Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 1 – uploaded by Alexander Lingas

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Despite striking parallels between the problems faced by devotees of Western Early Music and medieval Byzantine chant over the interpretation of their respective musical texts, the latter have largely refrained from the intense self-examination that now so noisily engages the former.’ If the relative lack of such a discourse in the field of Byzantine musicology is not overly surprising — its practitioners in Anglo- American academia have been accused repeatedly of undue remoteness from actual musical experience’ — the questions avoided remain no less pressing. The remainder of this paper will therefore be devoted to re- Example 1. Corelli, Sonatas for Violin Op. 5, No. 3, opening of the first movement

Figure 1 Despite striking parallels between the problems faced by devotees of Western Early Music and medieval Byzantine chant over the interpretation of their respective musical texts, the latter have largely refrained from the intense self-examination that now so noisily engages the former.’ If the relative lack of such a discourse in the field of Byzantine musicology is not overly surprising — its practitioners in Anglo- American academia have been accused repeatedly of undue remoteness from actual musical experience’ — the questions avoided remain no less pressing. The remainder of this paper will therefore be devoted to re- Example 1. Corelli, Sonatas for Violin Op. 5, No. 3, opening of the first movement

Related Figures (5)

These only apply to the group of notes over which they stand, and no a tempo MMB Table of signs
These only apply to the group of notes over which they stand, and no a tempo MMB Table of signs
In a logical extension of his belief that pre-Chrysanthine chant is completely recorded only in the final exegeses of the nineteenth-century reformers, Psachos maintained that valid transcriptions of medieval Byzantine melodies into modern Western notation must be realisations within the tradition of Chourmouzios and Gregorios.** At the same time, however, he appears not to have expected such transcriptions to depict the manifold subtleties of a rendition made according to the performing conventions of the received tradition. Indeed, the few staff-notation examples given in ‘H /Taoaonuaviuxy are themselves a form of metrophonia, showing only the pitches (which are recorded without microtonal distinctions) and rhythms explicitly indicated by the Chrysanthine neumes. The positions of qualitative neumes are not marked by symbols, nor is any further realisation of the melody according to the unwritten conventions of attraction or ornamentation attempted.** While this somewhat agnostic approach to transcription is consistent with Psachos’ view that staff notation is inherently incapable of depicting the nuances of Byzantine chant,’’ it may also reflect the unresolved contradictions regarding the relationship between notation and performance practice in his writings perceived by Angelopoulos.* Example 2. The Post-Byzantine Exegesis of Koukouzeles’ Didactic Song (Excerpt)
In a logical extension of his belief that pre-Chrysanthine chant is completely recorded only in the final exegeses of the nineteenth-century reformers, Psachos maintained that valid transcriptions of medieval Byzantine melodies into modern Western notation must be realisations within the tradition of Chourmouzios and Gregorios.** At the same time, however, he appears not to have expected such transcriptions to depict the manifold subtleties of a rendition made according to the performing conventions of the received tradition. Indeed, the few staff-notation examples given in ‘H /Taoaonuaviuxy are themselves a form of metrophonia, showing only the pitches (which are recorded without microtonal distinctions) and rhythms explicitly indicated by the Chrysanthine neumes. The positions of qualitative neumes are not marked by symbols, nor is any further realisation of the melody according to the unwritten conventions of attraction or ornamentation attempted.** While this somewhat agnostic approach to transcription is consistent with Psachos’ view that staff notation is inherently incapable of depicting the nuances of Byzantine chant,’’ it may also reflect the unresolved contradictions regarding the relationship between notation and performance practice in his writings perceived by Angelopoulos.* Example 2. The Post-Byzantine Exegesis of Koukouzeles’ Didactic Song (Excerpt)
