Nick:

It looks like you are still on the list to me. There hasn't been much
activity in a long time. Actually, not SINCE August. I still have
issues I want to discuss and ideas I want to share, but I haven't had
much time lately. I'm going to try harder.

Stan

I found an enlightening article by Dr. Ivan Gardner about the spiritual
and psychological reasons why Orthodox music should be neither
instrumental nor polyphonic:
http://www.homb.org/Music%20in%20Orthodox%20Divine%20Services.pdf
The file is 12 pages and only 50 kb.
Perhaps the advocates of instrumental polyphonic music in the GOA who
take their Orthodox faith seriously will reconsider their stance if they
grasp what Dr. Gardner is saying.
-Alexandros
--
   Alexandros Andreou
   aalexandros@...

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
                           wherever you are

Dear Alexandros:

First, before I critique this article, let me briefly state my
practice on instrumental music and polyphony in the Church. My choir
always chants, unaccompanied, heirmological things, such as litanies,
antiphons, troparia, and megalynaria. The only time I use harmony with
my choir is in papadic hymns, such as the Cherubic or Communion. (I
will also use harmony during the distribution of Communion, even on a
heirmological hymn such as "Tu Dhipnu Sou.") I only use the organ on
long hymns where I feel the choir may lose pitch or place. The organ
is not a feature, is played softly, and is only a support for the
voices. I never use the organ for petitions, antiphons, or troparia.
We take our pitch from the intoning of the priest. Most of these are
either in Plagal Fourth or Second Tone. In Plagal Fourth, our ison is
a fifth below the priest, and in Second Tone, it is the same pitch as
the priest. We have two priests. One always hits Dhi on the right
pitch. The other is usually lower and sometimes modulates unknowingly,
but we follow him anyway. This creates a seamless dialogue between
priest and people. We encourage congregational singing, so the choir
sings simple chant melodies, (mostly those of Sakellarides), and the
main purpose of our choir is the lead the congregation.

I use harmony in the papadic hymns as a kind of kalophonia. My singers
are not skilled enough to do a real Byzantine Cherubic hymn with all
the long melismas and ornaments, so we ornament it with triads. We are
able to do this. It also has the added advantage of giving those who
are used to Western harmony and who favor it, a chance to actually use
it in the Liturgy. I would say a big majority of American Greek
Orthodox Christians feel that four-part harmony is their traditional
Church music and they want to use it.

We chant in both Greek and English, but since English is the language
that almost everybody understands, I make sure that apolytikia and
festal troparia and megalynaria always get an English rendition, even
if it has to be repeated after the Greek.

Now, as for the article, the thing I agree with him the most is the
importance of the text when it comes to prayer and instruction. Most
of the hymns of the Divine Liturgy fall into one of those two
categories or incorporate elements of both. There are other hymns that
are exhorations, e. g. "Let us lay aside all earthly cares," or
"Praise the Lord in the highest." It is the exhortations that are
usually found in the Papadic hymns, and for this reason, since they
are not strictly prayer or instruction, and since they are familiar
and repeated at every service, these words often do take a subordinate
role to the music, which is made ornamental and elongated. At these
times the music itself does take a primary role and there are reasons
for this and an important place for it as well. The author of the
article seems to think that music in and of itself has no role in the
Liturgy, but I would take issue with this.

Being from the Russian tradition, the author makes no comment on the
terirems, or wordless chants, of the Byzantines. According to his
arguments, they would have no place in worship. I also think the
author treads on dangerous ground when he makes statements such as,
"In the West, the text plays a subordinate role. This, it seems,
appeared as a consequence of the ascetics of Roman Catholicism in
general, and in particular, the spurning of the edifying aspect of
Divine services." I would think Catholics would take serious offense
at these statements, and I think they do border on an Orthodox
condescension and a holier-than-thou attitude. In reality, all
Catholic music, including contrapuntal polyphony, has a base of unison
chant. In the Catholic chants, the text takes the predominant role.
Polyphony, in Catholic churches, is an oramentation of the fundamental
chant.

As to pure, wordless instrumental music, it does not play a large role
in ANY Christian church. If it exists, it is a side show. Even in the
modern American Protestant "praise" services, the instruments
accompany songs, in which the words are an important part, along with
the styles of singing, which are supposed to inspire emotion and
feelings of praise for God. In other words, it's not worth making an
argument against it, because it just isn't found in 99.99% of Orthodox
worship services. There have been plenty of Divine Liturgies written
for Choir and Orchestra, but they are usually only performed at
concerts, festivals, or auspicious occasions. They are really no
threat to common worship.

