.

Kyriakos Philoxenis, Theory book, Constantinople, 1859, pg 43

§48. Μετρεῖται ὁ χρόνος καθ' ἡμᾶς ψάλλοντας μὲν ἐν καιρῷ τῷ δέοντι καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀέρος, ἐν δὲ τῇ παραδόσει, καθὼς καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἐξωτερικοὺς μουσικοὺς, ἐπὶ τῶν γονάτων, ἢ ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης, ὄχι ὅμως καὶ ὡς τὰ μέτρα ἐκείνων κατὰ τὸν ἐλάχιστον καὶ μείζονα, ἢ μακρὸν καὶ βραχὺν χρόνον, ἀλλ' ἁπλῶς καὶ μονοτρόπως διὰ κινήσεως τῆς μιᾶς χειρός. Διότι οἱ Τουρκοάραβες μεταχειρίζονται τὸν χρόνον εἰς τὰς αὐτῶν παραδόσεις διὰ τῆς κινήσεως τῶν δύο χειρῶν, φανερόνοντες διὰ τῶν χαρακτηριστικῶν σημείων τούτων Ο Ι, τὴν ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου χρόνου [...].

According to us (ie. according to our tradition), chronos is counted as follows: during “respectful” moments and within the Ecclesia, it is done so “in the air” but during “paradosis”=”handing out”=”transmission” = “lessons”, this is done just like in “external music”=”oriental”, using the knees or the table, but NOT according to their use of meter (small and big, or long and short durations of chronos), but, just simply, and in unique (similar, homegenous) manner by movement of just one hand. This is so because the Turks and Arabs (and Persians, etc..) make use of chronos, in their traditions, by moving both their hands, thus making manifest (revealing) by the the following characteristic symbols, 0 and I, the thesis and arsis of each and every chronos.

GKM: note the use of “chronos” in the the last line… note also that I have said that confusion is such, that words are used “interchangeably” at times..; such is the case of “rhythmos and chonos”…

GKM: From this point and on, contemporary geniuses mix up the O and I of “rhythm counting according to external music” which is an INTENSITY characteristic (and call it “rhythmic emphasis”) with that which is COMPOSITIONAL rhythmic emphasis, which requires that the composer KNOW how to CORRECTLY distribute neume durations and TEXTUAL syllables, so as to obtain a BALANCED composition (which is mainly what PSACHOS is dealing with).

8. Εὐθυμιάδης (Θεσσαλονίκη 1997), σ. 20.

Euthymiades, Theory book, Thessaliniki, 1997, pg 20

Τὸ μέτρημα τοῦ χρόνου γίνεται μὲ ἰσόχρονες ῥυθμικὲς κινήσεις τοῦ χεριοῦ πρὸς τὰ ἐπάνω καὶ πρὸς τὰ κάτω. Ἡ κίνησις τοῦ χεριοῦ πρὸς τὰ ἐπάνω ὀνομάζεται ἄρσις. Ἡ κίνησις τοῦ χεριοῦ πρὸς τὰ κάτω ὀνομάζεται θέσις. Μία θέσις μαζὶ μὲ τὴν ἑπόμενή της ἄρσι ἀποτελοῦν ἕνα μουσικὸ χρόνο. [...]

The counting of chronos is done by making upward and downward isochronous rhythmic movements with one’s hand. The upward movement is called arsis (elevation). The downward movement is called thesis (“taking position”). One thesis along with the arsis that follows constitute, (together), one musical chronos.

GKM: Euthymiades describes a DURATION, and is the first, in the order of this study, to EQUATE the duration of thesis to that of the arsis.

Note that, although Panayiotopoulos equated these durations as well, at some particular point, he ALSO defined THESIS as a POSITION. THIS is just AS important if not MORE important than all the DURATION business…

Ἄν τὸ χέρι μας, ποὺ ἐκτελεῖ τὶς κινήσεις τῆς θέσεως καὶ τῆς ἄρσεως, χτυπᾶ σὲ κάθε θέσι σ' ἕνα σταθερὸ ἐμπόδιο (στὸ γόνατο, στ' ἄλλο μας χέρι, στὸ θρανίο κλπ), κάθε χτύπος σημειώνει κι' ἕνα μουσικὸ χρόνο ἢ, ὅπως ἀπλούστερα λέμε, ἕνα χρόνο, γιατὶ γιὰ νὰ ἐπακολουθήση ὁ ἑπόμενος χτύπος, τὸ χέρι μας θὰ κινηθῆ, ἀναπόδραστα, πρὸς τὰ ἐπάνω, ἐκτελῶντας, κατ' αὐτὸν τὸν τρόπο, καὶ τὴν ἄρσι.

If our hand, which, in motion, is executing thesis and arsis, eventually strikes continuously upon a solid obstacle (one’s knee, opposite hand, desk, etc.), each strike (“chtypos”) will mark one musical chronos or, as we more simply say, “one chronos”. This is because, in order for another strike (“chtypos”) to occur, our hand will have to move, unhindered (without any obstacle or resistance), in an upward direction, executing thus an arsis as well.

9. Παναγιωτόπουλος (Ἀθῆναι 1997 στ' ἔκδοσις), σ. 64-65.

Panayiotopoulos (Athens 1997, 6^th edition), pages 64 to 95

Ὁ χρόνος καταμετρεῖται συνήθως μὲ κροῦσιν τῆς δεξιᾶς χειρὸς ἐπὶ τοῦ γόνατος (ὅταν ὁ ψάλλων κάθηται) ἢ ἐπὶ τῆς παλάμης τῆς ἀριστερᾶς χειρός [ΠΔΠ: ἢ καὶ ἀπλὰ χτυπώντας ἐλαφρὰ τὸν δείκτη στὸ βιβλίο]. Ἑπομένως διὰ τὴν καταμέτρησιν ἡ χεὶρ κινεῖται πρὸς τὰ κάτω καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἄνω. Καὶ ἡ μὲν πρὸς τὰ κάτω κίνησις τῆς χειρὸς λέγεται θέσις, ἡ δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἄνω ἄρσις. Εἶναι δὲ ἐντελῶς ἰσόχρονοι αἱ δύο αὐταὶ κινήσεις καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἕκαστος χρόνος ἀποτελεῖται ἀπὸ δύο ἴσα μέρη ἢ ἠμιχρόνια. [Καὶ δίνει λεπτομερέστατη περιγραφὴ μετὰ διαγράματος]

Chronos is usually measured by striking the right hand upon one’s knee (when chanting in a sitting position) or upon the left palm

(GKM: THIS is NOT traditional, because the LEFT hand is NOT stable… it can MOVE… and regularity is NOT assured by ONE hand as it is in TRADITION pslatiki… )

(PDP or by simply striking lightly one’s index finger upon the book).

GKM: NO hands, fingers or feet should be seen or heard “tapping” on anything in church. One is to stand UPRIGHT, with BOTH hands on the SIDE (NOT leaning upon them, as all present day gurus do). One flexes slightly one’s WRIST, not one’s index finger… the index finger alone does NOT provide sufficient AMPLITUDE.

By consequence, for the counting of chronos, one’s hand must move downwards and upwards. The downward movement of the hand is called “thesis” and the upward movement is called “arsis”. These two movements are completely isochronous, and it is for this reason that each chronos is comprised of two equal parts or “hemi-chronos” = “half periods”.

(He then gives a very detailed description using a diagram).

GKM: and here, PDP stops his reference. He should have continued, however, into the “troubled waters”, which he “corrected”.

Panayiotopoulos writes: there are two equal “half-times” or “periods”. And the THESIS starts when the hand strikes the knee. ARSIS starts when the hand is raised. (PDP “corrects” this and annotates: it’s the inverse).

Panayiotopoulos is CORRECT (and, hence, PDP should not have touched the book…). However, Panayiotopoulos confuses THESIS=DURATION with THESIS= a precise, PUNCTUAL moment where the “hand strikes knee” (KROUSIS).

THIS is where occidental philosophy has ruined psaltiki. Just like Euthymiades, the occidental world has defined thesis as a DURATION, starting from the moment the hand is (completely, in the case of some authors) risen to the moment it strikes the knee.

In psaltiki and in Greek dancing, THESIS is a MOMENT in time, and NOT a DURATION. It is the EXACT moment the hand STRIKES the knee. On a wave function, it is the MAXIMUM intensity peak, where the vowel EXPLODES. ALL the rest is PREPARATION for thesis, ENGAGEMENT into chronos or “engagment into tempo” (be careful: chronos is NOT tempo), ‘LIPSIS chronou”.

And because people consider THESIS to be a DURATION, they do not accelerate PROPERLY to the THESIS=PUNCTUAL MOMENT IN TIME…. and we have either effeminate sissy-singing or drunken sailor singing.

Panayiotopoulos confuses the reader by providing a TRADITIONAL description of the way chronos is counted (THESIS is the MOMENT the hand strikes the knee) and an academic view for DECOMPOSING the CHRONOS into two equal parts of THESIS and ARSIS.

As I have repeated before: ARSIS is simply the RAISING of the hand, so as to bring it back down to the THESIS REFERENCE position. But when a psaltis chants, he HITS the THESIS and pronounces an already well prepared VOWEL which will ENDURE some time… this delta time is the THESIS DURATION, EVEN THOUGH THE HAND IS MOVING UPWARDS so as to maintain a regular cycle (elliptical motion).

Once again, we have PRACTICE vs. Theoretical DESCRIPTIONS. Putting the pieces together, one finds that PRACTICE has been WELL transmitted, REGARDLESS of descriptions that seem “incoherent” to “researchers”.

First ask them to chant. Then compare them to the GREAT ones I have cited above - ONLY THEN should their comments and explanations be taken into consideration.

Chronos should be counted from one THESIS (= PUNCTUAL MAXIMAL INTENSITY) to the NEXT, and NOT from one Thesis DURATION, which, according to most theory, has a starting point OTHER than the MAXIMAL INTENSITY EXPLOSION, to the next.

THEORY is one thing. PRACTICE is another. ONLY GOOD research, with GOOD tools and COMPETENT researchers using TRADITIONAL SUBJECTS will clear up the theoretical approximations and turmoil of descriptions and contemporary “exegetics”.

10. Δημήτριος Ἰωαννίδης, Θεωρητικόν (Ἀθῆναι 2005), σ. 25.

Dimitrios Ioannides, Theory book, Athens, 2005, pg. 25

Ἔστω δύο ἴσα μὲ ἀρχικὴ μαρτυρία Νη: «Χτυπάμε τὸ χέρι κάτω καὶ λέμε Νη. Τὸ η τὸ βαστᾶμε μέχρι τὸ χέρι μας νὰ φτάσει στὸ πάνω σημεῖο τῆς ἄρσης. Τὸ ξαναχτυπᾶμε καὶ ἐπαναλαμβάνουμε τὰ ἴδια ὅπως πρῶτα».

Let us suppose that we have two isons right after an intonation martyria (witness) of Ni. “We strike our hand downwards and say “Ni”. We HOLD the vowel “I” until our hand reaches the upper limit of “arsis”. We then strike our hand again and we repeat what we just did before”.

Ἔστω πάλι δύο ἴσα μὲ ἀρχικὴ μαρτυρία Νη, καὶ στὸ δεύτερο ἴσον ὑπάρχει γοργόν: «Χτυπώντας τὸ χέρι στὴ θέση, προφέρουμε Νη καὶ μέχρι νὰ φτάσει στὸ πιὸ ψηλὸ σημεῖο (τὸ χέρι μας) τῆς ἄρσης, λέμε πάλι Νη».

Let us suppose, once again, that we have two isons right after an intonation martyria of Ni. Furthermore, (let us suppose that) the second ison has a gorgon superposed. “We strike our hand downwards and say “Ni”. By the time our hand reaches the upper limit of “arsis”, we are to say “Ni” once again.

GKM: notice how he “engages”, how he “prepares” by stating “by the time… “mechri” = “mechris otou”

11. Ἀστέριος Κ. Δεβρελῆς (Πρόγραμμα ταχύρρυθμης ἐκμάθησης..., Θεσσαλονίκη 1990), σ. 9, 10.

Asterios K. DEBERLIS “Program=Method for a quick learning rate … Thessaloniki, 1990” pgs 9 and 10.

Ἀναλυτικὰ παραδείγματα ἁπλοῦ χρόνου, σ. 9, 10.

Analytical examples of “haplos chronos”.

12. Ἠχητικὰ παραδείγματα:

Audio samples

Ἠχητικὸ παράδειγμα ἀπὸ μάθημα τοῦ κ. Δημητρίου Νεραντζῆ

Audio sample extracted from a lesson of Dim. Nerantzis

GKM: note the word LESSON as in “lesson-giving” and not “lesson” as in chanting a given “mathima” LIVE, in church…

Ἠχητικὸ παράδειγμα ἀπὸ μάθημα τοῦ κ. Δημητρίου Ἰωαννίδη.

Audio sample extracted from a lesson of Dim. Ioannides

GKM: note the word LESSON as in “lesson-giving” and not “lesson” as in chanting a given “mathima” LIVE, in church…

Ἠχητικὸ παράδειγμα ἀπὸ πρόβα τῆς χορωδίας τοῦ Θρασυβούλου Στανίτσα.

Audio sample extracted from a choir practice of Archon thrasyboulos Stanitsas.

GKM: note that Stanitsas does NOT teach his choir by chanting SLOWLY, as he SHOULD, so as to teach them EVERYTHING from intervals to attacks. Since they’re always behind in other excerpts, he pushes haplos chronos to an extreme durin g these instances, so as to bring them “back to pace” with “good attack”.

Anyhow, Stanitsas is almost always doing haplos chronos with all his choirwork and choir performances.

WHAT, then, is he doing in the SUPER recording at the Patriarcheion (for instance the “Pasa Pnoe”, in plagal first mode)? Run all this through your computers, and LOOK at the wave functions. Analyse them from peak to peak. LOOK for regularities. DO you honestly feel that he inteprets according to a SIMILAR chronos (this dos not mean TEMPO, of course), and this isochronous per beat (= one undivided non-extended ison)? Don’t you think that there is “more isochronocity” between SETS of “undivided non-extended” ison equivalents.

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Ἐγὼ λέω ὅτι αὐτὸ ποὺ μᾶς λές "2 κινήσεις = 1 χρόνος" εἶναι δική σου θεωρία! Αὐτὸ ποὺ λένε στὶς παραπάνω ἀναφορὲς εἶναι 1 κίνηση = 1 χρόνος. Τῖ ἔχεις νὰ πεῖς περὶ τούτου;

I say that, your “2 movements equal one chronos” is your own invention! What the references tell us is that “ONE” movement is ONE chronos. What have ou to say about all this?

Ἀπάντησις:

Ἀπὸ ὅλες τὶς παραπάνω ἀναφορὲς θὰ πάρω ὡς παράδειγμα τὸ τοῦ Χρυσάνθου (Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ Θεωρητικὸν καὶ Πρακτικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, 1821), σ. 12), διότι καὶ οἱ ἄλλες τὰ ἴδια λένε:

From all of the references above, I’ll just take as an example that of Chrysanthos, for they all state the same thing.

Chrysanthos,(Introduction to the Theoretical and Practical [aspects] of Ecclesiastical Music, 1821, pg. 12)

Λέει στὸ πρωτότυπο: «Καταμετρεῖται δὲ ὁ χρόνος, μὲ τὸ νὰ κινῆται ἡ χεὶρ ἄνω καὶ κάτω, κρούουσα τὸ γόνυ. Ὁ καιρὸς λοιπὸν, ὁποῦ ἐξοδεύεται ἀπὸ τὴν μίαν κροῦσιν ἕως εἰς τὴν ἄλλην, λογαριάζεται ἕνας χρόνος.»

Here is what is written in the original (text):

“Chronos” is measured by an upward/downward motion of the hand, which hits upon the knee. The DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH) (“kairos”) of one hit (“striking of knee) to the NEXT is considered as one chronos.

GKM: There’s nothing new here. This is exactly what I’ve said about CHRONOS = duration (temporal length) = one complete “cycle” using an “elliptical” motion of the hand, hitting upon the knee. So as to maintain “regularity”, by means of a “confortable amplitude”, I have stated that the “ellipse should not go beyond the forehead.

GKM: Does the above disprove that “Thesis and arsis equal a chronos eis?” = Thesis and arsis constitute ONE chronos.

No. To the contrary, it’s in favour of NOT distinguishing between a thesis and an arsis in terms of DURATION.

The main problem is: do we do this ONLY for one beat, ALL THE TIME, whether learning or actually chanting in church, or can apply this definition of chronos for MANY BEATS AS WELL in cisrcumstances other than teaching/learning?

Notice that Chorumouzios defines THESIS as REFERENCE point of chronos (as did Theodoros of Phoka, his student), with NO OTHER SUBDIVISIONS.

Arsis is just an elevation of the hand, without any other particular definiton (contrary to the “isochronous” definitions given by Panayiotopoulos and Euthymiades).

In PAEDAOGIGAL chronos, ‘one chronos to a beat”, we need NOT define any DURATION to the arsis.

In “one chronos to MANY beats”, we MAY, AT TIMES, use the arsis=of some duration defintion, and we many, at SOME cirsumstances MAKE it isochronous to so some “thesis duration”

BUT the FIRST PRIOTITY is THESIS = “KROUSIS” = STRIKE.

The SECOND priority is that CHRONOS IS COUNTED FROM ONE THESIS (KROUSIS) to the NEXT.

In both of the above priorities, the THESIS IS A POSITIONAL defintion (and NOT necessarily that of a duration, although, at times, when not counting paedagogically = kata chronon, it may ALSO, in COMPLEMENT, be treated in terms of duration AS WELL).

Δηλαδὴ μὲ ἀπλὰ λόγια, καταμετρεῖται ὁ χρόνος μὲ τὸ νὰ κινεῖται τὸ (ἕνα καὶ τὸ αὐτό) χέρι πάνω καὶ κάτω, χτυπώντας τὸ (ἕνα καὶ τὸ αὐτό) γόνατο. Ὁ καιρὸς λοιπόν που δαπανᾶται ἀπὸ τὸ ἕνα χτύπημα μέχρι τὸ ἐπόμενο, λογαριάζεται ἕνας χρόνος.

That is, in simple words, as follows: Chronos is counted by moving ONE and only ONE hand upwards and downwards and striking it upon ONE and only ONE knee. The TIME elapsed (taken up) from one strike to the next is considered as ONE chronos.

GKM:

GOOD.

Λέει λοιπόν ὅτι Ἕνας χρόνος = Καιρός ἀπὸ τὸ ἕνα χτύπημα μέχρι τὸ ἐπόμενο.

Chourmouzios thus says that “one chronos is the time that elapses from one strike to the next”.

GKM: good

Πόσες λοιπὸν κινήσεις θὰ κάνουμε ἀπὸ τὸ ἕνα χτύπημα μέχρι τὸ ἐπόμενο, δεδομένου ὅτι τὸ χέρι κινείται πάνω-κάτω καὶ χτυπάει πρὸς τὰ κάτω τὸ γόνατο;

How many movements will we do, from one strike to the next, given that the hand moves upwards and downwards, and that it strikes the knee in its downward motion?

Σαφῶς δύο. Ἄρα "2 κινήσεις = 1 χρόνος".

Evidently 2 motions; Therefore, “2 movements = one chronos”.

GKM: not really. One is not obliged to SEPARATE the chonos into two ISOCHRONOUS part, DURATIONS, called thesis and arsis.

One can simply think of THESIS as a PUNCTUAL moment of the STRIKE. ARSIS is just simply the movement of bringing the hand upward, and the downward motion will be the PREPARTATION of thesis, which is a PUNCTUAL moment.

Unfortunately, the terminology, as elsewhere, is insufficient and used in many ways by each and every author.

O/aural tradition has maintained: CHRONOS kai LIPSIS chronou” = “chronos and engagement into chronos”.

And the “mistake” by Panayiotopoulos shows the importance of the thesis=a PUNCTUAL moment of chronos (underlined by Chourmouzios and Theodoros of Phoka).

In other words, Chourmouzios says NOTHING to contradict “thesis kai arsis =chronos eis”.

Furthermore, one must ask: Does Boudouris’ description have any traditional “weight” or does it not? Why are his views on Chronos NOT EVEN MENTIONNED in this study? He had studied Chourmouzios and the others way before the contemporary sissy and drunken sailor singers.

In other words, if psaltiki was all done SIMPLY according to theory, it would no longer be psaltiki.

If chronos was counted in a “haphazardous” manner, where, for fast tempo pieces, one has to depend on some mysterious, “inherent” chronos, then we’re in REAL trouble.