Evatt GweouIntly Vil Uiv Be peGhiilw CLAN I. We may obtain a better understanding of Karas’ interpretive stance by referring to some of the music examples illustrating his 1953 study. His Table 4, for instance, shows various renderings in both Byzantin« and staff notation of the opening phrase of the final idiomelon sung at the Ninth Hour on Christmas Eve.” The first three, excerpts of which our Example 3 presents in MMB-style diplomatic transcriptions, are giver by Karas in Byzantine neumes. Set in chronological order, these are: 1) the “old” melody of the Middl Byzantine Sticherarion (Example 3a); 2) the post-Byzantine version of the late seventeenth-century composer Panagiotes Chrysaphes the Younger (Example 3b);” and 3) a Chrysanthine transcription evidently made by Karas from the earliest version (Example 3c) that differs considerably from the standard moderr chant by Petros Peloponnesios (an important fact for those unfamiliar with the modern repertory that he neglects to mention), which is presented for comparison as Example 3e.”* Karas supplements these example: in Byzantine notation with two transcriptions into staff-notation. The first is of his Chrysanthine realisation which presents the chant with its ornaments written out as they might be heard in performance (Example 3d) He contrasts this florid rendering with a transcription of the oldest version made according to the method o: the MMB (cf. Example 3a) to which he attaches a rubric indicating his disapproval of such readings by “Westerners” ("Kal Syl TOV OVTUCOV"). a < ca wee nam a
Evatt GweouIntly Vil Uiv Be peGhiilw CLAN I. We may obtain a better understanding of Karas’ interpretive stance by referring to some of the music examples illustrating his 1953 study. His Table 4, for instance, shows various renderings in both Byzantin« and staff notation of the opening phrase of the final idiomelon sung at the Ninth Hour on Christmas Eve.” The first three, excerpts of which our Example 3 presents in MMB-style diplomatic transcriptions, are giver by Karas in Byzantine neumes. Set in chronological order, these are: 1) the “old” melody of the Middl Byzantine Sticherarion (Example 3a); 2) the post-Byzantine version of the late seventeenth-century composer Panagiotes Chrysaphes the Younger (Example 3b);” and 3) a Chrysanthine transcription evidently made by Karas from the earliest version (Example 3c) that differs considerably from the standard moderr chant by Petros Peloponnesios (an important fact for those unfamiliar with the modern repertory that he neglects to mention), which is presented for comparison as Example 3e.”* Karas supplements these example: in Byzantine notation with two transcriptions into staff-notation. The first is of his Chrysanthine realisation which presents the chant with its ornaments written out as they might be heard in performance (Example 3d) He contrasts this florid rendering with a transcription of the oldest version made according to the method o: the MMB (cf. Example 3a) to which he attaches a rubric indicating his disapproval of such readings by “Westerners” ("Kal Syl TOV OVTUCOV"). a < ca wee nam a
Comparison of the different way in which Karas presents the same chant reveals his tendency to read and employ the Western staff in a much more “analytical” manner than he does for Chrysanthine neumes. When transcribing early chant into the reformed Byzantine system, Karas offers interpretations of the rhythmic subdivisions and chromatic inflections that the medieval notation was incapable of conveying. At the same time, however, he refrains from exploiting Chrysanthine notation’s ability to show an even higher degree of melodic detail by continuing to notate ornaments involving rapid movements of the voice in the traditional manner with qualitative neumes.” Such an economic application of the Chrysanthine system thus stands in marked contrast to Karas’ fussy rendering of the same melody on a Western staff, which is reminiscent of a piece of French Baroque keyboard music with all the agréments completely written out. The fact that he found it necessary to produce such a full realisation in staff notation would seem to indicate not only a desire to illustrate his point, but also the assumption that transcribed chants are subject to relatively closed and prescriptive readings. T7 .... .3. FmM11. OO °11...4...4°... sth. .....1-...i*.. $f il. 1...1°.....w. 6 2 Jliww th wll 1°W CC ein HL
Comparison of the different way in which Karas presents the same chant reveals his tendency to read and employ the Western staff in a much more “analytical” manner than he does for Chrysanthine neumes. When transcribing early chant into the reformed Byzantine system, Karas offers interpretations of the rhythmic subdivisions and chromatic inflections that the medieval notation was incapable of conveying. At the same time, however, he refrains from exploiting Chrysanthine notation’s ability to show an even higher degree of melodic detail by continuing to notate ornaments involving rapid movements of the voice in the traditional manner with qualitative neumes.” Such an economic application of the Chrysanthine system thus stands in marked contrast to Karas’ fussy rendering of the same melody on a Western staff, which is reminiscent of a piece of French Baroque keyboard music with all the agréments completely written out. The fact that he found it necessary to produce such a full realisation in staff notation would seem to indicate not only a desire to illustrate his point, but also the assumption that transcribed chants are subject to relatively closed and prescriptive readings. T7 .... .3. FmM11. OO °11...4...4°... sth. .....1-...i*.. $f il. 1...1°.....w. 6 2 Jliww th wll 1°W CC ein HL