In the end, I feel the author goes to great lengths to delve into the
psychology and anatomy of prayer and then tries to manufacture a
scenario where instrumental music and polyphony are the antidotes to
true spirituality and effective worship. I do not think he is
convincing. The effect of music upon prayer and worship is really
ineffable, and it's hard to make general statements about it. I think
it's something that is also very much affected by the cultural climate
in which it exists. We can make explanations and justifications for
our Orthodox musical traditions and we can be very right about it. But
when we start comparing it to other religions, denominations, or
cultures, we can be way off in our assessments.

I prefer to think of it in the way Metropolitan Maximos once said
about the correctness of the Orthodox Church. He said, "We know where
God is, but we do not know where He is not." It may be that for some
people in this world, knowledge of God is in instrumental music or
polyphony. As Orthodox Christians, we may not know this, because we
KNOW God is in our chants and our hymnography, and upon that basis, we
start to make assumptions about others. But even hell, which Orthodox
theologians have described as a place where God is absent, was visited
by the Lord on the second day after his crucifixion, so God can be
anywhere he chooses to be.

I only know that there is something God-like, in a triune way, in a
musical triad. Three separate tones join together to form one unique
sound. Take one tone away and the special creation is gone. Just as a
Byzantine mode can be destroyed by adding chords, a triad is destroyed
if one of the three notes is taken away. Polyphony is a natural
phenomenon, based upon the overtone vibrations of any fundamental
sound. Triads and even non-harmonic tones are a psychological part of
every timbre--of every sound. They exist, even in monophony. They were
created by God. Even though I am Orthodox and I respect the traditions
of my Church, I do not think the author of this article has convinced
me that there is no place for triads or other timbres in worship. In
Second Chronicles, we read that both vocal and instrumental music had
a crucial place in the tent that held the Ark of the Covenant. Psalm
150 exhorts us to praise the Lord with harp, tambourine, trumpets, and
stringed instruments. So there must be something about these that can
edify the worshipers, even if they are not prescribed for the Orthodox
Divine Liturgy.

I think the author, who by the title of the work, is supposed to be
speaking only of the Divine Liturgy, makes generalities and references
to Western Christianity that belie his intentions, and place the use
of instrumental music and polyphony on a much more universal basis,
and that is why his arguments do not have the ring of truth for me.

Stan

Dear List Members:

I have finished the latest version of our Divine Liturgy book. This
book retains the format of our Plagal Fourth Liturgy book, with
side-by-side Greek and English hymns for easy switching between
languages. It also contains the entire liturgy including the priests
petitions and prayers, both audible and inaudible, therefore, it also
makes a good pew book for congregational singing. This new version
also contains an alternate middle section of the Liturgy (from the
Cherubic hymn to the Communion hymn) in Plagal First Tone
(predominantly). This is for tonal variation and for choirs who switch
from major to minor during the service.

The book may be downloaded at our website, http://newbyz.org, and may
be freely reproduced as long as the English words and melodies are not
altered in any way. I am also working on a version of the book in
modern English, for those who prefer it, and it should be available
within a week or two.

Please send your comments and suggestions, if you are interested in
doing so.

Stan

Somehow the comma after my website's link got attached to the address
and it won't work with a comma at the end. Here it is without the comma.

The website is:

http://newbyz.org

Stan

Dear Stan,

It is true that the words becomes subordinate to the music in slow
pieces such as the cherubic hymn, but this doesn't mean that we can
allow just any music for those pieces. If we examine the origin of
the kind of polyphony used in the GOA, we will see that it is a
direcet descendent of the harmonizations done in Vienna back in the
early 1800s. In order to keep up with the latest fad, the Greeks in
the two parishes there hired a German musician (who was definitely
not orthodox, unless he was an orthodox Jew) to harmonize some hymns
for them. Even though it was condemned by the Patriarchate and
everyone else who respected true Greek Orthodox tradition, this trend
spread to Paris and London, and later infiltrated its way into Greece
with the support of the ruling kings of Greece, who were greatly
influenced by Western European culture. What I'm trying to say is
that anyone who claims that the music we do today in the GOA is "our
own tradition" is either pitifully naive and/or incapable of
discerning the difference between what is genuinely orthodox and what
is not.