The problem is that Chourmouzios and others describe the BASICS. How could they ever have written about the rest, given the LACK of technology? They simply referred students to a master.

It is noteworthy to underline that THE MASTER in CONSTANTINOPLE, who was Iakovos NAFPLIOTIS, ALWAYS counted chronos… REGARDLESS of tempo.

Iakovos NAFPLIOTIS counted chronos from “one chronos per beat” to “one chronos per many beats”, and would even alternate between the two, on certain circumstances (note how Stanitsas shifts from {“one chronos per two beats} to {“one chronos per one beat”} when he wants his choir to LEARN how to “ENGAGE” correctly at a given point during a doxology choir practice). “One chronos per one beat” is the best way to INSIST, to UNDERLINE each note…. it is NOT the best way to chant in church.

As stated elsewhere, chronos in church is counted, “in the air” (not on a book”… in the “air” means DISCRETELY, beside one’s thigh…

For needs of “choir readjustment”, one may do so discreetly in FRONT of one’s thorax, but the movement must NOT be visible to ANY church members other than the clergy and chanters (the chanters are in a “U” formation, with the Protopsaltis in the pivotal position, the aforementionned motion being thus how “covered”)

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Πῶς νὰ προλάβει τὸ χέρι νὰ χτυπάει τὸν Χρόνο, ὅταν ψέλνουμε τοὺς Κανόνες (σὲ ταχεία ἀγωγή);

How can one’s hand be speedy enough to dictate chronos, when one is chanting a Canon (in quick tempo)?

Ἀπάντησις:

Αὐτὸ εἶναι λογικὴ ἀπορία αὐτῶν ποὺ ἔχουν διδαχθεῖ νὰ μετροῦν τὸν χρόνο «εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπω». Γιὰ κάποιον ὅμως ποὺ ἔχει διδαχθεῖ ἀπὸ μαθητὴς τὸ παραδοσιακὸ μέτρημα τοῦ χρόνου (ἀκόμη και γιὰ τοὺς τριτοετεῖς μαθητές ποὺ ἔχουν διδαχθεῖ παραδοσιακά), αὐτὸ ἀκούγεται ἀστεῖο.

This constitutes a logical querry put forth by those who have been taught to count chronos according to an “occidental method / manner”.

GKM: now, this is the most ironic part of all this debate. After reading through pages and pages of OCCIDENTAL philosophy of attempts to DESCRIBE what other Patriarchal tradition and even Coptic tradition has brought down to us by O/AURAL and somatomimetic/kinetic methods, we are told that these methods are “occidental” in favour for the description of what follows, which leads to the DECADENT singing we hear from “drunken sailor singers”:

For one who has been taught, however, ever since one’s “student years” according to the traditional method of counting (this can apply to 3rd year students as well), this sounds quite funny.

The only thing that is “funny” in all of this is that those who know NOTHING about Patriarchal teaching methods go about INSISTING on a UNIQUE method (“one chronos per beat counting”) that they, themselves, are incapable of USING EVERYWHERE.

What is sad for the sake of Psaltiki, is that such gurus go against O/AURAL tradition -which has METHODS and TECHNIQUES for EVERY situation -and preach what follows, namely “being possessed by chronos” in such manner as not to have to count chronos conscienciously… we HEAR the decadent result of their preachings when they sing:

Ὁ λόγος εἶναι ὅτι μετρώντας κάποιος τὸν χρόνο παραδοσιακά (μετρώντας Ἁπλὸ Χρόνο ἢ ἰσοδύναμα μονὸ χρόνο ὅπως τὸν ἀποκαλεῖ ὁ κ. Νεραντζῆς), μετὰ ἀπὸ περίπου 1-2 χρόνια ἐξάσκησης «μπαίνει» τὸ μέτρημα «μέσα του», καὶ πλέον δὲν χρειάζεται νὰ μετράει (!) εἴτε ψέλνει ἀργὰ, εἴτε γρήγορα μέλη.

The reason (GKM: this is a funny question) is that, when one counts chronos according to tradition (GKM: the UNIQUE, newly-coined “MONOSIMOS” CHRONOS, “one chronos per beat chronos”) (= counting using SIMPLE chronos or “isodynamic” unitary chronos, as it is called by Nerantzis), one “is possessed” by the “counting itself”, after one or two years of exercise, and he no longer needs to “count” (!), whether chanting slow (GKM=meaning slow TEMPO) or quick (GKM=meaning quick TEMPO) melodies.

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Ὑπάρχουν ἐπίσης ἄλλες ἀπόψεις Καταμετρήσεως τοῦ Χρόνου στὰ παλαιὰ θεωρητικά;

Are there any other views concerning counting of Chronos in older theory books?

Ἀπάντησις:

1. Θεόδωρος Φωκαεύς, Κρηπίς (Θεσσαλονίκη 1912, ἀπὸ τὴν β' ἔκδοση τοῦ 1864. α' ἔκδοση 1842).

Theodoros from Phoka, “Kripis =”shoe, piedestal” meaning the BASICS, the FUNDAMENTALS”, Thessaloniki, 1912, re-editon of the 2^nd edition of 1864, the first edition being that of 1842).

Δὲν μιλάει καθόλου γιὰ ἄλλη καταμέτρηση χρόνου (π.χ. εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ) πέραν τῆς προαναφερθεῖσης (σ. 29), σύμφωνα μὲ τὴν ἔρευνά μας.

According to our research,

(GKM: this is the research of ONE person….)

he mentions NO manner by which to count chronos (e.g. Occidental) OTHER than that referred to above (pg. 29).

Νὰ σημειώσουμε ὅτι ἡ Κρηπίδα τοῦ Φωκαέως ἦταν τὸ κατὰ κόρον χρησιμοποιούμενο θεωρητικὸ βιβλίο πρὸ τῆς ἐπικρατήσεως τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦ Μαργαζιώτου.

It should be underlined that the “Kripis” of Theodoros from Phoka was the reference theory book “par excellence” used before being dominated by that of Ioannis Margaziotis (mid 20^th century).

GKM: One of the students of Margaziotis, Constantinos Katsoulis is one of the BEST in “kata chronon” counting. Listen, compare, and judge for youself. In other words, even if one is to refute the WRITINGS of Margaziotis, one cannot but applaud the TRADITIONAL TRANSMISSION of correct chronos to his disciple, or at least, the MEANS and METHODS by which to OBTAIN correct “chronos and lipsis chronou”. (Unfortunately, not as much can be said about the authenticity of the INTERVALS… but that is not the issue, here).

2. Χουρμούζιος Χαρτοφύλαξ (1829).

Chourmouzios the Chartophylax (1829)

Δὲν μιλάει καθόλου γιὰ ἄλλη καταμέτρηση χρόνου (π.χ. εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ) πέραν τῆς προαναφερθεῖσης (σ. 51), σύμφωνα μὲ τὴν ἔρευνά μας.

According to our research,

(GKM: this is the research of ONE person….)

he mentions NO manner by which to count chronos (e.g. Occidental) OTHER than that referred to above (pg. 51).

3. Χρύσανθος (Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ Θεωρητικὸν καὶ Πρακτικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, 1821).

Chrysanthos,(Introduction to the Theoretical and Practical [aspects] of Ecclesiastical Music, 1821

Δὲν μιλάει καθόλου γιὰ ἄλλη καταμέτρηση χρόνου (π.χ. εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ) πέραν τῆς προαναφερθεῖσης (σ. 12), σύμφωνα μὲ τὴν ἔρευνά μας.

According to our research,

(GKM: this is the research of ONE person….)

he mentions NO manner by which to count chronos (e.g. Occidental) OTHER than that referred to above (pg. 12).

4. Χρύσανθος (Θεωρητικὸν Μέγα τῆς Μουσικῆς, ἔτοιμο πρὸς ἔκδοση περὶ τὸ 1816).

Chrysanthos, “Great Treatise of Music”, completed 1816 version, edited in 1832

Ὁ Χρύσανθος στὸ «Θεωρητικὸν Μέγα τῆς Μουσικῆς» (σὲ ἀντιπαράθεση μὲ τὸ ἄλλο ποὺ τιτλοφορεῖται τῆς «Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς»), μιλάει γιὰ τέσσερις (4) διαφορετικὲς καταμετρήσεις χρόνου, καὶ σύγχυσε τὸν Ἱεροψαλτικὸ κόσμο τῆς μετὰ ἀπὸ αὺτόν ἐποχῆς:

Chrysanthos, in his “Great Treatise of Music” (as opposed to the other theory book, named “Ecclesiastical Music”), refers to four different ways of counting chronos, and has led to confusion the entire psaltic community ever since.

α. ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΝ Α' - Περὶ τῆς ἐν τῇ Μελῳδίᾳ ποιότητος, σ. 52:

Chapter 1, Concerning the qualitative component of a melos, pg. 52

«Ἐν ᾧ λοιπὸν ἀπαγγέλεται τὸ μέλος, ἂς κινῆται ἢ ὁ ποῦς, ἢ ἡ χεὶρ τοῦ μουσικοῦ πρὸς τὰ ἄνω καὶ πρὸς τὰ κάτω, κρούουσα τὸ γόνυ· καὶ μετρουμένη ἡ κίνησις τῆς χειρός, ἀποδίδει τὸν χρόνον· διότι ὁ καιρὸς ὅς τις ἐξοδεύεται ἀπὸ τὴν μίαν κροῦσιν ἕως εἰς τὴν ἄλλην, λογαριάζεται ἕνας χρόνος».

While the melos is being chanted, it is warranted that be continuously moving, either one’s (the “muscian’s”) foot (PDP: we are against the moving of the foot [GKM: the objective being to avoid making noise, one should either make light, acoustically imperceptible movements, use a pillow below, or add a cushion on the shoe sole]) or one’s (the “musician’s”) hand upwards and downwards, hitting upon the knee. The counting of this movement gives the “chronos” because the time that elapses from one hit to the next is considered as one chronos.

Αὐτὴ ἡ μέθοδος εἶναι ὁ γνωστὸς μας ἁπλὸς χρόνος (ἢ ἰσοδύναμα μονὸς χρόνος κατὰ τὸν κ. Νεραντζῆ).

This way of counting chronos is our well-known “haplos chronos” (or “isodynamic unitary chronos” according to Nerantzis).

GKM: NO…. Chrysanthos is simply stating that from one “thesis” to the next, we have ONE chronos. HE DOES NOT EXPLICITELY STATE that the DURATION of this chronos is only ONE BEAT (which is what Nerantzis claiming for EVERYTHING that is chanted in church, except the moments where he lets the “chronos that has possessed him” make itself manifest as soon as he STOPS being guided by the counting of his hand ….).

Παρακάτω, στὸ Β' Κεφάλαιον, Περὶ Ὑποστάσεων, καὶ στὴν §127 (σ. 56, 57), ἐπεξηγεῖ ὁ Χρύσανθος τὴν παραπάνω μέθοδο ἐπὶ τὴν συμπλοκή ἑνὸς ἴσου μετὰ ἀποστρόφου ποὺ ἔχει γοργόν καὶ ἁπλήν (τοῦ ἴσου προηγεῖται βαρεῖα).

Further below, in Chapter 2 concerning “Hypostaseis”, in number 127 (pages 56 and 57), Chrysanthos explains the above method as pertains to a combination of an ison followed by an apostrophos with gorgon above and hapli below (the ison being preceeded by a bareia):

Φαίνεται ἐδὼ καθαρὰ ὅτι ὁ Χρύσανθος ὀμιλεῖ γιὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴ μουσική, καὶ ἀπὸ τὸ παράδειγμα καταμέτρησης τοῦ Χρόνου στὰ σημάδια τῆς Βυζαντινῆς μουσικῆς, καὶ ἀπὸ τὴν φράση «ἐν ᾧ λοιπὸν ἀπαγγέλεται τὸ μέλος», καὶ ἀπὸ τὸ γεγονὸς ὅτι γιὰ αὐτὴν τὴν μέθοδο καὶ μόνο ὀμιλεῖ στὸ μεταγενέστερο θεωρητικό του «τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς» τὸ ἀποκαλούμενο καὶ «μικρό».

It is clear, at this particular point, that Chrysanthos is dealing with ecclesiastical music, not only by the example of chronos counting he subjects the psaltic neumes to, but by the further use of the expression “while the melos is being emitted”, as well as the fact that he refers to this method alone in his subsequent “Great treatise of Ecclesiastical music”, which is also known as “the small treatise”.

β. ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΝ ΣΤ' - Περὶ Χρόνων, σ. 65, 66:

Chapter 6, about “Chronous” (in plural form), pages 65 and 66

«Μετροῦνται δὲ οἱ χρόνοι διὰ τῆς θέσεως, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἄρσεως. Καὶ ὅταν μὲν ὁ ἐλάχιστος χρόνος εἶναι ἐν τῇ θέσει, σημαίνεται τὸ 0· ὅταν δὲ ἐν τῇ ἄρσει, τῷ 1· καὶ διὰ τὴν μὲν θέσιν πλήττομεν τὸ δεξιὸν γόνυ μὲ τὴν δεξιὰν χεῖρα· διὰ δὲ τὴν ἄρσιν πλήττομεν τὸ ἀριστερὸν γόνυ μὲ τὴν ἀριστερὰν χεῖρα [ὑποσ. α'. Εἰ ἔστιν ἄρσις, πῶς πλήττομεν τὸ γόνυ; Οἱ μὲν παλαιοὶ ἐγυμνάζοντο τοὺς ῥυθμοὺς μὲ ἄλλον τρόπον· ἡμεῖς ὅμως ζητοῦντες τὸ εὔκολον, ἀκολουθοῦμεν τὸν τωρινὸν τρόπον]. Προφέρομεν δὲ διὰ τὴν γύμνασιν τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ εἰς τοὺς ἀρχαρίους τὴν μὲν κροῦσιν τῆς θέσεως, Δούμ· τὴν δὲ κροῦσιν τῆς ἄρσεως, Τέκ [ὑποσ. β'. Ὀθωμανικαὶ λέξεις εἶναι τὸ Δοὺμ, καὶ τὸ Τέκ. Αἱ δὲ τοιαῦται προφοραὶ γίνονται, ἕως οὗ νὰ γυμνασθῇ ὁ μαθητὴς τὸν ῥυθμόν. Ἔπειτα σιωπῶνται μὲν αὐταὶ, λέγονται δὲ αἱ συλλαβαὶ τοῦ ᾄσματος].

“The chronos (in PLURAL form, meaning the MANY chronos, or the “various” chronos) are (all) counted by the “thesis” and the “arsis”. When the smallest unit of time is found in thesis, it is annotated as “0”, and when it is found in “arsis”, it is annotated as “1”.

GKM: note that this is NOT the definition concerning ACCENTUATED vs. non-accentuated TEXTUAL syllables, used to make melodic formular dictionaries, where “1” represents an ACCENTUATED syllable, and “0” a non-accentuated syllable.

For thesis, one strikes the right knee using the right hand, and for arsis, one strikes one’s left knee using the left hand.

Footnote a: If we are dealing with arsis, how is it that we strike the knee?

GKM: THIS is VERY interesting. The question seems to be: HOW is it that we DIVIDE the chronos into two parts, in such a manner as to give the ARSIS a precise DURATION (Euthymiades’ and Panayiotopoulos’ versions of isochronous, hemi-chronous DURATION of thesis = arsis).

In other words, “isn’t it weird to attribute some specific duration to the arsis”, instead of using it as a simple movement that is there to bring us back to the preparartion of a thesis?

Note also the PLURAL form of the chronos: Chrysanthos can be interpretated as stating that “all sorts of different chronos can be boiled down to some thesis and arsis relationship”, that, I may add, need NOT NECESSARILY be as one’s “isochronous chronos hemi-equivalent” of the other.

Another interpretation can be as follows: chronos is simply “one beat”. In this case, “beats” (and thus “chronos in plural”) can be described by “thesis and arsis” movements.

This is the definition that is used in the chapters concerning “metron”.

However, in the paragraph JUST BEFORE this citation, ie, in paragraph 148, Chrysanthos describes MANY types of CHRONOS (of which those that are long or short, those that are “eurythmic”, “rhythmoid” or even arrhythmic, etc. “rhythmoid” means “resembling rhythm, but not TRULY rhythmic”… just as simonokaraïtic paleographikornithoskalistic and other “methyso-bekrydistiko-demotiko” singing is “psalticoïd” yet NOT truly PSALTIKI….) in addition to the “elachistos = UNIT chronos” or “chronos atom = indivisible chronos) he refers to at the very start of his chapters.

He then states that all chronos can be counted using thesis and arsis. In paragraph 149, he finally names his UNIT chronos as being aquivalent to 0 in thesis, and 1 in arsis…

“Kai otan men o ELACHISTOS chronos einai en ti thesei, simainetai to “0”; otan de en ti arsei, to “I”….”

Here, we have ONE CHRONOS equals ONE thesis.

(According to Nerantsis, we have ONE CHRONS is ONE beat which is always equal to one thesis AND one ARSIS…)

So, things aren’t quite as “clear” and “limpid”as a “Nerantzites” go about proclaiming…

Chrysanthos answers the question concerning the striking of each “arsis” as follows:

The ancient ones would exercise themselves in the art of different types of rhythms in another manner whereas we, in our aspiration for something simpler, follow this contemporary method. We do pronounce the following, however, for the beginners’ sake in their exercise in rhythm: “Dioum” during the striking of thesis, and “tek “during the striking of arsis.

Footnote b: “Dioum” and “Tek” are Ottoman words. These are the sounds emitted up till the student has been well exercised in rhythm. From then on, they are silenced, and are replaced by the syllables of the song (“asma”).

GKM: Nowhere do we get the impression that two hands and two knees are used in CHUCH during a LIVE performance. Therefore, this is a description of PAEDAGOGICAL chronos teaching. Furthermore, there seem to be MANY chronos that can be described by a single THESIS and a single arsis. IN WHAT WAY does all this support that all psaltis should count chronos AT ALL TIMES according to the newly “baptised” “monosimos” theory of Nerantzis et al.

Since he is “possessed” by chronos to the point that he can emit “spontaneously without counting”, we might as well call this “Neratzochronos”, given that it must be one of the many Chrysanthos did not describe, but that was “brought down” to Neratzis who in turn shares it with his us, along with his “correction” of the “three teachers’ neglect of neumes in their transcriptions of paleographic melodies”… “Et quoi encore? Kai ti eti lego? And what else, even more?….”

Παρακάτω, στὴν §153 (σ. 68), ἐπεξηγεῖ ὁ Χρύσανθος τὴν Δούμ-Τέκ μέθοδο ἐπὶ τὸ παράδειγμα ἑνὸς ποδός (παρότι τοὺς πόδες τοὺς ἀναλύει στὸ ἀμέσως ἐπόμενο κεφάλαιο).

Further down in his text, in paragraph 153 (pg 68), Chrysanthos explains the method of “Dioum-Tek”, using an example of a single measure (although he analyses “podes” = measures immediately in the next chapter).

GKM: “Dioum” and “Tek” are sounds of DIFFERENT PITCH, depending whether one hits the CENTER or the EDGE of a drum, thus adding a variation of PITCH to the various components of a given rhythm.

Of course, one does not require this for correct apprenticeship of psaltiki. What is interesting to note, however, is that switching from one hand to the other during apprenticeship allows one to learn how to treat PAUSES (prolongations) and GAPS. Learning how to do 0 dot 0 dot 1dot 1dot correctly, as describes Chrysantos in the paragraph that follows (154), demands that the student learn how to differentiate a SHORTER PAUSE duration of a GIVEN hand’s motion (ie. this concerns the pause of ONE hand and “transfer to the next, and not a different PAUSE duration within the WHRONOS), on the FIRST zero dot from a LONGER PAUSE duration on the second dot, so as to guarantee a CONSTANT overall duration (and regular overall CHRONOS and, in this case, RHYTHM).

Psaltiki does not USE instruments that provide a DOUBLE-pitched rhythm. Furhtermore, words must be WELL puctuated so as to be well understood. The GAPS between words or syllables are sometimes ABBREVIATED = cut out, thus BREAKING this CONSISTENCY that is necessary in DANCE (where NO instrumental rhythm “chipping off” can be tolerated without “messing up” the steps).

