Difference between revisions of "Talk:Byzantine Chant"
m (→general comment: is this discussion alive?)
(→general comment: is this discussion alive?)
|Line 28:||Line 28:|
Let me know!
Let me know!
Revision as of 19:34, March 27, 2008
this is just my opinion but... i think the sections describing a hymn genre should be its own article, such as the kanon, because it's something that operates independently of any particular culture. byzantine chant should address the particular musical character, i.e. the melody and the performance. but this is just my opinion and i wanted to discuss here before doing anything =]
- Fedya 11:51, February 2, 2006 (CST)
- I'm very much of the opinion that this whole article needs a rewrite. It was originally a paper (as is noted) and not really an encyclopedic article. Regarding the issue you raise, while most of the poetic forms of Orthodox liturgical hymnography were designed to be performed to Byzantine chant, they've come to have an independent state to them, since the same hymns are now performed to multiple kinds of chant. Perhaps it would be best for this article to discuss mainly the music itself, noting of course that it is the original Orthodox Church music. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 12:21, February 2, 2006 (CST)
The Chant of the Church?
I've heard this before, but it sounds like Hellenism to me. It is possible, in non-hellenic churches, to see an entire year through without hearing a single Byzantine melody. Gasp if you must, but the point is that the scope of the introductory paragraph seems limited to Hellenic churches (such as Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece, etc.), rendering non-hellenic churches with their own chant systems third-class citizens of the Orthodox musical world. I'd like to hear some opinions on this from a variety of traditions and sources. --Basil 12:43, March 3, 2006 (CST)
- "It is possible, in non-hellenic churches, to see an entire year through without hearing a single Byzantine melody." Particularly if one is Western Rite Orthodox.
Once I finish reading the style manual I would be willing to take an attempt at re-writing this page. In reagrds to mentioning the Kanon and such, I do not see I problem having a seperate page and mentioning it with Byzantine chant because they developed side by side. It is hard to seperate the origins of Byzantine Chant and the Kanon and Kontakion, for the music was made for the performance of these and vice-versa. --Samuel
- Thanks for working on this! While I love Byzantine chant, I'm not nearly enough of an expert on it to work very well on articles pertaining to it. We welcome your contributions. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 13:30, June 16, 2006 (CDT)
general comment: is this discussion alive?
It seems, as noted by the original author, the article was written as an encyclopaedic entry. As such, it seems that it should begin with an historical overview and them move into details of the various forms and later manifestation, including its influence as the starting point for Slavic church music.
To comment regarding the seeming Hellenistic bias mentioned in an earlier post, there's no way around the fact that the first Christian hymnography is Greek. As the chant of the liturgical worship of the Eastern Empire it is primarily Greek. It enters the Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, Slavic and other language cultures via translation. Its influence is felt in the west also Discussion of these forms should be included; most definitely.
This brings me to another point. It seems that a parallel article on Byzantine Orthodox hymnography would also be in order. It is impossible to discuss Byzantine notational systems separately from hymnographical evolutions, troparion, kontakion, kanon, stichera, etc.
There is no reason why we could not go into a review of the study of Byzantine Chant in modern scholarship. Nevertheless, it seems that the starting point would be a historical overview of the hymn-forms, origins (i.e. fathers), sources (i.e. manuscript tradition, hymnbooks), the oktoechos, notational periods, influences, genera (i.e. papadic, sticheraric, heirmologic), forms (prokeimena, koinonika, ainoi, mathemata, megalynaria, etc.), theory, interpretation, etc.
If anyone is still watching this discussion I would be willing to work on some outlines for the article that might offer a good framework for a working article.
Let me know! frcjtatmsn.com