^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