All in all, Chrysanthos is providing PAEDAGOGIC means to LEARN chronos. Given that both knees “sound the same” once striken, the student learns OVERALL body co-ordination, which boils down to making use of a large pendulum with an AMPLE motion that is replaced by right hand, brain, left hand co-ordination. In other words, the brain is taught to control the hands, which, after sufficient training, are allowed to GUIDE the brain and phonation organs. The question is: does this mean that the brain has become so well educated, so as to dispossess itself of the hand’s guidance in fast tempo pieces? If Iakovos still needed to move his hand during canons, then the answer is “no”.

Αὐτὸ τὸ μέτρημα τοῦ χρόνου ἀναφέρεται στοὺς Τούρκους τραγουδιστές ἀπὸ τὶς Popescu-Judetz & Sirli, σ.15, καὶ οἱ λέξεις Δοὺμ καὶ Τὲκ εἶναι δανεισμένες ἀπὸ τὰ τούρκικα οὐσούλια. Ἐπίσης δές [Touma, The music of the Arabs, σ. 49].

Popescu-Judetz & Sirli refer to Turkish singers for this type of chronos counting on pg. 15 (: [and] the words “Dioum” and “Tek” have been borrowed from Turkish “Ousouls”. See also Touma, The music of the Arabs, pg. 49

GKM: borrowing a word form here and there does not mean that everything comes from here or there. Many dances form Macedonia, etc make use of double-pitched percussions.

As for THESIS to THESIS chronos, one should listen to traditional songs where the ISON usually changes REGULARLY after a NUMBER of MEASURES, thus marking SETS of measures. Althought the individual measures are HARD to equate in terms of the duration of each of their components, the OVEARALL GROUPS of measures are quite consistently ISOCHRONOUS. This is true when persussions don’t have a preponderant position… when they are used, however, almost all measures are isochronous.

In otherwords, we do not need the ACCURACY of percussions in ALL of demotic music, and we certainly don’t need it ON THE ANALOGION… it’s good to have, however, for INITIATING peadagogic lessons.

Παρόμοια γράφει καὶ ὁ Κυριακὸς Φιλοξένους (Θεωρητικὸν στοιχειώδες..., σ. 43): «Διότι οἱ Τουρκοάραβες μεταχειρίζονται τὸν χρόνον εἰς τὰς αὐτῶν παραδόσεις διὰ τῆς κινήσεως τῶν δύο χειρῶν, φανερόνοντες διὰ τῶν χαρακτηριστικῶν σημείων τούτων Ο Ι, τὴν ἄρσιν καὶ θέσιν ἑνὸς ἑκάστου χρόνου. Καὶ τὸ μὲν Ο, παριστάνει τὴν θέσιν, διὰ τὸ ὁποῖον ἐκφωνοῦσι τό, Τούμ· τὸ δε Ι, τὴν ἄρσιν, διὰ τὸ ὁποῖον ἐκφωνοῦσι τό, Τέκ».

Φαίνεται ἐπίσης ὅτι ὁ Χρύσανθος ἐδὼ γράφει γιὰ τὴν ἐξωτερικὴ μουσική: «λέγονται δὲ αἱ συλλαβαὶ τοῦ ᾄσματος» (ἄλλωστε το Μέγα Θεωρητικὸ εἶναι τῆς «Μουσικῆς», καὶ ὄχι τῆς «Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς» ὡς τὸ ἕτερον καὶ μεταγενέστερον θεωρητικὸν τοῦ Χρυσάνθου). Οὐδὲν τὸ παράξενον, καθότι λίγο νωρίτερα οἱ πρώτοι ποὺ (εἶναι γνωστὸ ὅτι) εἶχαν ἀσχοληθεῖ μὲ τὴν σύγκριση Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς καὶ Ἐξωτερικῆς ἦσαν οἱ Παναγιώτης Χαλάτζογλου (Πρωτοψάλτης τῆς Μ.τ.Χ.Ε.) στὰ περίπου 1720, καὶ ὁ μαθητὴς του Κύριλλος Μαρμαρινός (Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Τῆνου) περίπου στὰ 1750 [Popescu-Judetz & Sirli].

Here it is also evident that Chrysanthos is describing “external music: they (“Dioum” and “Tek”) are replaced by the syllables of the song (“asma”) (Furthermore, the great treatise concerns “Music”(in general) and not “Ecclesiastical music” (in particular), as is the case of the later Treatise of Chrysanthos).

This is not surprising, given that, slightly before him, the first known persons to have done research on the comparison of Ecclesiastical music and “External” music were Panayiotis Chalatzoglos (Protochanter of the Holy and Great Church of Christ) around the year 1720, and his student Kyrillos of Marmara (Archbishop of Tinos) in c. 1750 (around the year 1750) [Popescu-Judetz & Sirli].

Ἂς μὴν ξεχνάμε ὅτι ὁ Χρύσανθος τύγχανε, κατὰ τὸν Γεώργιο Παπαδόπουλο (σ. 333), «ἐγκρατὴς ἐν μέρει καὶ τῆς εὐρωπαϊκῆς καὶ ἀραβοπερσικῆς μουσικῆς, χειριζόμενος δὲ δεξιῶς τὸν εὐρωπαϊκὸν πλαγίαυλον καὶ τὸ ἀραβοπερσικὸν νέϊ», καὶ ὡς ἐκ τούτου καὶ ἀπὸ τὸ Μέγα Θεωρητικό του δὲν λείπουν ἐκτενεῖς ἀναφορὲς στὶς ἐν λόγῳ μουσικές (τὸ πρόβλημα εἶναι ὅτι δὲν κάνει σαφὴ διάκριση στὸ Μέγα Θεωρητικό του τῆς «Μουσικῆς», μὲ ἀποτέλεσμα νὰ ἔχει προκαλέσει μεγίστη σύγχυση).

Let us not forget that Chrysanthos was, according to Georgios Papadopoulos, (pg 333) “well-learned in many aspects of both occidental and arabo-persian music, and a dexterous player of the occidental flute as well as the arabo-persian neï. From this, his treatise is not made exempt of the extensive references to these music types (the problem being that he does not make any clear distinctions in his Great Treatise of “Music”, which has thus led the psaltic world to great confusion.

GKM: The only great confusion is among those who do not know how to “step in featherly manner” in GREEK dancing, who, furthermore, cannot distinguish an analogion from a dancing floor (and I’m not refering to Syrtos, but rather to Zeïmbekiko), and have not been taught the secrets of either traditional dancing or traditional psaltiki by appropriately competent teachers.

The “confusion” comes from those who try to “teach, explain and refute” things either that they cannot perform properly themselves or of which the existence they are ignorant of.

γ. ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΝ Η' - Περὶ Μέτρων, σ. 72, 73:

Chapter 8 : “About meters”, pages 72 and 73

«Μίαν μὲν θέσις, μία δὲ ἄρσις, αἵτινες μετροῦσι χρόνους δύο, συγκροτοῦσι τὸ μέτρον ὅπερ σημαίνεται διὰ τοῦ 2. Κρούομεν δὲ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον ἅπαξ μὲν τὸ γόνυ, ἅπαξ δὲ τὸν ἀέρα. Ταυτίζεται δὲ τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον μὲ τὸν Προκελευσματικὸν πόδα· 0 1.

One thesis and one arsis, which span over two chronos, constitute a meter which is annotated by the number 2. In this measure, we hit the knee once and the air once. This meter is the same as the “prokeleusmatikos podas” 0I.

Μία μὲν θέσις, δύο δὲ ἄρσεις, αἵτινες μετροῦσι χρόνου τρεῖς, συγκροτοῦσι τὸ μέτρον ὅπερ σημαίνεται διὰ τοῦ 3. Κρούομεν δὲ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον, ἅπαξ μὲν τὸ γόνυ, δὶς δὲ τὸν ἀέρα· 0 1 1· ἤ ἅπαξ μὲν τὸ γόνυ βραχέως, ἅπαξ δὲ τὸν ἀέρα μακρῶς, καὶ τότε ταυτίζεται τοῦτο μέτρον μὲ τὸν Ἴαμβον πόδα 0 1'.

One thesis and two arsis, which span over three chronos, constitute a meter which is annotated by the number 3. In this measure, either we hit the knee once, and the air twice 0II or we hit the knee once briefly and the air once at length (“taking more time”). This meter is the same as the “Iambos podas”.0Idot.

Δύο μὲν θέσεις, δύο δὲ ἄρσεις, αἵτινες μετροῦσι χρόνους τέσσαρας, συγκροτοῦσι τὸ μέτρον ὅπερ σημαίνεται διὰ τοῦ 4. Κρούομεν δὲ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον, δὶς μὲν τὸ γόνυ, δὶς δὲ τὸν ἀέρα. Ταυτίζεται δὲ τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον μὲ τὸν διπλοῦν προκελευσματικὸν πόδα· 0 0 1 1.

Two thesis and two arsis, which span over four chronos, constitute a meter which is annotated by the number 4. In this measure, we hit the knee twice, and the air twice. This meter is the same as the “double prokeleusmatic podas”.00II.

Δύο μὲν θέσεις, ἄρσεις δὲ τρεῖς, μετροῦσαι χρόνους πέντε, συγκροτοῦσι τὸ μέτρον ὅπερ σημαίνεται διὰ τοῦ 5. Κρούομεν δὲ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον, δὶς μὲν τὸ γόνυ, τρὶς δὲ τὸν ἀέρα, πρὸς δεξιὰ, πρὸς ἀριστερὰ, καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἄνω· εἰδὲ κρούομεν θέσιν μακρὰν, θέσιν βραχεῖαν, καὶ ἄρσιν μακρὰν, ταὐτίζεται τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον μὲ τὸν πόδα, ὀνομαζόμενον Παίων διάγυιος 0' 0 1'.

Two thesis and three arsis, which span over five chronos, constitute a meter which is annotated by the number 5. In this measure, we hit the knee twice, and the air thrice (right, left and upwards). Otherwise, we may strike a long thesis, a short thesis, and a long arsis: This meter is the same as the “Paion Diaguios”.0dot0Idot.

Δύο μὲν θέσεις, ἄρσεις δὲ τέσσαρες μετροῦσι χρόνους ἕξ, συγκροτοῦσι τὸ μέτρον, ὅπερ σημαίνεται διὰ τοῦ 6. Κρούομεν δὲ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον, δὶς μὲν τὸ γόνυ, τρὶς δὲ τὸν ἀέρα, πρὸς δεξιὰ πρὸς ἀριστερὰ, καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἄνω μακρῶς. Εἶναι προσέτι καὶ ἄλλα μέτρα εἰς τὴν χρῆσιν τῶν Εὐρωπαίων μουσικῶν, τὰ ὁποῖα ὀνομάζονται Σύνθετα [σημ. τὰ εὐρωπαϊκὰ σύνθετα μέτρα ἀντιστοιχοῦν στὸν συνεπτυγμένο ῥυθμό, Μαργαζιώτης σ. 62]· ταῦτα ἐπειδὴ ἀχρηστοῦσι παρ' ἡμῖν, σιωπῶνται».

Two thesis and four arsis, which span over six chronos, constitute a meter which is annotated by the number 6. In this measure, we hit the knee twice, and the air thrice (right, left and upwards, the latter in longer duration). There are other meters, as well, that are used by Occidental musicians: they are called “synthetons” = combined (note: according to Margaziotis, the occidental “combined measures” correspond to the “syneptigmenos rhythmos”, pg. 62).

Because these measures are useless to us (psalits) they are put to silence”.

GKM: we have, indeed, a problem with vocabulary and definitions.

Here is an attempt to clarify things.

We can set a particular rhythmos at the very beginning. It may be simple or “combined=joined=composed of many other simple, fundamental measures”.

When some rhythmic REGULARITY from one set of measures to the next is required, such as in traditional DANCE music, the COMPOSTION itself is written out in COMBINED form.

We do not need this type of COMPOSITIONAL REGULARITY in psaltiki. This does not mean that some “COMBINATION of measure” does NOT exist in COMPOSITION. This is what Psachos wrote about. The question is: can we make use the various “COMBINATIONS of COMPOSITION” so as to “enhance” a “performance”?

Suppose we answer “no”.

One can note, however that, even if a melody is to be PRESENTED using SIMPLE measures (or NO measures at all), the actual ACCENTS on the syllables can be interpreted, by a well-trained psaltis, in a special way, that makes the INTERNAL components of a measure or even SETS of measures “UNEQUAL” in duration = anisochrononous. When the computer will be asked to “write out whatever it hears”, it will choose a small “unit chronos”. The melody it will compose will be VERY rich RHYTHMICALLY (one set of syllables will have a different rhythm as compared to another set), yet the OVERALL duration will be the same, as is required by the ORIGINAL score, which is written out in very simple neumatics.

The “complex rhythms” from the computer will not resemble the “rhythms of composition” (the ones Psachos refers to).

The important point here is: do NOT MIX UP COMPOSITION (which requires VERY solid study of rhythmos), PRESENTATION (which removes ALL forms of measure representations = diastoles, etc. in CLASSICAL editions) and EKTELESIS (interpretation) which focuses on the WORDS, and can use “kata chronos” or “kata RHYTHMON” which is NOT EXACTLY the rhythmos opf compostion, but the RHYTHMOS of the ACCENTS and the way the melody FLOWS… this is learnt by TRADITION: making the WRONG anisochronous attributions can be as detrimental as ACHRONOS drunken sailor singing, and even as invertebrate as sissy-singing (“pseudo vivid”, “counterfeit vividness”).

In the case of psaltic COMPOSITONS, we have COMBINED rhythms which are NOT always made of the same combinations, contrary to DANCE music (same “combined rhythm throughout).

The question pertaining to the so-called “kata rhythmon” PERFORMANCE is as follows: does the special, non-identical RHYTHM that arises from this type of chanting constitute some sort of “combined” =”syneptigmenos” rhythm (which has NOTHING to do with the complex rhythms of COMPOSITION)? If so, should we distinguish it from the DANCING syneptigmenos, where the rhythmic components that are repeated are almost always identical?

All in all, we have “syneptigmenos of composition AND interpretation” in traditional dancing music, whereas we may have a“syneptigmenos” or “combined” rhythmos of composition in psaltiki which is DIFFERENT from the “syneptigmenos” that is a result of special chronos counting”, and which can be annotated precisely by a computer.

Now, if Simonokaraïtes want to treat any set of neumes in either “Dioum-Tek”, or occidental music’s variable intensity manner, then this in no way demeanours the word syneptigmenos, but rather, their school and its “delabrate pseudo-synteptigmenos” interpretation of words and neumes and their overall PSEUDOtraditional conception and itnerpretaton of chronos.

On the other hand, if Neratzites feel that there is no “complex rhythmos” in COMPOSITION, as well as “no syneptigmenos” in PRACTICE (the two are NOT to be equated), but then they can go on to sing by “inspiration as per “rhythmic” possession with absolutely no “cheirokinesis”, then psaltiki is in for some real “hard times”… ACHRONOUS times…

Εἶναι φανερὸ ὅτι ἡ θεωρία αὔτη εἶναι αὐτὴ τῆς Εὐρωπαϊκῆς μουσικῆς «τῶν Εὐρωπαίων μουσικῶν» (τὴν ὁποῖαν ἀσφαλῶς κατείχε ὁ Χρύσανθος) μὲ ἁπλὴ παράθεση παραδειγμάτων ἀρχαίας ἑλληνικῆς μουσικῆς ὅταν μιλάει γιὰ μέτρημα ποδῶν (τὸ ὁποῖο τὸ ἀνέφερε καὶ στὸ (β) ).

It is evident that this theory emerges from Occidental music “ton Europaion mousikon” (which, of course, Chrysanthos knew quite well), with a simple contribution of examples emanating from ancient Hellenic music, when he describes the counting of podes (which he also mentioned in b).

δ. ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΝ Θ' - Περὶ Ῥυθμῶν, σ. 78:

Chapter 9 “Concerning rhythms”

«Οἱ δὲ Ὀθωμανοὶ ἔχουσι ῥυθμοὺς τριάκοντα δύο σχεδὸν, ἀπὸ τοὺς ὁποίους παρακαταλέγομεν δώδεκα τοὺς ἀπλουστέρους καὶ εὐχρηστοτέρους. Μεταχειρίζονται δὲ καὶ ἕτερα δύο σημεῖα, τὰ 2, 1-. Καὶ τὸ μὲν 2 φανερόνει δύο χρόνους βραχεῖς, θέσιν καὶ ἄρσιν· τὸ δὲ 1-, χρόνους βραχεῖς τέσσαρας· καὶ τὸ μὲν 2 προφέρεται τεκὲ, καὶ κρούει πρῶτον τὸ γόνυ τὸ δεξιὸν, ἔπειτα τὸ ἀριστερόν. Τὸ δὲ 1- προφέρεται τεέκ, καὶ κρούει πρῶτον τῇ ἀριστερᾷ τὸ ἀριστερὸν γόνυ, καὶ ἔπειτα ἀμφοτέροις ἀμφότερα· ὥστε 2 2 δύνανται ἕν 1-· ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν 1- περαίνεται μὲ ἕνα ψόφον· τὰ δὲ δύο 2 2, μὲ τέσσαρας ψόφους».

“The Ottomans have about 32 rhythms, of which we select 12, the simplest and most commonly used.

They use, as well, two other symbols: 2 and 1-… The number 2 is made manifest by two short chronos, a thesis and an arsis. The number 1- corresponds to 3 short chronos........

Εἶναι σαφὲς ὅτι καὶ ἐδὼ ὀμιλεῖ ὁ Χρύσανθος περὶ τῆς ἐξωτερικῆς μουσικῆς, περὶ τῆς ὁποῖας -πρὸ τοῦ Χρυσάνθου- μίλησαν ὡς προαναφέραμε οἱ Παναγιώτης Χαλάτζογλου (Πρωτοψάλτης τῆς Μ.τ.Χ.Ε.), καὶ ὁ μαθητὴς του Κύριλλος Μαρμαρινός (Ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Τῆνου) [Popescu-Judetz & Sirli].

It is manifest that, in this case, Chrysanthos is dealing with “External” music, of which others before Chrysanthos, namely, as we mentionned before, Panayiotis Chalatzoglos (Protochanter of the Holy and Great Church of Christ) around the year 1720, and his student Kyrillos of Marmara (Archbishop of Tinos) around the year 1750 [Popescu-Judetz & Sirli].

[Popescu-Judetz & Sirli]

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Ἐγὼ λέω ὅτι ὁ Χουρμούζιος δὲν ἀναφέρει τίποτα περὶ καταμετρήσεως τοῦ χρόνου κατὰ ρυθμόν (εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ, δες π.χ. Μαργαζιώτη, σ. 27-28), ἐπειδὴ ἔγραψε Εἰσαγωγικὸ Θεωρητικό. Τὶ ἔχεις νὰ πεῖς περὶ τούτου;

I say that Chourmouzios does not refer in any manner to the so called “kata rhythmon” way of maintaining chronos (which is an occidental method, see Theory book by Ioannis Margaziotis, pg.27-28), simply because he wrote an Introductory Treatise. What have you to say about all this?

Ἀπάντησις:

Ἴσα-ἴσα, ἐπειδὴ εἶναι εἰσαγωγικὸ περιέχει τὰ εἰσαγωγικὰ τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικῆς. Καὶ ὁ ῥυθμός εἶναι τὸ κύριο εἰσαγωγικὸ στοιχεῖο κατὰ τὸν Μαργαζιώτη (σ. 26-27), καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς σημερινοὺς ᾠδειακοὺς διδασκάλους τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικῆς:

It is precisely because it is an introductory text that it contains only what is essential to psaltiki. In contrast, rhythm is a major introductory component according to Margaziotis (pg. 26-27) and the other contemporary conservatory teachers of psaltiki.

GKM: I don’t have the book with me, but learning about rhythm and combinations of rhythm is NOT bad. Learning NOT to count chronos because one might feel “possessed” with chronos, on the other hand, is VERY bad…

Margazioitis is SIMPLE and to the point. Go out and BUY his book… and listen to KATSOULIS doing haplos chronos… and forget you ever read any of all this Neratzochronos theory…

If one wishes to INDTRODUCE a student to the ABC of psaltiki, does one go about explaining THESIS to THESIS counting of MANY beats in some introductory text? No! Therefore, even if “kata rhythmos” exists, it’s so complicated to describe, that it’s best not to confuse people with descriptions, but, rather, to TRANSMIT this tradition using TRADITIONAL paedagogy…. (which includes telling the student that even CANONS are COUNTED….)

1. Ῥυθμός, 2. Παραλλαγή, 3. Μέλος!

Rhythm, Solfegio, Melody

Τὸ ὅτι ὄχι μόνο δὲν ὀμιλεῖ περὶ ρυθμοῦ ὁ Χουρμούζιος, ἀλλὰ οὔτε καὶ φυσικὰ γιὰ ἄλλην καταμέτρησιν τοῦ χρόνου πέραν τῆς προαναφερθεῖσης (σ. 51), δείχνει σαφέστατα ὅτι οἱ παλαιοὶ ἔψαλλαν μὲ ἀπλὴ καταμέτρηση τοῦ χρόνου (ὡς παραδέχθηκε ὅτι διδάχθηκε καὶ ὁ Κων/νος Ψάχος). Δηλ. γιὰ τοῦς παλαιούς:

That Chourmouzios does not even mention anything about rhythm or even, quite naturally, about anyother form of counting chronos, except for whatever was written in the aforementioned citation

GKM: In case the reader forgot the citation, here it is:

pg. 51:

(β'.) Καταμετρεῖται δὲ ὁ χρόνος μὲ τὸ νὰ κινῆται ἡ χεὶρ ἄνω καὶ κάτω, κρούουσα τὸ γόνυ. Λοιπόν ὁ καιρός, ὁποῦ ἐξοδεύεται ἀπὸ τὴν μίαν κροῦσιν ἕως τὴν ἄλλην λογαριάζεται ἕνας χρόνος.

“Chronos” is measured by an upward/downward motion of the hand, which hits upon the knee. The DURATION (TEMPORAL LENGTH) (“kairos”) of one hit (“striking of the knee”) to the NEXT is considered as one chronos

Where does one find the word HAPLOS, MONOSIMOS, ISOCHRONOS thesis and arsis, ONE chronos to a beat as only possibility and other such “eulalies”:

is clear enough proof that the ancient ones would chant using an haplos “simple” counting of chronos (a method admitted to having been taught by, that is, according to the ancient ones).

I say that Psachos was wise enough to note that there is more to chronos than just letting one’s “being possessed by haplos chonos” direct an “acheirochronos=non hand-guided chronos” canon.

The proof is that Tsolakidis was TAUGHT and that he in turn later on TAUGHT how to count anything from one chronos per beat (beat=undivided non-prolonged neume) to one chronos per MANY beats, with possibilities for ISOCHRONOUS as well ANISOCHRONOUS parts.

Boudouris mentions differences in CHRONOS counting.

Psachos did not learn everything in the Patriarcheion. As he calims, he learned MORE from his uncle who would chant by heart without knowledge than all the rest of his teachers:

Parasimantiki, intro, pg 15,

“Hypirxen di’eme o theios mou autos o protos kai monos daskalos tou hyphous kai tis ekteleseos, ama de kai akousios odigos mou is to zitima tis rhythmikis ekteleseos, choris na gnorizei o idios pos”.

“He was for me, this uncle of mine, my first and unique teacher of hyphos= “style” and interpretation, even though he was simultatneously and unconsientiously my guide as concerns the subject of rhythmic interpretation, even though he was not aware of it…

Psachos discovered what computer wave functions will prove: in live performances, regularity is to be found in GROUPS of beats, and not in “isochronous beats”.

Now, just because there are those who wish to VARY the INTESITIES of various beats, thus converting psaltiki to some PERCUSSION analog (even more complicated than that of demotic music), this does not mean that COMBINATION-AMALGAMATION of beats does not exist.

1. Χρόνος, 2. Παραλλαγή, 3. Μέλος.

Chronos, Solfegio (parallagi, pabougadisation) Melos

Δὲς παρόμοια καὶ στὴν Κρηπίδα τοῦ Θεόδωρου Φωκαέως, καὶ στὸ Θεωρητικὸ τοῦ Χρυσάνθου ἀποκλειστικὰ γιὰ τὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Μουσική (τοῦ 1821).

See similar examples in the “Kripis” of Theodoros from Phoka, as well as in Chrysanthos’ Treatise which deals exclusively with Ecclesiastical music (1821).

Μὴν ξεχνᾶμε -ἀναφερόμενοι στὸν Χρύσανθο- ὅτι δὲν ἦταν παρὰ ἕνας θεωρητικὸς τῆς Μουσικῆς (συμπεριλαμβανομένης τῆς Εὐρωπαϊκῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀραβοπερσικῆς), δὲς καὶ σ. 14, ὑποσ. 10, στὸ [Χουρμουζίου Χαρτοφύλακος, Εἰσαγωγή..., κριτικὴ ἔκδοση Ἐμμανουὴλ Στ. Γιαννόπουλου, Θεσσαλονίκη, 2002]. Καὶ αὐτὸς ἀκόμη ὁ Χρύσανθος προσυπογράφει ὡς «Διδάσκαλος τοῦ Θεωρητικοῦ τῆς Μουσικῆς».

Let us not forget, when referring to Chrysanthos, that he was nothing more than just a theoretician of music.

Then why mention all his manuscripts that were burnt in some fire…? He was probably also a composer or, at least, “exegetis” of “old to new system”. He was probably not an exceptional interpreter (or even teacher… who knows?). Nevertheless, Boudouris doesn’t chew his words in his criticism of Chrysanthos….

etc…..

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Ὑπάρχουν ἐπίσης ἄλλες ἀπόψεις Καταμετρήσεως τοῦ Χρόνου στὰ ὑπόλοιπα θεωρητικὰ ποὺ ἀνέφερες;

Are there other views in the remaining theory books you have referred to?

Ἀπάντησις:

[Θὰ ἀναφερθοῦμε στὴν ἐπόμενη ἔκδοση]

We’ll treat this subject in the next edition…

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Εἶναι δυνατὸν νὰ Ψάλλει κάποιος χωρὶς Χρόνο;

Is it possible for one to chant without chronos?

Ἀπάντησις:

1. Θεόδωρος Φωκαεύς, Κρηπίς (Θεσσαλονίκη 1912, ἀπὸ τὴν β' ἔκδοση τοῦ 1864. α' ἔκδοση 1842), σ. 29.

Οὐχὶ βέβαια· διότι ὅλα τὰ ὑποκείμενα τῆς Μουσικῆς καὶ πᾶν μέλος μὲ τὸ νὰ γίνωνται ὁμολογουμένως ἐν χρόνῳ, καὶ χωρὶς τοῦ χρόνου, ἐπειδὴ τίποτε δὲν συνίσταται, ἄρα ἡ ψυχὴ τῆς μουσικῆς εἶναι ὁ χρόνος.

GKM: what do you think… of course NOT!

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Τὶ σημαίνει, «μετροῦν τὸν χρόνο κατὰ τὸν ῥυθμό, τουτέστιν Εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ»;

What is meant by “they maintain chronos according to rhythmos, that is, in occidental manner”?

Ἀπάντησις:

1. Μετροῦν τὸν χρόνο, ἀνάλογα μὲ τὸν ἐκάστοτε «τονικὸ» ῥυθμὸ τοῦ μέλους (εἰσαγόμενη πρακτικὴ ἐκ τῆς Δύσεως):

They count chronos according to each “tonic” rhythm of the melos (a practice brought in from the West)…

GKM: Once again, we have a problem with vocabulary. Since when do modern Occidentals sing anything that is not REGULAR in rhythm, and, even more so, Regular in SIMPLE rhythm?

“Kata rhythmon” should be likened to RUBATO, which is a way of “stealing” bits and pieces of time here and there, to the detriment of regular, academic rhythm:

Merriam Webster: Etymology: Italian, literally, robbed

: a fluctuation of tempo within a musical phrase often against a rhythmically steady accompaniment

a flexible tempo; not strictly on the beat

Boudouris does a good job in describing this (THIS is a contemporary reference. Translated by D. Koubaroulis in analogion.com)

: "... in his [Chrysanthos] book and the rest that are based on it, a most important and significant chapter of our music is skipped, which is the issue of rhythm which pertains to Ecclesiastical chant.There is no well written book method edited for this exact purpose, the teaching of Eccl. music. All relevant musical knowledge is acquired by the practising the profession of the psalti. Whoever wants to learn the music has to go through all the melodies that are chanted in church with his teacher as well as the various mathemata of the services. That's why learning of the music is slow, and those psaltai that haven't put so much effort to learn all the series of mathemata are clearly behind the rest.According to the teaching of our theory books, those printed in the last 100 years onwards, musical melodies are executed by-beat "kata chronon", which todays' psaltai consider as "rhythm". Any melos executed by the definition that "each musical character lasts for one thesis and one arsis and that is one chronos", - does not produce any interesting acoustic impression. The by-beat ("kata chronon") execution of musical melos becomes tiring ("apovainei kourastikh"). Under such circumstances, psalmody misses out ("kathysterei") because it doesn't please, it doesn't entertain, it doesn't appeal to the congregation. However, I have noticed that psaltai are suffering confusion in this matter of music. They can't distinguish "chronos" from "rhythm". They confuse "rhythm" with "chronos" and they even identify those two different elements of melos. Due to that confusion, they sometimes chant by-beat and other times they chant by-rhythm. On the same topic, I have observed the following too. There is discrepancy between theory definitons and practice of music. From this contradiction, it is melos that misses out with respect to its interpretation. It was observed that when a musical piece is chanted not exactly, that is not keeping the exact durations of the characters as defined in theory, that melos sounds more pleasing with respect to its interpretation. And this means that for the interpretation of each type of Eccl. melody there will be -by necessity- special rules. But in which theoretical work should these rules be listed? Usually, Ecclesiastical psaltai keep one arsis and one thesis for each quantity character, extending the duration of musical lines and modifying the melodies. Due to that, they present the various chants, from the interpretational point of view, as if they have no musical value and being heavy ("varea") and tiring ("kourastika"). "

GKM: “not keeping the exact durations” one can either “rob” without restituting the “robbed time” to some other component, or one can rob form one place and compensate elsewhere. The second case is TRUE thesis to thesis englobing MANY measures. The first case is obtained by “robbing” pauses, without compensation, for instance… this would be detrimental to Greek dance… it is, however, very “down to earth” and prayful, when done correctly, eg. monk Dositheos (Metropolitis Eirinaieos exaggerates on this component, and Iakovos doesn’t “rob without compensation” in the recordings [listen to the koinonikon in “eleutheros chronos”])

even more from anologion.com

A. Boudouris,

1^st Domestichos of the Great Church  (Constantinople, mid 1900s)

[pdf, 200 Kb] (only the part about Disemos rhythm, rest pending)

Boudouris says that ecclesiastical pieces can be chanted both "by-beat" ("kata  xronon") and "by-rhythm" ("kata rhythmon"). He argues that although pieces can be chanted beat by beat (monosimos), however, the pieces are not properly executed until the experienced psalti adds the rhythmic element in the interpetation. That is to aggregate the beats ("xronous")  of the piece into groups ("podes") to form rhythms (as he says elsewhere in the definition of rhythm). He went on to say that the Patriarchal psaltai are exemplary for chanting by-rhythm and not by-beat.

GKM: What else do you want? Do you feel that “drunken sailor” chronos or Simokaraïtic pseudo- (=artificial) chronos has ANYTHING to do with, let’s say, Pringos’ “Makarios anir”? If you can count this using “Nerantzo-monosimos”, or if you call this “Occidental”, then psaltiki is in REAL trouble….

More on COMPOSITION USING (and NOT interpretation OF) Rhythmos.

K. Psaxos,

musicologist (Constantinople, early 1900s)

[pdf 682 Kb]

Along the same lines is Psaxos' essay (read to the audience of the Musical Association of Constantinople more than 100 years ago, can be  found on the analogion). Psaxos admits that was taught “Byzantine music using "by-beat" counting, however his whole essay is an argument  about why that was wrong and presents various examples to support "by-rhythm" chanting..

α. Ἰωάννου Δ. Μαργαζιώτη, Θεωρητικὸν Βυζαντινῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς (Ἀθῆναι, χωρὶς ἡμερομηνία), σ. 28.

Ὅταν τὸ μέτρον περιέχῃ δύο χρόνους [ΠΔΠ: ῥυθμὸς δίσημος] θὰ ἐκτελεσθῇ εἰς 2 κινήσεις [ΠΔΠ: ἡ ἀρχαῖα Παράδοσις, ὡς προαναφέραμε, μετρᾶ τὸ μέτρον δύο χρόνων σὲ 4 κινήσεις]. Ἡ πρώτη κίνησις διευθύνεται πρὸς τὰ κάτω καὶ ὀνομάζεται θέσις, ἡ δὲ δευτέρα πρὸς τὰ ἄνω καὶ ὀνομάζεται ἄρσις. Ἡ θέσις τονίζεται περισσότερον καὶ ὀνομάζεται ἰσχυρὸν μέρος τοῦ μέτρου. Ἡ ἄρσις τονίζεται ὀλιγότερον καὶ ὀνομάζεται ἀσθενὲς μέρος τοῦ μέτρου. [...]

β. Ὁ κ. Νεραντζῆς ἐπεξηγεῖ τὶς καταβολὲς αὐτῆς τῆς εἰσαγόμενης πρακτικῆς:

Neratzis explains the reverse effects of this imported practice.

The only thing IMPORTED in this case is THEORY and NO PRAXIS…. because when one learns according to PRAXIS, one does not have to THINK about theory… transmission and performance remain CONGRUENT and of high FIDELITY.

If traditional psaltis OTHER than contemporary superstars chant using “multi-beat thesis to thesis”, as was taught by Iakovos and as was witnessed by Boudouris and transmitted by Tsolakidis, I really don’t see the VALUE in Neratzis’ comments, especially when once compares his chanting to the TRULY traditional ones…..

Δημήτριος Ἐμμ. Νεραντζῆς, Συμβολή στὴν ἐρμηνεία τοῦ Ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ Μέλους (Ἠράκλειον Κρήτης 1997), σ. 191:

Dimitrios Emm. Nerantzis “Contribution to the interpretation of the Ecclesiastical Melos”, Herakleion, Crete, 1997 pg. 190

GKM: “Further contribution to the ongoing CONFUSION concerning the already allaxophotised interpretations of the Ecclesiastical melos”.

[...] Ἀπὸ τὴν ἀρχὴ τοῦ αἰώνα μας ἡ μουσική μας δανείστηκε ἀπὸ τὴν εὐρωπαϊκὴ τὸ γνωστὸ τρόπο ποὺ μετροῦμε τὸ 2σημο, 3σημο καὶ 4σημο ῥυθμό. Ὁ Ἰούλιος Ἔνιγγ στὸ "ἐγχειρίδιο φωνητικῆς εὐρωπαϊκῆς μουσικῆς" στὸ κεφάλ. "περὶ ῥυθμοῦ" (σελ. 10-14) γράφει ότι:

Ever since the beginning of the 20^th century, our music has borrowed from the occidental music the well-known 2, 3 and 4 beast to a bar method of counting rhythm. J. Henig(?), in his “manual of occidental vocal music”,writes in the chapter concerning “rhythm (pgs. 10 to 14):

«Ὁ δίμετρος ῥυθμὸς ἔχει θέσιν καὶ ἄρσιν. Ἕν ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἕν ἀσθενὲς πάθος. Ὁ τρίμετρος ἔχει θέσιν, ἠμίαρσιν καὶ ἄρσιν. Ἕν ἰσχυρόν, ἕν ἀσθενές καὶ ἕν ἀσθενέστατον. Ὁ τετράμετρος ἔχει θέσιν, ἠμίαρσιν, δευτέραν ἠμίαρσιν καὶ ἄρσιν. Ἕν ἰσχυρὸν πάθος, ἕν ἀσθενές, ἕν ημιϊσχυρόν καὶ ἕν ἀσθενέστατον».

“The 2 beats to a bar rhythm has a thesis and an arsis, that is, intense and a weak components. The 3 beats to a bar rhythm has a thesis, hemi-arsis and arsis, that is, intense, weak and most weak components. The four beats to a bar rhythm has a thesis, a hemi-arsis, another hemi-arsis and an arsis that is, intense, weak, semi-intense and most weak components.

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Μερικοὶ Ψάλτες ποὺ μετροῦν τὸν χρόνο Εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ, κρατάνε την φωνή τους περισσότερο στὴν θέση. Τὶ σχόλια ἔχετε περὶ τούτου;

Anisochronous psalmody

GKM: Finally, we hear the root word “PSALM” in all this theoretical chaos.

Some psaltis counting according to occidental methods maintain the duration of thesis quite longer. What are your comments on this?

Ἀπάντησις:

1. Δημήτριος Ἐμμ. Νεραντζῆς, Συμβολή στὴν ἐρμηνεία τοῦ Ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ Μέλους (Ἠράκλειον Κρήτης 1997), σ. 192:

Answer: Dimitrios Emm. Nerantzis “Contribution to the interpretation of the Ecclesiastical Melos”, Herakleion, Crete, 1997 pg. 192

GKM: “Further contribution to the ongoing CONFUSION concerning the already allaxophotised interpretations of the Ecclesiastical melos”.

Who’s going to answer this? The student of the one the most pathetic “thesis dragger ever” = Panayiotides (he doesn’t do so all the time, but almost all of the time)!....
Anyhow, let’s read on:

Compare for yourself:

What is the “chronos”, if any, in this piece, interpreted by Nerantzis?

papadic piece (Konstantinos' cheroubikon)

(http://www.analogion.com/Nerantzis-Cheroubikon-Agia-live.mp3)

Now, listen to his teacher, Athanasios Panayiotides, in one of the rare recordings where he doesn’t « drag » the chronos, in the typical Thessalonicean « drunken sailor » style . You’ll probably agree that the melos is « fluid » (of course, he most probably learnt it from Iakovos Nafpliotis as such, because it really resembles what Pringos and Tsolakidis do… and not at all what Stanitsas does) :

(http://www.ieropsaltis.com/music/TheotokeParthene_APous_AthPan.ra)

What is the way of counting chronos, in the above audio sample ? In other word, what does one chronos = one turn of th hand = one thesis to thesis duration include :

a) one undivided/unprolonged neume of the composition (« haplos monosimos »,

b) two undivided/unprolonged neumes of the compostion « « haplos »,

or c) many neumes (textual (and not compositionl) « kata rhythmon », , « syneptigmenos » (according to a particular definition -see other analogion.com pages)?

Finally, listen also to the te-rirem. Does he keep a constant rhythm (trisimos = waltz) or does he flunctuate (like Pringos)? Interpreting it like Pringos is very difficult. But that is exaclty what distinguishes modern Athonite constant chronos unit waltzes from Patriarchal tradition of variable chronos unit duration in kratemas.

Οἱ χτύποι στὸ μονὸ χρόνο εἶναι ἰσόχρονοι ἀντίθετα μὲ τὶς κινήσεις τῆς Εὐρωπαϊκῆς Μουσικῆς, ὅπου εἶναι ἀδύνατο νὰ πετύχεις παλμὸ λόγῳ τῆς ἰσχυρῆς θέσης καὶ τῆς ἀσθενοῦς ἄρσης.

The “chtypos”=”strikings” of “monos” chronos are all isochronous as opposed to occidental music, where it is impossible to obtain impulse (or impetus), given that there is an intense thesis and a weak arsis.

GKM: Nerantzis supports that each BEAT should be counted with ONE cycle, called CHRONOS, where the thesis and arsis are BOTH constituents of this very beat, thus giving EVERY beat a certain impulse, which, according to him, is not the case in “occidental music, where the beats are differentiated in terms of intensity according to their position in a given measure (meter).

Now, if Neratzis and Panayiotides are to be compared to Proussalis and Monk Dositheos, don’t you think that the first two DRAG on thesis MUCH more than the latter two?

Just run them all through the computer….

Dragging on thesis is NOT an OCCIDENTAL pathology… it is DRUNKEN sailor pathology, done by those who have NOT learned according to tradition… and this includes most of Thessalonike “archons” and “para-archons”.

2. Εὐθυμιάδης (Θεσσαλονίκη 1997), σ. 20.

Euthymiades Tthessaloniki, 1997, pg. 20)

Σὲ μιὰ μελωδία ὅλοι οἱ χρόνοι της πρέπει νὰ εἶναι ἀπολύτως ἴσης διαρκείας μεταξύ των.

In a given melody, all of its constitutive chronos should be of absolute equal duration…

GKM: This comment does not seem to be limited to “one beat per chronos”. It can just as well apply to “many beats per chronos, in which case, the ENTIRE chronos, that is, the entire ELLIPSE shoud be of a given duration. Again, this citation provides NOTHING in favour of PERPETUAL “Neratzo-monosimos” chronos…

In spite of his descriptions of “thesis duration equals arsis duration”, Euthymiades is excellent in his chanting of “kata rhythmon” (Patriarchal definition) in the few recordings I have heard.