The last of these examples may seem to be a curious departure for a paper concerned with the nterpretation of medieval notation, but it serves to remind us that Karas’ insistence on the necessity of nterpreting Byzantine neumes within the context of unwritten performing conventions has always extended 9 the Chrysanthine repertory. Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that his interest in the performing ractice of earlier repertories is an extension of his long crusade to promote idiomatic performances of raditional Greek music, both sacred and secular. Rather unpromisingly, he embarked on this at a time of Vestern musical ascendancy when operetta was at the height of its popularity among the Athenian elite,” nany of whose churches, as we have previously noted, had adopted Russian-style polyphony or the reformed nd often harmonised chant of Sakellarides.*’ Some cantors had also begun to teach Byzantine chant with the id of pianos, thereby promoting overly literal readings of the neumes within the rigid framework of equal >mperament tuning.” In the face of such strong Western influence, the “descriptive” function of *hrysanthine notation ceased to be self-evident and renditions like Example 4d became for some cantors not nly a viable, but even a preferable option. Karas responded vigorously to these trends on the one hand by lecrying the Westernised singing of “New Conservatory Church Musicians” as “Enpogavia” ("dry-voiced singing]"), and on the other hand by going to great lengths to systematise and transmit to his students the mwritten conventions of Byzantine performance practice. Bearing all this in mind, we can see clearly why caras associated the MMB with the Westernising cantors of modern Greece. Although focused on different epertories, both groups were, in his view, equally guilty of imposing on Byzantine music a foreign aesthetic hiefly characterised by xerophonia. Proceeding therefore on the assumption that all scores in staff notation vere to be rendered verbatim, Karas sought to remedy the misreading of medieval and modern Byzantine hants with highly detailed transcriptions more closely approximating their realisation in sound.
The last of these examples may seem to be a curious departure for a paper concerned with the nterpretation of medieval notation, but it serves to remind us that Karas’ insistence on the necessity of nterpreting Byzantine neumes within the context of unwritten performing conventions has always extended 9 the Chrysanthine repertory. Indeed, it would be more accurate to say that his interest in the performing ractice of earlier repertories is an extension of his long crusade to promote idiomatic performances of raditional Greek music, both sacred and secular. Rather unpromisingly, he embarked on this at a time of Vestern musical ascendancy when operetta was at the height of its popularity among the Athenian elite,” nany of whose churches, as we have previously noted, had adopted Russian-style polyphony or the reformed nd often harmonised chant of Sakellarides.*’ Some cantors had also begun to teach Byzantine chant with the id of pianos, thereby promoting overly literal readings of the neumes within the rigid framework of equal >mperament tuning.” In the face of such strong Western influence, the “descriptive” function of *hrysanthine notation ceased to be self-evident and renditions like Example 4d became for some cantors not nly a viable, but even a preferable option. Karas responded vigorously to these trends on the one hand by lecrying the Westernised singing of “New Conservatory Church Musicians” as “Enpogavia” ("dry-voiced singing]"), and on the other hand by going to great lengths to systematise and transmit to his students the mwritten conventions of Byzantine performance practice. Bearing all this in mind, we can see clearly why caras associated the MMB with the Westernising cantors of modern Greece. Although focused on different epertories, both groups were, in his view, equally guilty of imposing on Byzantine music a foreign aesthetic hiefly characterised by xerophonia. Proceeding therefore on the assumption that all scores in staff notation vere to be rendered verbatim, Karas sought to remedy the misreading of medieval and modern Byzantine hants with highly detailed transcriptions more closely approximating their realisation in sound.
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved