Talk:Byzantine music

Byzantine music or Byzantine chant?

Surely this article should be at Byzantine Chant, and not Byzantine music? The article has barely any mention of secular Byzantine music. While instrumental music of the Byzantine era is largely lost, a good portion of the Modern Greek folksong repertory may well date to the Byzantine era. I propose this article be retitled Byzantine Chant, and a separate Byzantine Music page be set up. InfernoXV 19:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a brief discussion of music in the first section (mostly saying we don't know much about it), but, yes, the rest is chant. I would favor the rename (minus that section), and if you know much about how the folksongs come from Byzantine secular music, adding that to that section and making a new article at Byzantine music. (Note the convention is to have chant and music lowercase in such titles). Rigadoun (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoa... Go slow there. In the first place, the reason it is mostly devoted to chant is because that is what we have the most knowledge of. On the second place, if the article needs more on the non-chant front, the answer is to add it (or wait for others to) NOT to "disappear" the subject from the encyclopedia. And thirdly, section 1 (the one you want to excise) us one of the best written, most cogent pieces I've ever seen on Wikipedia.108.54.57.244 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole article is not bad, but ahistoric, too short and poor in content and the little torso needs an entire revision (I was already asked to do it, and I reworked the beginning and I restructured the whole article according to a chronological order). The idea with Byzantine music is probably more correct from a historical point of view (since the article is not only about church music today, but also about the music at the Byzantine court). The section "extent" etc. is very problematic. It is mainly a repetition of the section "instruments", and since Jerusalem is at least as important as Constantinople (at least for Constantinople alone), I disagree with the private opinion of the author that Byzantine music should be focussed on Constantinople (it might be probably true for a narrow understanding of "Byzantine rite"). The history of Byzantine music was quite different in Italy, Greece, Egypt, Caucasus (Armenia and Georgia), and Syria (I am not talking about various regions of Greece like Thessaloniki, Athos, Peloponnese, Chios, Crete, Cyprus etc. which should be also mentioned here), and it is nothing else than ignorant to exclude all these local traditions from the article. An article about Byzantine music should also include the Slavic reception since Cyril and Methodius, the Kievan Rus', because these are the earliest notated sources of the Byzantine rite in the narrow sense which have survived. Hence, Slavic Orthodox traditions today have an equal interest in this article to learn about their roots and we should also try to fulfil the expectations of readers who are coming from this background. --Platonykiss (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Medieval Period/Angelic origin of chant

I would appreciate some more references on this point. The biblical refs given seem to refer to angels speaking/calling/making sounds rather than singing. Perhaps an old translation issue? Philip Howard (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed a central idea of Orthodox celebrations which already formed an important part of the Byzantine concept (a court ceremony which makes you feel like being in heaven which later caused the crisis of iconoclasm, there are many Greek theological terms which do require a very sophisticated translation indeed), but I am not a fan of this way to write the article, but we do things together here, and until things are not absolutely wrong and requires a revision, as it also happens from time to time, I will leave it unchanged. Platonykiss (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Greek translation

What's the point of the Greek translation (Βυζαντινή Μουσική) of the title? I think it's widely recognized that the word Byzantine is a late Western name of the empire and everything connected with it. Unless Byzantine music somehow was an exception, this wrongly suggests that the English title is translated from the original Greek in parentheses. 98.210.235.191 (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't understood it, it is not a translation, but it must be there because it is used (in Greece-Greek) and referenced in something that has to do especialy and with the Greek culture --Desposius (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree (please see above for the reasons), but the term μουσική is indeed of Greek origin. It was used as an alternative term to ἁρμονικαὶ, in English translated "harmonics", to make a difference between the Pythagorean science of mathematics and the discussion of contemporary music like the music of the Byzantine period. It was used as a loanword in Arabic treatises to talk about the authochtonous music theory concerned with Arab music and likewise in Latin (Boethius was already practical and innovative enough to choose the title "De institutione musica"). The English word "music" in its very simple meaning derived from the Latin translation "musica", and is the translation of the translation, if you like. Platonykiss (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem with O Monogenes Yios

It is cited in the article that O Monogenes Yios is ascribed to Emperor-Saint Justinian I, but in the article of O Monogenes Yios, the hymn is ascribed to Patriarch-Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. So, it can be concluded that at least one article is incorrect! (I am guessing this one) 75.73.114.111 (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a very common confusion between a troparion of the second antiphon which was attributed to Justinian (the christological symbolon), and the earlier Athanasian symbolon. At the end both are simply ascriptions, nothing more, the article about it does explain it. --Platonykiss (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Large-scale revisions

I would suggest a couple of things for the current large-scale revisions taking place.