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Ποιὸς εἰσήγαγε τὸ «εὐρωπαϊκῷ τῷ τρόπῳ» μέτρημα τοῦ χρόνου στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Βυζαντινὴ Μουσική;

Who introduced the “occidental method” of maintaining chronos in Psaltiki?

Ἀπάντησις:

[Θὰ ἀναφερθοῦμε στὴν ἐπόμενη ἔκδοση]

“Next edition”.

GKM: The TRUE question should be: who has made all the psaltis spend MORE time READING about theory as opposed to LISTENING TO and trying to REPRODUCE TRADITIONAL psaltiki?

*     *     *

Ἐρώτησις: Ὑπάρχει Ρυθμός καὶ Συνεπτυγμένος Ρυθμὸς (ἐκ Παραδόσεως) στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική Βυζαντινή Μουσική;

Is there (anything such as) “rhythm” (or) “syneptigmenos rhythmos” (traditional) in Psaltiki?

Ἀπάντησις:

1. Παναγιώτης Γ. Πελοπίδας (μαθητὴς τῶν Τριῶν Διδασκάλων, καὶ ἐκδότης τοῦ Μεγ. Θεωρητικοῦ τοῦ Χρυσάνθου.

Panayiotis G. PELOPIDIS (why as “A”?), student of the Three Teachers, and editor of the Great Treatise of Chrysantos

Ἀπευθυνόμενος στοὺς συναδέλφους Ἱεροψάλτες τῆς ἐποχῆς του, παρουσιάζοντας τὸ Μέγα Θεωρητικὸ τοῦ Χρυσάνθου, λέγει :

Addressing his associate hierochanters during his time, he introduces the Great treatise of Chrysanthos, stating:

«Μάθετε εἰς τὸ ἐξῆς τὶ εἶναι Ῥυθμὸς, τὶ εἶναι Ποὺς καὶ Μέτρον [...],

“Learn the following: what is Rhythmos, what is “Pous” and what is “Meter” = measure

GKM: and, of course, we have suspension periods…. because the omitted line has to do with “rhythmiki emphasis” and “melopoiïa=composition”, not interpretation (see for yourself)

(http://music.analogion.net/0ewrhtika_palaia/Xrusan0os-1832-p_eta-KatametrhsisXronou.jpg)

καὶ μὴν ἀπορεῖτε πλέον εἰς τὴν σημασίαν τῶν τοιούτων λέξεων».

and speculate no further on the meaning of such words”

GKM: “καὶ μὴν ἀπορεῖτε πλέον εἰς τὴν σημασίαν τῶν τοιούτων λέξεων” = “and speculate no further on the meaning of such words” includes “melopoiïa” that is composition. PelopidIs is underlining the importance of “Rhythmic emphasis” and give the ultimate proof that it is to be associated with composition (and not with interpretation). If one read on, one easily understands that he is asking psaltis to not content themselves sith the simple “reading” of scores, but to push their competence beyond, to that the of compositon. He is asking them to learn how to compose using scientific methos “epistimonikotaton”. Later on, Chrysanthos tells us in the “compostion” section, that one must “copy and copy, and compose using “existing lines”. All this has to do with melodic-tonic sequence formular corespondances. Nevertheless, even a formular dictionary is not sufficient. Because, even though I’ve seen recent compostions-adaptations in English using classical forluale, they are rhtymically unbalanced… where the original Greek score brings “rhythm” back to its coherent “multiple of four” structure in sticheraric, for instance, the English adaptation “skips measures. In other words, composition requires knowledge not only of scolar reading of scores, and scientific ordering of melodic formulae, but also scientific combination of such formulae using “rhythmic emphasis”.

Καὶ παρακάτω ἐμμέσως πλὴν σαφῶς δίνει τὸν ὀρισμὸν τοῦ τέλειου Ψάλτου (οὔτε λόγος περὶ Ρυθμῶν καὶ συναφῶν):

Immediately below, he gives the definition of the perfect psaltis (without any mention whatsoever concerning “Rhythmos” and “synaphe” = “joining, entwining”)

«Πολλοὶ ἐκ τῶν Μουσικῶν μας (σημ. Ἱεροψαλτῶν),

Many or our musciains (PDP: meaning psaltis)

ἐπειδὴ ἔφθασαν νὰ γένωσιν ἐγκρατεῖς

given that they have reached a level of competence

τῆς ἀκριβοῦς τοῦ Χρόνου Καταμετρήσεως,

in the exact counting of chronos

καὶ τῆς γνώσεως παντὸς Φθορᾶς διαστήματος,

as well that as in the knowledge of all fthoric (GKM: modulating) intervals

(τὸ ὁποῖον εἶναι τῷ ὄντι ἀξιέπαινον εἰς ἕκαστον Μουσικὸν,

(which is truly worthy of congratulation for each musician

ὅταν φθάσῃ νὰ γίνῃ ἐγκρατὴς τῶν δύο)

who will attain competence in both these fields)

νομίζουν ὅτι εἶναι καὶ τέλειοι Μουσικοί»

they feel that they are perfect musicians as well

GKM: What else do you need? Given that that the “musicians” have learned their “music” and “schola” way of counting “beats”, they think that they know “everything” about psaltiki (that they are “musicians”, which is not exactly psaltis -contrarily to the equation made by PDP above- according to what Pelodpidis has written). Pelopidis is inciting people to become scientific composers of psaltiki, and to not produce any haphazardous melody that may be the fruit of their imagination. He writes that the manual gives the methods by which to attain such competence of correct tradition transmission in compostion.

I have known at least three great “modern” composers of psaltiki: Matthaios Andreou (+2002), my uncle Nicolaos Xerodemas (+1987) and Elie Khoury. Their common point is “abbreviation of melodic formulae” so as to “get to the essence” of a melody, without “dragging on”. The most scientific was MA. “where do your abbreviations come form, your imagination?” “No, they are thinks I have hears, but that have not been written out. Yet, it’s very hard to find a “balanced” combination so as to obtained a “balanced syndmesis = abbreviation” of a mathima”. “Copy, copy, copy” the classics so as to learn “melopoiïa”. And, of course “parallagi, parallagi, parallag, so that you always know what note you’re chanting”. My uncle NX told me the exact same things. Therefore, abbreviated and extensive formulae are the simple result of variations in rhythmiki emphasis as applied to palaeography, some already put on paper, others still out there “in the air” (o/aurl tradition), and one must copy a lot of compositions before getting an idea of how to “balance” combinations of classical formulae.

2. Κωνσταντῖνος Ψάχος, στὸν λόγο του περὶ ρυθμοῦ στὰ 1899:

Constantinos SPachos, in his speech regarding rhythmos in 1899

«Γνωρίζω ὅτι πολλοὶ συνάδελφοί μου

I know that many of my colleageus

θὰ ἐκπλαγῶσιν ἀκούοντες ρυθμοὺς εἰς τὰ μέλη τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὐμῶν,

will be surpised to hear rhtyms in our ecclesiastical melodies

νομίζοντες ὅτι

given that they (most likely) are of the opinion that

ταῦτα ψάλλονται δι' ἁπλῆς καὶ μόνης καταμετρήσεως τοῦ χρόνου.

these are chanted by the “haplos” = simple and only (“monos here =uniquely that) manner of counting chronos

Καὶ ἐγὼ αὐτός -τὸ ὀμολογῶ- οὑτωσὶν ἐδιδάχθην

It thus that –and I admit to it – I have been taught

καὶ οὔτως ἐπίστευον ἐπὶ πολὺν καιρόν,

and it is thus that I believed so myself for a long time

ὅτι τὰ μέλη ἡμῶν ψάλλονται διὰ κρούσεως

that the melodies are chanted by “strikes” = “krousis”

πάντων ἀνεξαιρέτως τῶν χρόνων,

of “pandon” “all the chronos

ἄνευ διακρίσεως δυνατοῦ καὶ ἀδυνάτου»

without distinction whatsoever of “strong” = “intense” and weak

GKM: in the articles that follow, PDP and I agree on a certain number of elements. However, given the different uses of the term “kata rhythmon” (compositon vs. interpretation), his rejecton of this term is unfounded, at least according to the definitions I am propostion, according to oral tradition. “Katra rhythmon” of interpretation is base on the accents of words. Furthermore, even terirem has interpretational accents: the accents are on “Te” and “Re” most of the time, and less so on the “ri” (it gets a bit of intensity when is in repetitive

form).

3. Ἀπόστολος Λ. Βαλληνδρᾶς στὸν πρόλογο τοῦ Ἀναστασιματαρίου ἐκδ. «ΖΩΗ»:

«Διὰ τοὺς μὴ ἐθισμένους (sic) εἰς τὴν χρῆσιν τοῦ τονικοῦ ρυθμοῦ»

(http://music.analogion.net/Theory/ru0mos_tonikos_ejelijh.html)

GKM: in the above link, PDP is comparing Petros Ephesios’ versions to the 1869 Epitropi, well before the 1900’s coferences of C. Psachos. Although many modern psaltis and composers consider the Ephesios writings as paratonic (that is, they feel that the accent of the music is on the oligon going upwards in pitch, which is in contrast to the unaccentuated syllable), especially when it has a psiphisma below, they will probably enoy better the “epitropi” version. Then again, they find “paratonismos” in the epitropi as well, and today we have anastasimatarions going in all sorts fo directions.

The two schools of thought may be classified as follows

a) PDP, according to my extrapolation: =”psaltiki is full of paratonismos” and since there is no change of intensity, we shouldn’t be surprised. That is, “compositional” “paratonismos” becomes an argument for not distinguishing any intensity whatsoever.

b) “orthotonismo” reformers of Zoe take what is written litteraly. They apply “one chronos = one measure of 2 beats”. The Ephesios line becomes “paratonic” to their ears (a supposed musical accent is on arsis, above a non-acentuated syllable), and they must adjust it (as they have adjested lines in “Vespers = Makarios anir”, for instance).

PDP is equating the “orthotonismo” reform of Zoe to that of the 1869 “epitropi”.

The “changes”, however, are not similar. The 1869 epitropi of Mousike Bibliotheke “standardises” a “formula”, knowing that most psaltis still NOT do what is required at that line = CHANGE of the constant unit of chronos, that will make the oligon = parestigmenon, the overall effect being beautiful way to give “landing” explosion on the accentuated syllable that follows.

Just so that you won’t make the same mistake of equating the “formular simplicity” of the Epitropi to that of the “orhtotonismomania” of Zoe, I invite you to look at Petros of Ephesios’ antologi, page 264 “Anasta, Kyrie, boethison imin”. He makes use of the SAME written formula as does the epitropi in 1869 = ison, ison apostrophos instead of oligon apostrophos, apostrophos (accentuated syllable in bold pring). He even enchains by repeating the very same formula, written differently from the other two: oligon, [apostrophos, oligon stirigma, psiphiston] apostrophos.

The only way to chant the Petros from Ephesos and Chourmouzios versions of the left column correctly, is to use “many beats to chronos” counting (or “syneptigmenos” according to its interpretative definition, which has nothing to do with its compositional definition).

4. Ἀγαθάγγελος Κυριαζίδης (ἀπὸ τοὺς πλέον εἰδήμονες στους ρυθμοὺς καὶ τὰ συναφῆ) [«Ὁ Ρυθμογράφος», σ. 26]:

Agathangelos Kyriazides (PDP: one of the most (reputed) specialist as concerns rhythmos and “joining” =”entwining” = composition”

GKM: after one looks at some of his super-fthorised/allaxophotised Megalynarion for Pascha, one will have rethink the above statement.

«Τὰ πλεῖστα δὲ ᾄσματα τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς εἰσιν ἄρρυθμα ἔχοντα ἁπλῶς μόνον χρόνον».

Most of the chants of “EBM=psaltiki” are arrhythmic, for they simply have “simple chronos”.

All of a sudden, we hear about “rhythmos” and “chronos” all in one.

In the scanned page, Agathangelos even considers “Arabic”music as “arrhtymos”!!!

Read the citation below. You’ll understand that “rhtyhmos” as used by the above author has to do with the symmetry of combination of measures, and not with the fact that there is no rhythmos whatsoever in music as rhythmically complex as “Arabic” = Oriental music.

from

(http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-10-20.html)

In Chapter Four Gibson turns to the fragments of Aristoxenus's Rhythmics. Here too Aristoxenus attempted to organize his theory axiomatically. He makes a separation between rhythmics and metrics, between rhythm in the abstract and as it is embodied in the rhythmizomena. He again rejects earlier views which based rhythm on the syllable or analyzed it by feet, and posits instead a prôtos chronos, a least unit of time, which, however, can be of any length according to the tempo. By this provision he gets around the objection he himself leveled at the harmonikoi who tried to compose intervals out of dieses whose size was rigidly fixed at the minimum of perceptibility by hearing. Feet are constructed out of khronoi, both asynthetoi, incomposite, or synthetoi, composite, in certain ratios which are perceived as rhythmical, other ratios not being so perceived. Gibson clearly demonstrates the Rhythmics' methodological kinship with the Harmonics.

But why not quote the rest of Agathangelos’ text, where he refers to “rhythmos kation” and “rhythmos anion”, where the latter, equated to occidental music’s “syncope”, is rare in psaltiki. He gives examples of this. One is that of “Cherson abysotokon” argon, and I give you line: “thearestos mElpondi”, where the line is written as “(ison+ kendimata on stirigma oligon) followed by (ison+ kendimata on stirigma oligon). The “syncope” is “kendimata followed by ison”, where one one could be tempted to compose “ison + klasma followed by oligon and kendimata, which would get rid of the syncope). The only way to get this done correctly is, if fact to count each group separately, and to give some energy to the second ison on oligon (the “syncope” ison), that is more energy than to any of the kendimata. In no way does this prove that there is only “monosimos chronos” way of counting. To the contrary, it proves that we must have some “special way” of doing things so as to interpret the “syncope” = “rhythmos anion” correctly… just what, then, I ask, is the “special” way of counting?

If one is to admit to “monosimos chornos” only, the question the is, where is the syncope Agathangelos mentions as being in the “first line of the second stichos of Theotoke Parthene” (that is, where is the syncope in “Chaire”)? If you find it, please let me know how you have distributed your chronos…

what does one chronos = one turn of the hand = one thesis to thesis duration include :

a) one undivided/unprolonged neume of the composition (« haplos monosimos »,

b) two undivided/unprolonged neumes of the compostion « « haplos »,

or c) many neumes (textual (and not compositionl) « kata rhythmon », , « syneptigmenos » (according to a particular definition -see other analogion.com pages)?

5. Δημήτριος Ἰωαννίδης (Δομέστικος ἐπὶ σειρὰ ἐτῶν τοῦ Ἄρχοντα Πρωτοψάλτη τῆς Μ.τ.Χ.Ε. Θρασυβούλου Στανίτσα) καὶ Ἄρχοντας Πρωτοψάλτης τῆς Ἀρχιεπ. Κων/πόλεως, [«Ἡ Θεωρία τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικῆς...», σ. 123]

Dimitrios Ioannides (Domestichos for many consecutive years of Archon Protopsaltis of the Holy, Great Church of Christ, thrasyboulos Stanitsas) and current Archon Protopsaltis of the Aechdiocese of Constantinople (in « Treatis of « Byzantine Music »…, pg. 123

«Τὰ συστατικὰ τοῦ ρυθμοῦ εἶναι οἱ χρόνοι, τὰ μέτρα (πόδες) καὶ ἡ ρυθμικὴ ἀγωγή. Αὐτὰ ὅλα βέβαια καὶ ἐδὼ ζητοῦμε συγγνώμη ἐὰν γινόμαστε κουραστικοί, ἰσχύουν ΜΟΝΟ γιὰ τὴν κοσμικὴ μουσικὴ καὶ ὄχι γιὰ τὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική. Ἐδὼ ἀναφέρονται, γιατὶ βάσει αὐτῶν τραγουδᾶμε τὰ δημοτικά μας τραγούδια, μὲ τὴν ἴδια πάντα βεβαίως μουσική. Τὴ Βυζαντινή. Στὸν Ἐκκλησιαστικὸ ὅμως χώρο καὶ τὸ ξαναλέμε γιὰ ἄλλη μιὰ φορά, ΔΕΝ ὑπάρχουν ρυθμοί, πόδια καὶ ρυθμικὲς ἀγωγές. Ὑπάρχει μόνο θέσις-ἄρσις (1 χρόνος) γιὰ κάθε χαρακτῆρα ποσότητος. Τὸ ἂν χρησιμοποιοῦμε τὸν δίσημο, τὸ κάνουμε μόνο καὶ μόνο, γιὰ νὰ μὴ χτυπᾶμε τὸ χέρι μας (κρατῶντας τὸ χρόνο) πολὺ γρήγορα σὰν ταμπούρλο, ὅταν ψάλλουμε σύντομα μαθήματα. Δανειστήκαμε λοιπὸν τὸν δίσημο καὶ κατ' ἀνάγκη τὸν τρίσημο ἀπὸ τὴν κοσμικὴ μουσική, γιὰ νὰ ἐξυπηρετήσουμε τὶς ἀνάγκες τῆς Θείας Λατρείας μας καὶ ὄχι γιὰ νὰ μπασταρδέψουμε τὴ Μουσική μας».

The components of rhythmos are the chronos (in plural), the meter (in plural) and tempo (rhythmiki agogi). Of course, all these things –and we beg forgiveness if we are become tiresome- are in use ONLY in popular (secular) musci and not in Ecclesiastical music. They are cited here because we sin gour folk (demotic) songs according to these components using the same musci, of course: Byzantine music. Yet, within the Ecclesiastical domain, and we repeat it once again, there are NO rhythms, « feet » and tempos « rhythmiki agogi ». There is, (however), only thesis and arsis (one chornos) for character of duration (charaktera posostitos). If we ever do use « disimos », we do so uniquely so as not to strike our hand (in keeping/counting chrons) very quickly, like a « tambourlo », when chanting « fast » lessons (hymns). We have therefore borrowed disimos, and by necessity, trisimos (as well) from secular music, so as cater to the needs of our Divine Worship, and not so as to « bastardise » our music.

GKM : it becomes interesting when one has to figure out who has « bastardised » what, and in which way. The overall debate is, as usual, « resolution » or « accuracy » of information. How much information can a written score give without any o/aural traditon? When one « reads » about « kata rhythmon », just what can one « restitute » in one’s interpretation without having heard or learnt properly? I’ll get to back all his in the end : the Simonokarïtic exaggerations of « textual » interpretations have led the « patriarchals (mero-patriarchals and pseudo-patriarchals, according to me) to hide behind words which a wave function analysis easily proves that they « sing nothing of what they preach ». They all know they should be doing syneptigmenos, and, when they decide to do so, they either do it « literally » like the Simonokaraïtes, or « by inspiration », which leads to drunken sailor singing. Whatever the case, the « teacher » above admits that he cannot count everything by using just one type of chronos. If he doesn’t admit to « tempo », then he should read his « teacher’s » = Stanitsas’ Triodion, which gives an idea of « appropriate tempo » (which still way off from Iakovos’ ) in an appendix, and he should also read Boudouris who mentions how students would learn using a mechanical metronomos (he even gives the brand name…).

Now, could it be that the Patriachal psaltis of the past chanted « monosimos », that somehow « syneptigmenos » came to use, only to be abolished once again (given that it does not exist according to Ioannides, and that Patriarchal chanters were to be distinguished for their « kata rhythmon counting » according to Boudouris) ? The answer is « no ». Just pass their recordings through your computers, and you’ll find out that they chant anything but monosimos when they sing in church (once in a blue moon, this non-monosimos is true « kata rhythmon »… the rest of the time, it is simpe achronos, drunken sailor singing).

6. Θρασύβουλος Στανίτσας (ἀπὸ συνέντευξη, Φεβρ. 1987 - Χρήστος Ἀ. Τσιούνης):

Thrasyboulos Stanitsas (from an interview, Feb. 1987, Christos A. TSIOUNIS)

«ποὺ τὸν βρήκανε τὸν συνεπτυγμένο;

σὲ ποιὸ θεωρητικὸ γράφει περὶ συνεπτυγμένου; σὲ κανένα.

“where did they find “syneptigmenos” ? In which treatise / theory book does one read a nything about “syneptigmenos”? In none whatsoever.”

GKM: they probably didn’t have the CORRECT terms to describe a phenomenon that ONLY a FEW psaltis can achieve. One might call it “RUBATO”, or “special way of counting chronos” or whatever. In psaltiki, it may be at times equated to “kata rhythmon”. Instead of “shooting down” syneptigmenos, we must try to come up with definitions that will differentiate PSALTIC PERFORMANCE combinations of measures as opposed to Psaltic COMPOSITION and DEMOTIC danse use of syneptigmenos of which the latter, in some cases, may even make use of a double-pitched percussion, which, in turn, is, of course, is of NO use in church.

DON’T MAKE FUN of syneptigmenos… The computer will prove its existence in PERFORMANCE, despite the fact that it need not be explicitely annotated in the PRESENTATION of psaltic scores.

σὲ ποιὸ θεωρητικὸ γράφει περὶ συνεπτυγμένου; σὲ κανένα.

“ In which treatise / theory book does one read a nything about “syneptigmenos”? In none whatsoever.”

in which treatise / theory book does one read about syneptigmenos? Nowhere!

Boudouris wrote about “kata rhythmon”… that’s good enough for me, because I DO NOT confuse syneptigmenos of psaltiki (which is the RESULT of special chronos chopunting) with syneptigmenos of demotic dance (the REGULAR, structural BASIS of a dance melody)

“αὐτὸ εἶναι εὐρωπαϊκῆς φύσεως... κατασκεύασμα. τὶ μᾶς ἐνδιαφέρει ἐμᾶς;».

“This is a… creation of occidental nature… in what does it concern us?”

[Σημ. Ὁ Ἄρχοντας προφανῶς δὲν ἐγνώριζε τὸ θεωρητικὸν τοῦ Μαργαζιώτη, ποὺ γαλούχησε γενεὲς Ἱεροψαλτῶν...]

[Note: The Archon probably was not aware of the theory book by Margaziotis, which fed generations of psaltis]

GKM… Thank God Margaziotis left Katsoulis behind, to teach as TRUE simple chronos… LEBENDIA - and NO acrobatics…

At some other point, of course, Stanitsas admitted that it’s syneptigmenos he chanted, because it was “inside” the psaltis. The truth is, it’s not a matter of “inside”, but that of pure tradition, which most are trying to reject in a frenzy of “textual” analysis in preference over o/aural tradition, in their effort to counter schools that have no o/aural tradition whatsoever

2. Χρύσανθος (Θεωρητικόν Μέγα τῆς Μουσικῆς,  ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΟΝ Η' - Περὶ Μέτρων, σ. 72, 73):

Chrysanthos, “Great Treatise of Music”, completed 1816 version, edited in 1832,chapter 8, “About Meters”, pg. 72 to 73

«Εἶναι προσέτι καὶ ἄλλα μέτρα εἰς τὴν χρῆσιν τῶν Εὐρωπαίων μουσικῶν,

There are other meters, as well, that are used by Occidental musicians,

τὰ ὁποῖα ὀνομάζονται Σύνθετα

that are called “synthetos” = combined…

[σημ. τὰ εὐρωπαϊκὰ σύνθετα μέτρα ἀντιστοιχοῦν στὸν συνεπτυγμένο ῥυθμό, Μαργαζιώτης σ. 62]·

(note: according to Margaziotis, the occidental “combined measures” correspond to the “syneptigmenos rhythmos”, Margaziotis pg. 62)

ταῦτα ἐπειδὴ ἀχρηστοῦσι παρ' ἡμῖν, σιωπῶνται».

Because these measures are useless to us (psaltis), they are put to silence”.

*     *     *

Ἀναφορές

References

1.      Χρυσάνθου Ἀρχιεπ. Διρραχίου τοῦ ἐκ Μαδύτων, Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ Θεωρητικὸν καὶ Πρακτικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, 1821.

Chrysanthos, Archbishop of Dirrachion, from Madytos, “Introduction to the Theoretical and Practical [aspects] of Ecclesiastical Music, 1821)

2.      Χρυσάνθου Ἀρχιεπ. Διρραχίου τοῦ ἐκ Μαδύτων, Θεωρητικὸν Μέγα τῆς Μουσικῆς, Τεργέστη 1832 (ἀνατύπ. ἐκδ. Κουλτούρα) - ὁ Πελοπίδας ποὺ ἀνέλαβε τὴν ἐκτύπωση τοῦ Μεγάλου Θεωρητικοῦ ἀναφέρει ὅτι τὸ ἔλαβε πρὸ δώδεκα ἐτῶν· ὁ κ. Ἐμμανουὴλ Στ. Γιαννόπουλος ἀναφέρει ὅτι τὸ θεωρητικὸν αὐτὸ φαίνεται νὰ ἦταν ἔτοιμο λίγο πρὶν τὸ 1816.

Chrysanthos, Archbishop of Dirrachion, from Madytos, “Great Treatise of Music”, version completed in 1816, edited in 1832

3.      Χουρμουζίου Χαρτοφύλακος, Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ Θεωρητικὸν καὶ πρακτικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς (1829), κριτικὴ ἔκδοση Ἐμμανουὴλ Στ. Γιαννόπουλου, Θεσσαλονίκη, 2002.

Chourmouzios,(Introduction to the Theoretical and Practical [aspects] of Ecclesiastical Music, 1829)

4.      Θεοδώρου Φωκαέως, Κρηπίς τοῦ Θεωρητικοῦ καὶ Πρακτικοῦ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς πρὸς χρῆσιν τῶν σπουδαζόντων αὐτήν, ἐκδ. Θεσσαλονίκη 1912 (ἀπὸ τὴν β' ἔκδοση τοῦ 1864. α' ἔκδοση 1842), ἀνατύπ. Ἀθῆνα 2005, Ὄμιλος Ἑλληνικῶν Τεχνῶν.

Theodoros from Phoka, “Kripis =”shoe, piedestal” meaning the BASICS, the FUNDAMENTALS”, Thessaloniki, 1912, re-editon of the 2^nd edition of 1864, the first edition being that of 1842

5. Ἀγαθαγγέλου Κυριαζίδου, Ὁ Ρυθμογράφος ἤτοι ὁ Χρόνος, τὸ Μέτρον καὶ ὁ Ρυθμός ἐν τῇ Καθόλου Μουσικῇ καὶ τῇ Ποιητικῇ μετὰ Παραρτήματος Ἀσματικοῦ, Κωνσταντινούπολις 1909.

Agathangelos Kyriazidis “The Rhythmographos that is, the Chronos, Meter and Rhythm in the overall Music and Poetry, with Asmatic Appendix, Constantinople, 1909).

6.      Παναγιώτου Ἀγαθοκλέους, Θεωρητικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, 1855, ἀνατύπ. ἐκδ. Ἐπέκταση 2002.

Panayiotis Agathokleos: Theory book of Ecclesiastical music, 1855

7.      Κυριακοῦ Φιλοξένους τοῦ Ἐφεσιομάγνητος, Θεωρητικὸν Στοιχειώδες τῆς Μουσικῆς, Κωνσταντινούπολη 1859 (ἀνατύπ. ἐκδ. Π. Πουρνάρα).

Kyriakos Philoxenis of Epheso-Magnesia “Fundamental Theory of Music”, Constantinople, 1859 (re-edition P. Pournara publishers)

8.      Μισαὴλ Μισαηλίδου, Νέον Θεωρητικόν, ἐν Ἀθῆναις 1902.

Misael Misaelides, “New Theory”, Athens, 1902.

9.      Δημητρίου Ἐμμ. Νεραντζῆ, Συμβολή στὴν ἐρμηνεία τοῦ Ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ Μέλους, Ἠράκλειον Κρήτης, 1997.

Demetrios Emm. Nerantzis “Contribution to the interpretation of the Ecclesiastical Melos”, Herakleion, Crete, 1997.

10.      Ἀβραὰμ Χ. Εὐθυμιάδη, Μαθήματα Βυζαντινῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, ἔκδ. Δ', Θεσσαλονίκη 1997.

Abraham Ch. Euthymiades, “Lesson of Byzantine Ecclesiastical Music”, 4^th edition, Thessaloniki, 1997

11.  Δ. Γ. Παναγιωτόπουλου, Θεωρία καὶ Πράξις τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, ἔκδοσις 6η, Ἀθῆναι 1997,  "ΣΩΤΗῬ" (α' ἔκδοσις 1947, "ΖΩΗ").

12.  Δημητρίου Ἰωαννίδη, Ἡ Θεωρία τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικῆς στὴν Πράξη, Ἀθῆναι 2005.

13. Ἰωάννου Δ. Μαργαζιώτη, Θεωρητικὸν Βυζαντινῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς (Ἀθῆναι, χωρὶς ἡμερομηνία).

14.  Κωνσταντίνου Ψάχου, Περὶ τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἄσμασι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Παράρτημα Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Ἀλήθειας, τεῦχος α', Κωνσταντινούπολις 1900.

15.  Ἀστέριος Κ. Δεβρελῆς, Πηδάλιον Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικῆς - Μέθοδος, Θεσσαλονίκη 1989.

Asterios K. DEBERLIS “Pidalion=Rudder of Byzantine Music - Method” Thessaloniki, 1989”

16.  Ἀστέριος Κ. Δεβρελῆς, Πηδάλιον Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικῆς - Πρόγραμμα ταχύρρυθμης ἐκμάθησης τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, Θεσσαλονίκη 1990.

Asterios K. DEBERLIS “Pedalion=Rudder of Byzantine Music - Method” “Program=Method for a quick learning rate … Thessaloniki, 1990”

17. Παναγιώτη Δ. Παπαδημητρίου, Πῶς ἔψελναν οἱ παλαιοὶ Ἱεροψάλτες; Κατὰ ρυθμόν ἢ κατὰ χρόνον; (3/7/2006, ἔκδ. 1.0).

18.  Eugenia Popescu-Judetz & Adriana Ababi Sirli, Sources of 18th Century Music - Panayiotes Chalatzoglou and Kyrillos Marmarinos' Comparative Treatises on Secular Music, Jan. 2000, ISBN: 975-8434-05-5.

19.  Habib Hassan Touma, The music of the Arabs, Amadeus Press, 1996/2003 (ISBN: 1-57467-081-6).

ARTICLE TWO

ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΗ ΜΟΥΣΙΚΗ

Θεωρητικές Σημειώσεις

Ὑπάρχει Ρυθμὸς στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική Βυζαντινή Μουσική;

τοῦ Παναγιώτη Δ. Παπαδημητρίου

π ρ ό χ ε ι ρ η   ἔ κ δ ο σ η,  0 . 2

Χρόνος στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ μουσικὴ σαφῶς ὑπάρχει μὲ σαφὴ τὴν παραδοσιακὴ καταμέτρησή του [ΠΔΠ1], [ΠΔΠ2]. Ρυθμὸς ὑπάρχει;

GKM: according to PDP: There is definitely “chronos” in ecclesiastical music, with precise, traditional means of counting it. Is there such a thing as “rhythmos”?

GKM: this is the typical question anybody reading books and not disposing of modern technological tools may be inclined to ask. I invite you to listen to any “live” recordings you may obtain of those “psaltis” PDP cited, and to figure out for yourself just how much “one chronos per undivided unprolonged neume = beat” you can find.

The difference between “compositional” and “interpretational” rhythmos should be easy to make. The difference between “tradional kata rhythmon” and “simonokaraïtic” or “drunken sailor” interpretational rhythmos should also be easy to determine. Rejection of either “interpretational” or “compositional” rhythmos is pure obstination, where “researchers” prefer understanding whatever they like or wish to understand when reading books, instead of sticking to o/aural tradion, and learning some hymns by heart.

Ὁ Κωνσταντῖνος Ψάχος στὰ τριάντα του, τὸ 1899, ἔδωσε μιὰ διάλεξη στὴν Κωνσταντινούπολη στὴν ὁποῖα ὑποστήριξε (βασισμένος σὲ ἐρευνητές τῆς Δύσεως) ὅτι ὑπάρχει «τονικός ρυθμός» στὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴ βυζαντινὴ μουσική:

While in his thirties, in 1899 (note that he could not have influenced the choices of formular orthography of either the 1869 epitropi or even Petros of Ephesos’ “three variations” of the same fomrule….) Constantinos Pachos gave a conference in Constatinople where he defended (based on the research of Occidental [musicologists]) that there is “tonic rhythm” in ecclesiastical Byzantine music

GKM: note that above-cited Ballindras, in his Anastasimatarion of Ioannis introduction, gives credit to Psachos’ contributions concerning “tonikos rhythmos”, and goes about giving precise definitions of this “tonikos rhythmos”.

«Ἡ σύντονος μελέτη τῶν σημερινῶν τῆς Εὐρώπης σοφῶν (sic) ἐπὶ ἐκδόσεων ὁλονὲν πολλαπλασιαζομένων, ἀπέδειξεν ὅτι ἅπαντα τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ ἡμῶν ᾄσματα ἔχουσιν ὡς βάσιν ἕν οἱονδήποτε μέτρον. Τὸ μέτρον τοῦτο μεταβάλλεται ποικίλως κατὰ τοὺς τρόπους τοῦ ᾄσματος διὰ τῆς κατ' ἀντιπάθειαν μίξεως ποδῶν ἐναντίων εἴτε ὁμοιογενῶν. Ἄλλες λέξεσι παρουσιάζουσιν ἰδιόρρυθμον ποίησιν, συντεθειμένην διὰ κώλων καὶ κομμάτων ἀρρύθμων. Ἡ ὑμνογραφία λοιπὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, εἶναι ἔμμετρος πεζὸς λόγος, καθιστάμενος ποιητικὸς ἕνεκα τῆς ἰσοσυλλαβίας καὶ ὁμοτονίας ἐν τοῖς κώλοις, ἕνεκα τῆς ἀκροστιχίδος καὶ ἕνεκα τῆς ὁμοιοκαταληξίας. Κάλλιον εἰπεῖν, ἡ ὑμνογραφία κατέχει τὸ μέσον τοῦ ποιητικοῦ καὶ τοῦ πεζοῦ λόγου. Βάσις τῆς ποιήσεως αὐτῆς εἶναι οἱ τόνοι τῶν λέξεων, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων ἐκτυποῦνται τὰ διάφορα ρυθμικὰ σχήματα εἴς τε τὰ κῶλα, τὰς φράσεις καὶ τὰς περιόδους ἑκάστου τροπαρίου. Ἐπικρατεῖ δηλ. ἡ λεγομένη τονικὴ ρυθμοποιία ἐν ἀντιθέσει πρὸς τὴν ἀρχαίαν προσῳδιακήν, τὴν στηριζομένην οὐχὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ τόνου τῶν λέξεων, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τῆς προσῳδίας τῶν συλλαβῶν», [σ. 56, ΨΑΧ].

The concurrent research of modern European “wise men” = thinkers, in multiplying editions, has proven that all our ecclesiastical chants have as foundation some given meter. This meter is continuously changing according to the “tropon=manner” of the chant, in an “antipathetic= non passional choice and” mixture of either contradictory (non-homogeneous) or homogeneous (nature). In other words, the represent idiorrhythmic poiesis = creation = composition, consisting of arrhythmic “kolas and commaton” = colons = building blocks and commata = “remnants” . ….

Therefore, the hymnography of (our) Church eis a “eumetric pezos logos”, =

(GKM: to be fully translated at some later time)

What is in current use is “tonic rhythmopoiia” in opposition to the prosody of antiquity, which is based not on the accentuation of the words, but on the prosody of the syllables.

Definition: Prosody

Prosody

Noun

1. The patterns of stress and intonation in a language.

2. A system of versification.

3. The study of poetic meter and the art of versification.

Date "prosody" was first used: 1450. (references)

Etymology: Prosody \Pros"o*dy\, noun. [Latin expression prosodia the tone or accent of syllable, Greek song sung to, or with, an accompanying song, the accent accompanying the pronunciation; to song, ode: compare to the French expression prosodie. See Ode.]. (Websters 1913)

GKM : Here, one may wish to distinguish between

« measured rhtyhm » = regular = vincta

and

« free rhythm » = soluta

Yet, both could be used with regular repetion. I leave this to the expertise of poets.

In « modern » tonic rhythmos, there may be no repetion whatsoever (that is, there may be no regularity in the use ofrregular rhythms).

The only « regular » or almost regural rhythm is to be found in papadic melos (rhythmic emphasis of 4, with different distributions: 0dot, Idot, etc…)

Further below, just note how an old text is “used” to “counter” « tonikos rhythmos » :

Βλέπουμε λοιπὸν ὅτι ὁ Ψάχος ὑποστηρίζει (μᾶλλον τοῦ τὸν ὑποστηρίζουν οἱ «σοφοὶ (sic) τῆς Εὐρώπης») ὅτι ὅλα τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ μέλη ἀκολουθοῦν τὸν λεγόμενο «τονικὸ ρυθμό».

We see, therefore, that Psachos maintains (or, rather, the “wise of Europe” maintain) that all the ecclesiastical melos abide by the said “tonic rhythm”.

Καὶ συνεχίζει περαιτέρω: «Ἰδοὺ πῶς π.χ. συνέταττεν ὁ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς μελοποιὸς τὴν ποίησίν του. Ἐλάμβανεν ὡς θέσιν τὴν τονιζομένην συλλαβὴν καὶ ὡς ἄρσιν τὴν ἄτονον, ὅλας δὲ τὰς συλλαβὰς ἀδιακρίτως προσῳδίας ὡς ἰσοχρόνους».

(Psachos) then goes on to say: “Here is, for instance, how the ecclesiastic composer would put together his hymn. He’d take for a thesis a syllable that is accentuated, and, as an arsis, a syllable that is unaccentuated, and treat all the syllables in isochronous manner, regardless of their prosodic (value).

Αὐτὸ βέβαια διαψεύδεται ἐκ τῶν πραγμάτων. Δές π.χ. τὸ ἄρθρο μας «Ἡ «ἐξέλιξη» τοῦ «Τονικοῦ Ρυθμοῦ» στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική Βυζαντινή Μουσική» [ΠΔΠ3].

PDP: This, of course, is contradicted from the (truth of) things. Look for instance, at our article “The “evolution” of etonic Rhythm” in Ecclesiastical Byzantine Music”).

GKM: Once again, we’ll find “much ado about nothing” over overlapping definitions. Furthermore, we’ll see how obstination on written form vs. o/aural tradition pushes ”researchers” to differentiate musical formulae that can be interpretated in a number of various ways by a competent psaltis. Read below.

Ἀπὸ τὴν ἐποχὴ τοῦ Ψάχου καὶ μετὰ ἐμφανίσθηκε τὸ ρεῦμα ποὺ θέλει τοὺς ψάλτες νὰ ψέλνουν κατὰ τὸν λεγόμενο «τονικὸ ρυθμό», δηλ. ἰσχυρή θέση καὶ ἀσθενεῖς ἄρσεις, ἢ κράτημα τῆς φωνῆς περισσότερο στὴν θέση, καὶ οἱ ἄρσεις νὰ «φεύγουν ὅπως-ὅπως».

Ever since the time of Psachos

(note once again that Petros of Ephesos and Epitropi = 1869 used different as well as exactly similar orthography for the a given musical formula… that was one generation before Psachos…)

and after him, appeared a current (of though) that is characterised by the fact that psaltis chant according to “tonic rhythm”, that is, an intense thesis and a weak arsis, or even a prolongation of thesis (by “extending a vocal duration”), in sort that the arsis “are interpreted in whichever manner).

GKM: The “whichever” manner in thesis prolongation and arsis “rubato” is typical of the achronos “psaltis” fighting against the correct way of interpreting “kata rhythmon”.

Tonic rhythmos simply means that, regardless of interpretation, rhythmiki emphasis of composition will be determined according to the accents of words (at least, as far as stichiraric and Heirmologic hymns are concerned). Even in papadic melos, the accented syllables are easy to determine by just looking at the music (there are positions, for instance, that will never have a non-accentuated syllable… the contrary is not true).

Σὲ σαφῆ ἀντίθεση μὲ τὸν Ψάχο, βρίσκονται παλαιοί καὶ σύγχρονοι ψάλτες-θεωρητικοί [ΠΔΠ2]. Σὲ σαφὴ ἀντίθεση ὅμως ἔρχεται καὶ ὁ Ἅγιος Γρηγόριος Ἐπίσκοπος Νύσσης (4ος αἰ.) μὲ τὴν ἐξῆς σαφῆ καὶ ἐπίκαιρη μαρτυρία του:

In very concrete (evident)opposition to Psachos, one finds many ancient as well as contemporary psaltis-theoreticians. In very concrete ‘evident) opposition, however, come the words of Saint Gregorios (4^th century), with the following testimony, both concrete ‘evident) and of contemporary actuality (GKM: indeed, read through it VERY carefully):

«Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο προσήκει μὴ παραδραμεῖν ἀθεώρητον, ὅτι οὐ κατὰ τοὺς ἔξω τῆς ἡμετέρας σοφίας μελοποιοὺς, καὶ ταῦτα τὰ μέλη [σημ. τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικά] πεποίηται· οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῷ τῶν λέξεων τόνῳ κεῖται τὸ μέλος, ὥσπερ ἐν ἐκείνοις ἔστιν ἰδεῖν, παρ' οἷς ἐν τῇ ποιᾷ τῶν προσῳδιῶν συνθήκη, τοῦ ἐν τοῖς φθόγγοις τόνου βαρυνομένου τε καὶ ὀξυτονοῦντος καὶ βραχυνομένου τε καὶ παρατείνοντος, ὁ ῥυθμὸς ἀποτίκτεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀκατάσκευόν τε καὶ ἀνεπιτήδευτον τοῖς θείοις λόγοις ἐνείρας τὸ μέλος, ἑρμηνεύειν τῇ μελῳδίᾳ τὴν τῶν λεγομένων διάνοιαν βούλεται, τῇ ποιᾷ συνδιαθέσει, τοῦ κατὰ τὴν φωνὴν τόνου τὸν ἐγκείμενον τοῖς ῥήμασι νοῦν, ὡς δυνατὸν, ἐκκαλύπτων». [PG, 44, 444], [σ. 42-43, ΑΛΥΓ]

FIRST DRAFT translation (acknowledgement=contributions by friend NP, as well):

But it should also not be ignored that these melodies as well (the « ecclesiastical melodies », « kai tauta ta meli »), were not composed according to ( the thoughts and methods of) composers  abiding by a wisdom that is foreign to our own : the « melos » does not rely on the accentuation of the words, just as it is to be found in these [i.e.: profane music]; whereby rhythm is formed (‘rhythmos apotiktetai ») according to the “qualitative” (poia)  conditions (“synthiki”) of prosody, where the accentuation of the note is  made low and then high-pitched, shortened and then extended, but rather, in manner unstructured and simple (“non specialized”) is the music intertwined with the sacred words, the obtained melody thus interpreting the very “mind” (“essence) of what is being spoken, with a contextual disposition, according to the (vocal =kata phonin) sound of the”tonos” (accent), revealing as much as possible the underlying meaning of the words.

GKM: notice the following:

the « melos » does not rely on the accentuation of the words, just as it is to be found in these

GKM: that is, the compositon is not written out using the accents of words as they are being used by those writing secular music (and then we get a description of compostion according to prosody):

the « melos » does not rely on ….[i.e.: profane music]; whereby rhythm is formed (‘rhythmos apotiktetai ») according to the “qualitative” (poia)  conditions (“synthiki”) of prosody,

which is exactly what Psachos is saying

but rather, says St. Gregorios, according to accents in such manner that the melody resemble what is spoken:

but rather, in manner unstructured and simple (“non specialized”)… of what is being spoken, with a contextual disposition, according to the (kata phonin = vocal) sound of the”tonos” (accent),

GKM: by unstructured, do you honestly feel that he is writing about disarticulate compostion, or rather, “eleutheros rhythmos” so as to accentuate words according to the way they sound in current use = tonikos rhythmos = just what Psachos is saying?

If there is an error in my translation (I’ve learned my Greek in Church… I let Greek “academicians” send in better versons. As far as psaltiki is concerned, given the way they sing in churches in Greece, I maintain that one learns much more psaltiki in the “streets of Montreal” than in the churches of Greece…. chances are that the translation provided is not too far off… )

*     *     *

Ὁ Ἀγαθάγγελος Κυριαζίδης (ἀπὸ τοὺς πλέον εἰδήμονες στους ρυθμοὺς καὶ τὰ συναφῆ) λέει στὸ βιβλίον του «Ὁ Ρυθμογράφος» [ΚΥΡ, σ. 26]:

Agathangelos Kyriazides (PDP: one of the most (reputed) specialist as concerns rhythmos and “joining” =”entwining” = composition”

GKM: after one looks at some of his super-fthorised/allaxophotised Megalynarion for Pascha, one will have reconsider the above statement.

«Τὰ πλεῖστα δὲ ᾄσματα τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς εἰσιν ἄρρυθμα ἔχοντα ἁπλῶς μόνον χρόνον».

Most of the chants of “EBM=psaltiki” are arrhythmic, for they simply have “simple chronos”.

All of a sudden, we hear about “rhythmos” and “chronos” all in one.

In the scanned page, Agathangelos even considers“Arabic”music as “arrhtymos”!!!

Read the citation below. You’ll understand that “rhythmos” as used by the above author has to do with the symmetry of combination of measures, and not with the fact that there is no rhythmos whatsoever in music as rhythmically complex as “Arabic” = Oriental music.

from

(http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2005/2005-10-20.html)

In Chapter Four Gibson turns to the fragments of Aristoxenus's Rhythmics. Here too Aristoxenus attempted to organize his theory axiomatically. He makes a separation between rhythmics and metrics, between rhythm in the abstract and as it is embodied in the rhythmizomena. He again rejects earlier views which based rhythm on the syllable or analyzed it by feet, and posits instead a prôtos chronos, a least unit of time, which, however, can be of any length according to the tempo. By this provision he gets around the objection he himself leveled at the harmonikoi who tried to compose intervals out of dieses whose size was rigidly fixed at the minimum of perceptibility by hearing. Feet are constructed out of khronoi, both asynthetoi, incomposite, or synthetoi, composite, in certain ratios which are perceived as rhythmical, other ratios not being so perceived. Gibson clearly demonstrates the Rhythmics' methodological kinship with the Harmonics.

But why not quote the rest of Agathangelos’ text, where he refers to “rhythmos kation” and “rhythmos anion”, where the latter, equated to occidental music’s “syncope”, is rare in psaltiki. He gives examples of this. One is that of “Cherson abysotokon” argon, and I give you line: “thearestos mElpondi”, where the line is written as “(ison+ kendimata on stirigma oligon) followed by (ison+ kendimata on stirigma oligon). The “syncope” is “kendimata followed by ison”, where one one could be tempted to compose “ison + klasma followed by oligon and kendimata, which would get rid of the syncope). The only way to get this done correctly is, if fact to count each group separately, and to give some energy to the second ison on oligon (the “syncope” ison), that is more energy than to any of the kendimata. In no way does this prove that there is only “monosimos chronos” way of counting. To the contrary, it proves that we must have some “special way” of doing things so as to interpret the “syncope” = “rhythmos anion” correctly… just what, then, I ask, is the “special” way of counting?

If one is to admit to “monosimos chornos” only, the question the is, where is the syncope Agathangelos mentions as being in the “first line of the second stichos of Theotoke Parthene” (that is, where is the syncope in “Chaire”)? If you find it, please let me know how you have distributed your chronos…

what does one chronos = one turn of the hand = one thesis to thesis duration include :

a) one undivided/unprolonged neume of the composition (« haplos monosimos »,

b) two undivided/unprolonged neumes of the compostion « « haplos »,

or c) many neumes (textual (and not compositionl) « kata rhythmon », , « syneptigmenos » (according to a particular definition -see other analogion.com pages)?

*     *     *

Δημήτριος Ἰωαννίδης (Δομέστικος ἐπὶ σειρὰ ἐτῶν τοῦ Ἄρχοντα Πρωτοψάλτη τῆς Μ.τ.Χ.Ε. Θρασυβούλου Στανίτσα) καὶ Ἄρχοντας Πρωτοψάλτης τῆς Ἀρχιεπ. Κων/πόλεως, [«Ἡ Θεωρία τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικῆς...», σ. 123]

Dimitrios Ioannides (Domestichos for many consecutive years of Archon Protopsaltis of the Holy, Great Church of Christ, thrasyboulos Stanitsas) and current Archon Protopsaltis of the Aechdiocese of Constantinople (in « Treatis of « Byzantine Music »…, pg. 123

«Τὰ συστατικὰ τοῦ ρυθμοῦ εἶναι οἱ χρόνοι, τὰ μέτρα (πόδες) καὶ ἡ ρυθμικὴ ἀγωγή. Αὐτὰ ὅλα βέβαια καὶ ἐδὼ ζητοῦμε συγγνώμη ἐὰν γινόμαστε κουραστικοί, ἰσχύουν ΜΟΝΟ γιὰ τὴν κοσμικὴ μουσικὴ καὶ ὄχι γιὰ τὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική. Ἐδὼ ἀναφέρονται, γιατὶ βάσει αὐτῶν τραγουδᾶμε τὰ δημοτικά μας τραγούδια, μὲ τὴν ἴδια πάντα βεβαίως μουσική. Τὴ Βυζαντινή. Στὸν Ἐκκλησιαστικὸ ὅμως χώρο καὶ τὸ ξαναλέμε γιὰ ἄλλη μιὰ φορά, ΔΕΝ ὑπάρχουν ρυθμοί, πόδια καὶ ρυθμικὲς ἀγωγές. Ὑπάρχει μόνο θέσις-ἄρσις (1 χρόνος) γιὰ κάθε χαρακτῆρα ποσότητος. Τὸ ἂν χρησιμοποιοῦμε τὸν δίσημο, τὸ κάνουμε μόνο καὶ μόνο, γιὰ νὰ μὴ χτυπᾶμε τὸ χέρι μας (κρατῶντας τὸ χρόνο) πολὺ γρήγορα σὰν ταμπούρλο, ὅταν ψάλλουμε σύντομα μαθήματα. Δανειστήκαμε λοιπὸν τὸν δίσημο καὶ κατ' ἀνάγκη τὸν τρίσημο ἀπὸ τὴν κοσμικὴ μουσική, γιὰ νὰ ἐξυπηρετήσουμε τὶς ἀνάγκες τῆς Θείας Λατρείας μας καὶ ὄχι γιὰ νὰ μπασταρδέψουμε τὴ Μουσική μας».

The components of rhythmos are the chronos (in plural), the meter (in plural) and tempo (rhythmiki agogi). Of course, all these things –and we beg forgiveness if we are become tiresome- are in use ONLY in popular (secular) musci and not in Ecclesiastical music. They are cited here because we sin gour folk (demotic) songs according to these components using the same musci, of course : Byzantine music. Yet, within the Ecclesiastical domain, and we repeat it once again, there are NO rhythms, « feet » and tempos « rhythmiki agogi ». There is, (however), only thesis and arsis (one chronos) for character of duration (charaktera posostitos). If we ever do use « disimos », we do so uniquely so as not to strike our hand (in keeping/counting chrons) very quickly, like a « tambourlo », when chanting « fast » lessons (hymns). We have therefore borrowed disimos, and by necessity, trisimos (as well) from secular music, so as cater to the needs of our Divine Worship, and not so as to « bastardise » our music.

GKM : it becomes interesting when one has to figure out who has « bastardised » what, and in which way. The overall debate is, as usual, about « resolution » or « accuracy » of information. How much information can a written score give without any o/aural traditon? When one « reads » about « kata rhythmon », just what can one « restitute » in one’s interpretation without having heard or learnt properly ? I’ll get to back all this in the end : the Simonokarïtic exaggerations of « textual » interpretations have led the « patriarchals (mero-patriarchals and pseudo-patriarchals, according to me) to hide behind words which a wave function analysis easily proves that they « sing nothing of what they preach ». they all know they should be doing syneptigmenos, and, when they decide to do so, they either do it « literally » like the Simonokaraïtes, or « by inspiration », which leads to drunken sailor singing. Whatever the case, the « teacher » above admits that he cannot count everything by using just one type of chronos. If he doesn’t admit to « tempo », then he should read his « teacher’s » = Stanitsas’ Triodion, which gives an idea of « appropriate tempo » (which still way off from Iakovos’) in an appendix, and he should also read Boudouris who mentions how students would learn using a mechanical metronomos (he even gives the brand name…).

Now, could it be that the Patriachal psaltis of the past chanted « monosimos », that somehow « syneptigmenos » came to use, only to be abolished once again (given that it does not exist according to Ioannides, and that Patriarchal chanters were to be distinguished for their « kata rhythmon counting » according to Boudouris) ? The answer is « no ». Just pass their recordings through your computers, and you’ll find out that they chant anything but monosimos when they sing in church (once in a blue moon, this non-monosimos is true « kata rhythmon »… the rest of the time, it is simpe achronos, drunken sailor singing).

*     *     *

Ἀναφορές

[ΨΑΧ] Κωνσταντίνου Ψάχου, Περὶ τοῦ ρυθμοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἄσμασι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Παράρτημα Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Ἀλήθειας, τεῦχος α', Κωνσταντινούπολις 1900.

[ΑΛΥΓ] Ἀντωνίου Ε. Ἀλυγιζάκη, Θέματα Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, ἐκδ. Π. Πουρνάρα, Θεσσαλονίκη, 2003.

[ΠΔΠ1] Παναγιώτου Δ. Παπαδημητρίου, Μιὰ Ἐκδοχὴ γιὰ τὴν Προέλευση τῆς Καταμετρήσεως τοῦ Χρόνου στὴν Ἐκκλ. Βυζαντινὴ Μουσική, πρόχειρη ἔκδοση 0.1, 12/2/2006.

[ΠΔΠ2] Παναγιώτου Δ. Παπαδημητρίου, Ὁ Χρόνος καὶ ὁ Ρυθμός στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική Βυζαντινή Μουσική, πρόχειρη ἔκδοση 0.4, 10/6/2006.

[ΠΔΠ3] Παναγιώτου Δ. Παπαδημητρίου, Ἡ «ἐξέλιξη» τοῦ «Τονικοῦ Ρυθμοῦ» στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική Βυζαντινή Μουσική (30/6/2006, 1.0).

[ΚΥΡ] Ἀγαθαγγέλου Κυριαζίδου, Ὁ Ρυθμογράφος ἤτοι ὁ Χρόνος, τὸ Μέτρον καὶ ὁ Ρυθμός ἐν τῇ Καθόλου Μουσικῇ καὶ τῇ Ποιητικῇ μετὰ Παραρτήματος Ἀσματικοῦ, Κωνσταντινούπολις 1909.

[ΔΙ] Δημητρίου Ἰωαννίδη, Ἡ Θεωρία τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Μουσικῆς στὴν Πράξη, Ἀθῆναι 2005.

*     *     *

ARTICLE THREE

ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΗ ΜΟΥΣΙΚΗ

Θεωρητικές Σημειώσεις

Πῶς ἔψελναν οἱ παλαιοὶ Ἱεροψάλτες; Κατὰ Ρυθμὸν ἢ κατὰ Χρόνον;

How would ancient Psaltis chant: using “Katar rhythmon” or using “kata chronon”?

τοῦ Παναγιώτη Δ. Παπαδημητρίου

ἔ κ δ ο σ η,  1 . 0

Πολλὴ κινητικότητα στὸ θέμα τοῦ ρυθμοῦ στὰ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς παρατηρεῖται στὰ χρόνια μετὰ τὸν Χρύσανθο. Ὁ Χρύσανθος ὀμίλησε περὶ ρυθμοῦ στὸ Μέγα Θεωρητικό του τῆς Μουσικῆς [ΧΡΥΣ1] (ἐνῶ στὸ μεταγενέστερο θεωρητικὸ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς [ΧΡΥΣ2] δὲν ὀμιλεῖ καθόλου) μιλώντας ἀσαφῶς ἐν πολλοῖς καὶ σύγχυσε τὸν ἱεροψαλτικὸ κόσμο. Μετὰ ἀπὸ αὐτὸν βρέθηκαν ἐκείνοι ποὺ ἀφαιροῦσαν καὶ προσέθεταν χρόνους στὸ Ἐκκλησιαστικὸ μέλος ὥστε νὰ ἀποκτήσει ἕναν ρυθμό, καὶ ἔσχατος βρέθηκε καὶ ὁ Ψάχος ποὺ δανειζόμενος ἀπὸ τὶς θεωρίες τῶν Εὐρωπαίων, ἐπέβαλε τὸν νεοφανέντα «τονικὸ ρυθμό» στὰ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς μας Μουσικῆς [ΨΑΧ], καὶ μαζὶ καὶ τὶς γνωστὲς ἀπὸ τὴν Εὐρωπαϊκὴ μουσικὴ κάθετες γραμμὲς στὰ Ἐκκλησιαστικὰ Μουσικὰ βιβλία.

Ὑπῆρχαν ὅμως πολλοὶ ποὺ σὲ πεῖσμα τῶν ὀπαδῶν τοῦ ρυθμοῦ στὰ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς μουσικῆς, ὑπεστήριζαν τὴν παραδοσιακὴ Ψαλμωδία, μὲ τὴν ἁπλὴ καταμέτρηση χρόνου καὶ ὑπακοὴ στὰ σημάδια ποιότητος ὡς φαίνεται καὶ στὸ ἄρθρο μας γιὰ τὸν Χρόνο/Ρυθμό [ΠΔΠ1]. Τέτοιοι ἦσαν οἱ Χουρμούζιος, Θεόδωρος Φωκαεύς καὶ ὁ Χρύσανθος (παρὰ ὅτι λόγῳ τῆς ἀσάφειάς του ἀφήνει χῶρο γιὰ παρερμηνεία τῶν γραπτῶν του -ἀργότερα θὰ καταρριφθεῖ καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ παρερμηνεία) μεταξὺ ἄλλων.

Τὸ μεγάλο ἐρώτημα εἶναι νὰ μάθουμε πῶς ἔψαλλαν οἱ παλαιοὶ Ἱεροψάλτες, τῆς ἐποχῆς τοῦ Χρυσάνθου καὶ πρὶν ἀπὸ αὐτόν. Γιὰ αὐτὴν τὴν ἐποχὴ ἔχουμε μόνο τὸ θεωρητικὸ τοῦ Χουρμουζίου [ΧΟΥΡ] ποὺ δὲν ἀναφέρει τίποτε περὶ ρυθμοῦ [ΠΔΠ1], ἀλλὰ μόνο περὶ Καταμετρήσεως τοῦ Χρόνου, καὶ παρόμοια καὶ τὸ θεωρητικὸ τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς τοῦ Χρυσάνθου [ΧΡΥΣ2] ποὺ ἐπίσης ἀναφέρει μόνο Καταμέτρηση τοῦ Χρόνου. Στὸ Μέγα Θεωρητικὸ ὁ Χρύσανθος ὀμιλεῖ περὶ τῆς ἁπλῆς Καταμετρήσεως Χρόνου «ἐν ᾧ ἀπαγγέλεται τὸ μέλος», ἀλλὰ ἐπίσης κάνει μνεία καὶ σὲ ρυθμοὺς καὶ σε πόδες, ἀσαφῶς, προκαλώντας μεγάλη σύγχυση ἕως καὶ στὶς ἡμέρες μας.

Ἐπειδὴ οἱ ὀπαδοὶ τοῦ ρυθμοῦ (στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Μουσική) βρίσκουν δικαιολογίες καὶ ἀπορρίπτουν τὸ τοῦ Χουρμουζίου, καὶ τὸ ἕνα τοῦ Χρυσάνθου ὡς δῆθεν εἰσαγωγικὰ βιβλία (τὸν ὁποῖον ἰσχυρισμὸ καταρρίψαμε στὸ ἄρθρο μας γιὰ τὸν Χρόνο/Ρυθμό [ΠΔΠ1]) -οὐ μόνον ἀλλὰ ἀπορρίπτουν καὶ τὴν Κρηπίδα τοῦ Θεοδώρου Φωκαέως ποὺ ὀμιλεῖ καθαρὰ περὶ Καταμετρήσεως τοῦ Χρόνου, ἐμεῖς θὰ ἀποδείξουμε ὅτι οἱ παλαιοὶ Ἱεροψάλτες δὲν ἔψαλλαν κατὰ ρυθμόν, καὶ ὄχι μόνο αὐτὸ, ἀλλὰ δὲν ὑφίστατο ὁ ὅρος «ρυθμὸς» στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Μουσική. Θὰ τὸ ἀποδείξουμε λοιπόν, μέσω τῆς πλέον ἔγκυρης πηγῆς γιὰ αὺτὸν τὸν λόγο.

Ἡ πλέον ἔγκυρη πηγὴ γιὰ τὸ ἐρώτημά μας, δὲν εἶναι ἄλλος ἀπὸ τὸν Μαθητὴ τῶν Τριῶν Διδασκάλων καὶ ἐκδότη τοῦ Μεγάλου Θεωρητικοῦ τοῦ Χρυσάνθου, τὸν Παναγιώτη Γ. Πελοπίδα.