1. Please use the Preview button to see your work and improve it multiple times before saving multiple revisions. Today alone you have made over 50 revisions to the page, clogging "Recent changes" and watchlists.
2. Please observe MOS:CAPS for section headings. I have modified almost all of them to conform. Perhaps I was a bit too aggressive in places, I welcome corrections.
3. Consider adding more references. This is a long article and it currently only has 20 sources; I would expect to see 100 or more. If you have good information about Byzantine music then undoubtedly you are getting it from books or journals; please add them as footnotes.
4. Please use edit summaries when saving your work. This helps other editors see and know what you have changed in the article without having to check all your diffs. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please try to say something about the topic of this subject, or open a new section. It is not my first article, I do it my way, and I do not care about the use of capitals. For me it is fine, if you like it like this. But is there no bot which can do this mind-wrecking work for you? I do not wish to be bothered in how many edits I do change articles. It also depends on the internet connection and various other factors, as experienced users know. Platonykiss (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where we edit collaboratively by using WP:CONSENSUS and discussion to reach improved articles. We follow the Manual of Style which has guidelines on how to use formatting, spelling, and orthography in articles. I suggest you review them; they have been created through years of various editors determining what is best for the encyclopedia. As for number of edits, it is considered rude to clog up article histories with many small revisions that could have been bundled into larger ones through use of the preview button. I trust you do not want to be perceived as rude. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? Is there something wrong with avoiding rudeness? Platonykiss (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please read WP:CIVIL. It is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia: Users should treat each other with respect and civility. Elizium23 (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I always wasted too much time here. It has gone. So have I...

Beginning

I deleted a certain period in this edit for several reasons:

• The phrase in question was already criticised during a discussion with other readers. I tried to explain the message behind it, but it was criticised as too detailed by the user Elizium.
• "Historians agree" are weasel words, please try to be more precise, but not here.
• The discussion is too specific and footnotes should be avoided at the beginning, but there is now a whole section dedicated to the topic.
• The link to the page of the Patriarchate dedicated to Byzantine chant is already present in this article, but not very useful as a reference concerning the synthesis of the ethnic names for tropes used by the harmonikoi and for the eight-mode system used in the Hagiopolites.

It is obvious that the edit was done by some former author who wishes to restore the old version and tries this not for the first time. Please accept that it has been already improved for these very reasons. You are also welcome to join the discussion which was started on my talk page. I hope you might finally accept these changes after some consideration, but please do move forward and not backwards. It is a complex topic and unreflected sentences like these do not serve anyone. Platonykiss (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a new article

I propose that there be a new article created specifically for Byzantine Chant and that this article be dedicated and summarized to discuss the music of the Eastern Roman Empire.

The article on Byzantine Chant, rather than called "Byzantine Music" or "Byzantine Chant" should use the genre's proper name, The Psaltic Art but also have "Byzantine Chant" redirect to that article. This is also more proper because it isn't just a Greek or "Byzantine" practice, but rather is a practice seen in Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Israel and Egypt, as well as Greece and Crete. It's an ecclesiastical chant style used beyond just the Greek culture, and this should be emphasized by using it's proper name of "The Psaltic Art".

The new article would feature not only discussion of the history and development, but should also feature the details and discussion of the genres/scales within Byzantine Chant. The Diatonic, Soft Chromatic and Hard Chromatic genres, with the Enharmonic shadings of Diatonic also being discussed. The neumatic system of notation should also be covered in a basic manner, because much like the scales, it is a vital and key part of the practice of the Psaltic Art.

OrthoArchitectDU (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

A nice pragmatic suggestion, but I do not think that such an article would fulfill the high expections that most of the interested readers have, since all claim to inherit from the Byzantine tradition. Only concerning the Copts, Armenia and Georgia, we can say that their history is so independent from Byzantine history (despite there were various exchanges during many centuries), but it is not true for the whole Balkans whose countries have declared avtokephalia from the Ecumenical Patriarchate not earlier than during the 19th century. I fear we have to accept that this is the great challenge for this article.

Psaltic art is only concerned about the Late Byzantine period (Palaiologan dynasty) since the return of the Court and the Patriarchate from the exile in Nikaia, but the beginning of history of Byzantine music dates back 1000 years earlier! On the other hand, it would be very pretentious to ignore that this later period is not part of the history of Byzantine music, it is even essential for the understanding of earlier periods (despite of my modest efforts to improve the article in a chronological order). Nevertheless, I would agree to regard the whole post-Byzantine centuries as history of reception. Unfortunately, we need it together with the living tradition of Orthodox monody (please note that we do not treat here the later polyphonic developments, because they occured later or outside the Byzantine territory) in order to understand late or early Byzantine manuscripts. Believe me there is no other way!

At least, we can say one positive thing, the plan of this article did abandon the usual small-minded perspective that is chosen for the subject (the famous three steps: John of Damascus, John Koukouzeles, Chrysanthos of Madytos!). This is already something! ;D

The problem starts with John of Damascus: First, he is a very late but an important influence within the Patriarchate of Jerusalem (the history of the tropologion and of monastic hymnography begins in dogmatic opposition to Constantinople at the Patriarchate of Antioch). Second, he grew up in a very privileged circle close to the caliphate, when Damascus became the residence of the caliph. His father was not only an important politician of the caliph, but also the key figure who was responsible for the political defeat of the Byzantines in Damascus. John's family was Syrian and he learnt Greek from a Calabrian monk who was actually a slave at his father's household. Platonykiss (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Music

Cat we add these audio files to this article? That is, my question is: does this audio relates to the topic of this article Byzantine music? --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

As an example for the living tradition, why not? Please try to find out, where this recording was made and please classify the copyrights (especially if it is your recording). Concerning the melos, the first piece is a theotokion in echos plagios tetartos, from the style it sounds monastic. For a further identification of the hymn and its melos, this page might be useful:

http://www.imkorinthou.org/index.php/multimedia/e-keimena

Platonykiss (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)