Τὴν ἀπάντηση δέ στὸ ἐρώτημά μας, μᾶς τὴν δίδει στὶς σελίδες η'-θ' τοῦ Μεγάλου Θεωρητικοῦ [ΧΡΥΣ1],

Panayiotis G. PELOPIDIS (why as “A”?), student of the Three Teachers, and editor of the Great Treatise of Chrysantos

ὅπου λέει ὁ Πελοπίδας, ἀπευθυνόμενος στοὺς συναδέλφους Ἱεροψάλτες τῆς ἐποχῆς του, παρουσιάζοντας τὸ Μέγα Θεωρητικὸ τοῦ Χρυσάνθου:

Addressing his associate hierochanters during his time, he introduces the Great treatise of Chrysanthos, stating:

«Πολλοὶ ἐκ τῶν Μουσικῶν μας (σημ. Ἱεροψαλτῶν),

Many or our musicians (PDP: meaning psaltis)

ἐπειδὴ ἔφθασαν νὰ γένωσιν ἐγκρατεῖς

given that they have reached a level of competence

τῆς ἀκριβοῦς τοῦ Χρόνου Καταμετρήσεως,

in the exact counting of chronos

καὶ τῆς γνώσεως παντὸς Φθορᾶς διαστήματος,

as well that as in the knowledge of all fthoric (GKM: modulating) intervals

(τὸ ὁποῖον εἶναι τῷ ὄντι ἀξιέπαινον εἰς ἕκαστον Μουσικὸν,

(which is truly worthy of congratulation for each musician

ὅταν φθάσῃ νὰ γίνῃ ἐγκρατὴς τῶν δύο)

who will attain competence in both these fields)

νομίζουν ὅτι εἶναι καὶ τέλειοι Μουσικοί»

they feel that they are perfect musicians as well

GKM: What else do you need? Given that that the “musicians” have learned their “music” and “schola” way of counting “beats”, they think that they know “everything” about psaltiki (that they are “musicians”, which is not exactly psaltis -contrarily to the equation made by PDP above- according to what Pelopidis has written). Pelopidis is inciting people to become scientific composers of psaltiki, and to not produce any haphazardous melody that may be the fruit of their imagination. He writes that the manual gives the methods by which to attain such competence of correct tradition transmission in compostion.

«Μάθετε εἰς τὸ ἐξῆς τὶ εἶναι Ῥυθμὸς, τὶ εἶναι Ποὺς καὶ Μέτρον

(ὑποσ. Ἡ περὶ Ῥυθμοῦ, Χρόνων, Ποδῶν καὶ Μέτρων σαφεστάτη

καὶ ἀκριβεστάτη ἔκθεσις γενομένη παρὰ Μουσικοῦ ἐλλογίμου

-σημ. ἐννοεῖ τὸν Χρύσανθο, ἀναμφιβόλως θέλει ὠφελήσει

ἰδιαιτέρως καὶ τοὺς σπουδάζοντας τὰ ποιητικὰ

συγγράμματα τῶν προγόνων μας)

εἰς τὴν Μουσικήν.

Μάθετε τὶ εἶναι Ἔμφασις ῥυθμικὴ,

καὶ μὴν ἀπορεῖτε πλέον

εἰς τὴν σημασίαν τῶν τοιούτων λέξεων».

Καὶ παρακάτω γράφει ὁ Πελοπίδας:

«Πολλοὶ ἐκ τῶν Μουσικῶν μας (σημ. Ἱεροψαλτῶν),

ἐπειδὴ ἔφθασαν νὰ γένωσιν ἐγκρατεῖς

τῆς ἀκριβοῦς τοῦ Χρόνου Καταμετρήσεως,

καὶ τῆς γνώσεως παντὸς Φθορᾶς διαστήματος,

(τὸ ὁποῖον εἶναι τῷ ὄντι ἀξιέπαινον εἰς ἕκαστον Μουσικὸν,

ὅταν φθάσῃ νὰ γίνῃ ἐγκρατὴς τῶν δύο)

νομίζουν ὅτι εἶναι καὶ τέλειοι Μουσικοί».

GKM: “καὶ μὴν ἀπορεῖτε πλέον εἰς τὴν σημασίαν τῶν τοιούτων λέξεων” = “and speculate no further on the meaning of such words” includes “melopoiïa” that is composition. PelopidIs is underlining the importance of “Rhythmic emphasis” and give the ultimate proof that it is to be associated with composition (and not with interpretation). If one read on, one easily understands that he is asking psaltis to not content themselves sith the simple “reading” of scores, but to push their competence beyond, to that the of compositon. He is asking them to learn how to compose using scientific methos “epistimonikotaton”. Later on, Chrysanthos tells us in the “compostion” section, that one must “copy and copy, and compose using “existing lines”. All this has to do with melodic-tonic sequence formular corespondances. Nevertheless, even a formular dictionary is not sufficient. Because, even though I’ve seen recent compostions-adaptations in English using classical forluale, they are rhtymically unbalanced… where the original Greek score brings “rhythm” back to its coherent “multiple of four” structure in sticheraric, for instance, the English adaptation “skips measures. In other words, composition requires knowledge not only of scolar reading of scores, and scientific ordering of melodic formulae, but also scientific combination of such formulae using “rhythmic emphasis”.

Ἔτσι λοιπὸν ἀπὸ τοὺς λόγους αὐτοὺς τοῦ Μαθητοῦ τοῦ Χρυσάνθου καὶ μάλιστα καὶ ἐκδότου τοῦ Μεγάλου Θεωρητικοῦ του, βγάζουμε σαφέστατα τὰ ἐξῆς συμπεράσματα:

From the above texts authored by the student of Chrysanthos, who was more so the editor of the Great Treatise, we obtain the following concrete (“clear, limpid”) conclusions:

Notice how it will be easy to give interpretations… and, as I’ve stated above, Canons and texts without o/aural tradition are equal to zero in the Orthodox Church. The same applies to psaltiki… (in other words, it’s better listening to a old protocanonarchos chanting in “middle of the streets of Montreal” than reading a thousand books and jumping to coclusions without o/aural tradion:

α. Τέλειος Ψάλτης ἦταν αὐτὸς ποὺ γινόταν ἐγκρατῆς τῆς «ἀκριβοῦς τοῦ Χρόνου Καταμετρήσεως», καὶ τῆς «γνώσεως παντὸς Φθορᾶς διαστήματος». Οὔτε ἀναφορὰ κὰν σὲ ρυθμοὺς καὶ τὰ συναφῆ.

The “perfect” was he who had become competent in the “exact manner of counting chonos”, as well as in the knowledge of all fthoric (modulation) diastematics.

There is no mention of “kata rhythmon” of chronos counting. As a matter of fact, there is no mention of any type of chronos counting. The only thing we read and understand is: it’s not because one knows how to count chronos and interpret diastematics that he is also a “musician= composer.

Nevertheless, he is indeed a good psaltis if he knows how to count chronos….

“Rhythmos” is reserved for compositional purposes in the rest of the discusson on rhythmiki emphasis.

β. Λέει ὁ Πελοπίδας στοὺς Ἱεροψάλτες ὅτι μὲ αὐτὸ τὸ Μέγα Θεωρητικὸ θὰ μάθουν [ἐπιτέλους!] τὶ εἶναι Ῥυθμός καὶ τὰ συναφή. Δηλαδὴ τοὺς Ἱεροψάλτες τότε (καὶ ἀπ' ἀνέκαθεν) δὲν τοὺς ἔννοιαζαν οἱ ῥυθμοὶ κτλ. τὰ ὁποῖα ἐνδιαφέρουν τοὺς τραγουδιστές, διότι δὲν χρησιμοποιούνταν τὸ «κατὰ ρυθμὸν ψάλσιμο» στὴν ἐκκλησία, γιὰ αὐτὸ καὶ εἶχαν ἄγνοια καὶ «ἀποροῦσαν (sic) εἰς τὴν σημασίαν τῶν λέξεων αὐτῶν».

Pelopidis states that, finally, psaltis will learn what is Rhythmos and “compositon” = “synaphe”.

That is, back then (and before then) ,psaltis were not concerned about rhtymos etc., which is the concern of singers (secular music), because they would not use the “kata rhythmon” way of chanting in church and for this reason that they were ignorant and “would wonder as to the significance of these words”.

GKM: a psaltis does not need to know what “daktylos iamboeides” is so as to chant interpretative

“kata rhythmon”

= interpretative syneptigmenos

=thesis to thesis of maney undivided/unprolonged neumes

Simonokaraïtes might think that this is important for interpretation. The fact is that, according to Patriarchal tradition, it is not.

Yet, for one composing, it is fundamental. Otherwise, he will take a formular dictionary with short, classical formulae, and combine them in whatever way. Although the parts of the compostion will be “decent”, the overall composiotion/adaptation will be unbalanced.

Finally, those preaching against interpretative “kata rhythmon” as defined above are simply contradicting themselves:

“alla legousin, kai alla psallousin”.

= “They preach one thing yet (attempt) to sing something else.

γ. Λέει στοὺς Ἱεροψάλτες ὅτι μὲ αὐτὸ τὸ Μέγα Θεωρητικὸ θὰ μάθουν [ἐπιτέλους!] τὶ εἶναι Ἔμφασις ῥυθμική. Καὶ πάλι τοὺς Ἱεροψάλτες δὲν τοὺς ἐνδιέφερε ἡ «ῥυθμικὴ ἔμφασις», διότι δὲν χρησιμοποιούνταν τὸ «κατὰ ρυθμὸν ψάλσιμο» στὴν ἐκκλησία, γιὰ αὐτὸ καὶ εἶχαν ἄγνοια, καὶ «ἀποροῦσαν (sic) εἰς τὴν σημασίαν τῶν λέξεων αὐτῶν» κατὰ τὸν Πελοπίδα.

He (Pelopidis) tells chanter that with this Great treatise, they will finally learn what is meant by “”rhythmiki emphasis”. Once again, the psaltis were not concerned with “rhythmiki emphasis”, dbecause they would not use “kata rhythmon” chanting in church, and it is for this reason that for this reason that they were ignorant and “would wonder as to the significance of these words”.

GKM: it’s true that one doesn’t have to be a composer so as to be a good psaltis, capable of ensuring prayer during akoloutheies.

In the above connection of “rhythmiki emphasis” and “kata rhythmon”, PDP is confusing:

Rhtyhmiki emphasis, which is a compostional criterion, which allows one to choose the correct formular combination for a balance compostions

and

“kata rhythmon”, which is an interpretational criterion.

Confusing the two leads to the following:

refusal of “kata rhythmon” interpretation, since “rhythmiki emphasis”, to which it is equated, is not necessary for psaltiki (PDP’s position)

or “simonokaraïtic” interpretation of “kata rhythmon” interpretation, where interpretation of rhythmos is equated to the complex rhtyhmos that is on the paper (compostional rhythmiki emphaisis) thus leading to interpretational rhtymiki empasis (intensity changes according to a written rhythmos, where chronos is counted just like it is in occidental music).

Since both these positions are based on testimonies of people wha have never been taught the secrets of Patriarchal “interpretational kata rhythmon” which has nothing to do with compostional rhtyhmos and rhythmiki emphasis, we have even more confusion added to a debate on theory. In practice, regardless of what they preach, all these schools try to perform using syneptigmenos…

Τέλος, ἀξίζει νομίζουμε νὰ ἀναφέρουμε ἐδὼ αὐτὸν τὸν Ψάχο, ποὺ παραδέχθηκε [ΨΑΧ], στὸν λόγο του περὶ ρυθμοῦ στὰ 1899:

Finally, we consider that it is worthwhile to mention here Constantinos Psachos himself who, in his speech regarding “rhythmos” in 1899, stated:

«Γνωρίζω ὅτι πολλοὶ συνάδελφοί μου

I know that many of my colleageus

θὰ ἐκπλαγῶσιν ἀκούοντες ρυθμοὺς εἰς τὰ μέλη τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὐμῶν,

will be surpised to hear rhythms in our ecclesiastical melodies

νομίζοντες ὅτι

given that they (most likely) are of the opinion that

ταῦτα ψάλλονται δι' ἁπλῆς καὶ μόνης καταμετρήσεως τοῦ χρόνου.

these are chanted by the “haplos” = simple and only (“monos here =uniquely that) manner of counting chronos

Καὶ ἐγὼ αὐτός -τὸ ὀμολογῶ- οὑτωσὶν ἐδιδάχθην

It thus that –and I admit to it – I have been taught

καὶ οὔτως ἐπίστευον ἐπὶ πολὺν καιρόν,

and it is thus that I believed so myself for a long time

ὅτι τὰ μέλη ἡμῶν ψάλλονται διὰ κρούσεως

that the melodies are chanted by “strikes” = “krousis”

πάντων ἀνεξαιρέτως τῶν χρόνων,

of “pandon” “all the chronos

ἄνευ διακρίσεως δυνατοῦ καὶ ἀδυνάτου»

without distinction whatsoever of “strong” = “intense” and weak

GKM: in the articles above, PDP and I have agree on just a few elements. However, given the different uses of the term “kata rhythmon” (compositon vs. interpretation), his rejecton of this term is unfounded, at least according to the definitions I am proposing, according to oral tradition.

“Kata rhythmon” of interpretation is based on the accents of words. Furthermore, even terirem has interpretational accents:the accents are on “Te” and “Re” most of the time, and less so on the “ri” (it gets a bit of intensity when is in repetitive form).

Τὰ σχόλια περιττεύουν. Εὐχόμαστε τὴν ἐπιστροφὴ στὴν Παράδοση, δηλ. στὴν ἐπιστροφὴ τῆς «ἀκριβοῦς τοῦ Χρόνου Καταμετρήσεως», καὶ τῆς «γνώσεως παντὸς Φθορᾶς διαστήματος» στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Μουσική.

All discussion is superfluous. We wish for the return to Traditon, that is, towards the “precise manner of counting chronos” and “knowledge of all fthoric (modulating) interval” in Ecclesiastical music.

GKM: I, too, wish for the return to Tradition, that is, towards the “precise manner of counting chronos” and “knowledge of all fthoric (modulating) interval” in Ecclesiastical music.

Notice how I’ve tried to prove elsewhere the way intervals may vary for a same line with a different ison (ex. line on ano Zo in plagal fourth =ison on Ni vs the same line in Barys diatonikos = ison on Zo).

An exact same textual line will have different contextual significance.

The same goes for a musical formula: graphical and interpetational variations overlap, and it is infantile to try limiting the multiple possibilities to just one significance (think of the way English is pronounced: contextuality determines final expression).

The same goes for the different ways of counting chronos: contextuality (eg. paedagogy, learning, live performance, pnaygiris vs. everyday service, etc) will determine which chronos will be used.

Just like for anything else, the theory books give us basic description of fundamental principles one must know. Yet, for everything concerning psaltiki (intervals, chronos, formular interpretation) the ancient authors maintain that o/aural tradition is an absolute necessity.

The same applies in the Orthodox church; oral (prophoriki paradosis) equals that which is written (isoute tis graptis).

What is worrying in all of this discussion is how a scientist of the calibre of PDP prefers perusing theory books so as to defend a position which he has the scientific capacity to analyse using computer audio wave analysis.

As stated above, the “power” of o/aural tradition is such that Greek Canadian will learn more about Patriarchikon hyphos by listening to a teacher than all the “researchers” put together reading about and speculating on various theries.

Now, if you feel that all the above modern psaltis are better than Iakovos, Proussalis, Dositheos, Pringos, Tsolakidis, then I guess we can leave the Simokaraïtic and “achrono-thessalonicitic” schools show us the way to “traditional interpretation, all in maintaining that “the theory books written by Patriachal psaltis” of the past are interpreted in much more “traditional” manner by these schools rather than by those who actually grew up in the Patriarcheion!

Unless I see wave function analysis comparison of “chant” vs. “theory”, I classify all of the above discussion as something useless and time-consuming.

When one wishes to “chant” one must use the senses necessary for chant… sight is not an absolute prerequisite… However, imitation of a psaltis is truly an absolute prerequisite.

In simpler terms: you do not need to to be able to read so as to speak a given language… you certainly need to hear it. Anything written (phonetics, etc) is quite often contradictory, confusing and even useless… just like all of the above.

Georigos K. MICHALAKIS

*     *     *

Ἀναφορές

[ΧΡΥΣ1] Χρυσάνθου Ἀρχιεπ. Διρραχίου τοῦ ἐκ Μαδύτων, Θεωρητικὸν Μέγα τῆς Μουσικῆς, Τεργέστη 1832 (ἀνατύπ. ἐκδ. Κουλτούρα) - ὁ Πελοπίδας ποὺ ἀνέλαβε τὴν ἐκτύπωση τοῦ Μεγάλου Θεωρητικοῦ ἀναφέρει ὅτι τὸ ἔλαβε πρὸ δώδεκα ἐτῶν· ὁ κ. Ἐμμανουὴλ Στ. Γιαννόπουλος ἀναφέρει ὅτι τὸ θεωρητικὸν αὐτὸ φαίνεται νὰ ἦταν ἔτοιμο λίγο πρὶν τὸ 1816.

[ΧΡΥΣ2] Χρυσάνθου Ἀρχιεπ. Διρραχίου τοῦ ἐκ Μαδύτων, Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ Θεωρητικὸν καὶ Πρακτικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς, 1821.

[ΠΔΠ1] Παναγιώτου Δ. Παπαδημητρίου, Ὁ Χρόνος καὶ ὁ Ρυθμός στὴν Ἐκκλησιαστική Βυζαντινή Μουσική, πρόχειρη ἔκδοση 0.4, 10/6/2006.

[ΧΟΥΡ] Χουρμουζίου Χαρτοφύλακος, Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὸ Θεωρητικὸν καὶ πρακτικὸν τῆς Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Μουσικῆς (1829), κριτικὴ ἔκδοση Ἐμμανουὴλ Στ. Γιαννόπουλου, Θεσσαλονίκη, 2002.

[ΨΑΧ] Κωνσταντίνου Ψάχου, Περὶ τοῦ ρυθμοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἄσμασι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, Παράρτημα Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Ἀλήθειας, τεῦχος α', Κωνσταντινούπολις 1900.

*     *     *

GKM: interesting to read:

http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/filoyletras/jsango/a_numerical_theory_of_rhythm.htm#1.1.%20Order%20and%20disorder

[linux-audio-dev] XAP: a polemic

Paul Davis linux-audio-dev@music.columbia.edu

Mon Dec 16 16:53:01 2002

Previous message: [linux-audio-dev] XAP: a polemic

Next message: [linux-audio-dev] XAP: a polemic

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

---

>i'd be happy to hear a good example proving this wrong. but

>take note that i don't accept 1/2, 1/3 and relatives as

>qualifying because they can better be (and usually are)

>expressed using integer numbers.

i've been down this road before, either here or on ardour-dev :)

you need to accept them as different. many indian rythmic cycles have

non-integral numbers of beats per cycle, and it doesn't work to simply

multiply them to get an integer. this shifts the entire rythmic

emphasis of the piece, produces a beat-per-measure value that is too

long to count, etc. consider, for example, a tala with 9-1/2 beats per

measure being played against a melodic line with 12 beats per

measure. the entire purpose of the piece is the slow shifting of the

melodic's line structure against the rythmic one. if you convert this

to 19 beats per measure in the tala, and make the melodic players

count 24 measure, they won't know what you are talking about - the

melodic structure (and the tala) are built out of 12 and 9-1/2 counts,

not 19 and 24. in fact, they probably won't want to have anything to

do with you. you're denying the structure of their musical tradition

because you want a simpler software structure. its even worse if you

have a polyrythmic piece with different non-integral beats per bar,

because you now need to find the least common denominator, and the

resulting beats per measure count can get ridiculously large.

western music's emphasis on integral beats per bar has led to a

slipping away of a great deal of the fun and beauty to be found in

other musical traditions. i've recommended it before, and i'll do it

again now:

"Music of the Whole Earth" by David Reck (Da Capo Press)

its a wonderful, humbling guide to the subtleties, variations and

unities to be found in the human-made music of our planet.

a friend of mine who grew up in india once commented to me on the way

that western classical and popular music has emphasized harmony over

melody and rythmnic structure; in contrast, indian classical music has

emphasized melody and rythmnic structure with an almost complete

absence of harmony; far-eastern classical music (bali, java, thailand)

has emphasized rythmnic structure and timbre with very little

development of harmony or melody.

i can't end that quote without his final observation: "and then i

found jazz" :))

>about arithmetic: float operations, as you know, introduce

>round-off error. integers can be used in accumulators with

>much less inconvenience.

sorry, it’s just wrong.

--p