You said: "I would say a big majority of American Greek Orthodox
Christians feel that four-part harmony is their traditional Church
music and they want to use it." To me this almost sounds as if you
know they are wrong, but at the same time you are unwilling to be the
bad guy that breaks the bad news to them. As a result you're
inadvertently encouraging them to continue believing their delusion,
instead of coming straight out at telling them the truth.

You wrote: "My singers are not skilled enough to do a real Byzantine
Cherubic hymn with all the long melismas and ornaments, so we
ornament it with triads." You know your choir members better than I
do so I will assume you are correct. But it does seem hard for me to
believe that they wouldn't be able to learn even one single Byzantine
cherubic hymn if you gave them a recording of it and then did the
same one every Sunday until they got it right.

The arguement that three-part music is symbolic of the Trinity in
unity doesn't seem any more valid that an arguement claiming churches
should be built three stories high. If this was a valid theological
point, why did the great theologian Church Fathers miss it? It's not
like they never heard a chord before.

It is true that instruments were used in Old Testament worship, but
several Holy Fathers agree that God was condescending to their
immature spiritual state. Therefore, citing these excerpts from the
Old Testament has no more validity for us than the dozens of other
excerpts one could find regarding ancient Jewish practices that
Christians no longer apply to their lives. But if you're trying to
say that the majority of people in the GOA need instruments because
of their spiritual immaturity, well you might have a point there. But
if that is the case, we should at least have the honesty to admit
that we are spiritually immature and not ready to follow the
teachings of the Holy Fathers yet, rather than claim that organs
are "our own tradition" that Byzantinophiles should respect.

You wrote: "Polyphony is a natural phenomenon, based upon the
overtone vibrations of any fundamental sound. Triads and even non-
harmonic tones are a psychological part of every timbre--of every
sound. They exist, even in monophony. They were created by God."
There is a huge difference to the human ear between a chord and a
single note that has overtones, although a computer might think they
are the same thing since they would both have more than one peak in a
spectrum analysis. This arguement and the previous arguement you
presented by quoting the Old Testament practice, give me the
impression that you are frantically trying to grasp any possible
justification for polyphony no matter how far fetched it is. Let's
just be honest and admit that the traditional practice of the Greek
Orthodox Church is a capella monophony, and that instrumental
polyphony is a heterodox innovation.

One last thing, it is incorrect to say that the texts of papadic
melodies are usually exhortations as opposed to prayers or
instructions. If we look at the texts used for the communion hymns of
feast days (all of which are traditionally chanted papadically) we
will see several instances which are clearly prayers and
instructions. For example, on Mid-Pentecost we sing: "He who eats my
flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him, said the Lord."
This is clearly an instructive text. On Monday of the Holy Spirit we
sing the prayerful text: "Take not your Holy Spirit away from us, we
pray, O Friend of Man." Besides, in the fifteenth century the entire
Anastasimatarion was chanted to old sticheraric melodies, which have
so many notes per syllable that we would label them as papadic.

-Alexandros

Dear Alexandros,
You have some good arguments, but if you are implying that
instruments could be allowed in Orthodox liturgical music as a
concession, then I would have to disagree with you. Using instruments
in Orthodox worship is such a blatant break from tradition and so
clearly opposed to the phronema of the Holy Fathers (as I mentioned
in my article at:
http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/music/Intro3.htm )
that I fail to see how it could be justified from a theological or
spiritual point of view. I suppose there's nothing wrong with
discreetly using a keyboard to help the choir start on the right
pitch, but to actually play it is going a bit too far, in my opinion
at least.
in Christ,
+Fr. Ephraim

--- In greekorthodoxmusic@yahoogroups.com, "aalexandros888"
<aalexandros@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Stan,
>
> It is true that the words becomes subordinate to the music in slow
> pieces such as the cherubic hymn, but this doesn't mean that we can
> allow just any music for those pieces. If we examine the origin of
> the kind of polyphony used in the GOA, we will see that it is a
> direcet descendent of the harmonizations done in Vienna back in the
> early 1800s. In order to keep up with the latest fad, the Greeks in
> the two parishes there hired a German musician (who was definitely
> not orthodox, unless he was an orthodox Jew) to harmonize some
hymns
> for them. Even though it was condemned by the Patriarchate and
> everyone else who respected true Greek Orthodox tradition, this
trend
> spread to Paris and London, and later infiltrated its way into
Greece
> with the support of the ruling kings of Greece, who were greatly
> influenced by Western European culture. What I'm trying to say is
> that anyone who claims that the music we do today in the GOA
is "our
> own tradition" is either pitifully naive and/or incapable of
> discerning the difference between what is genuinely orthodox and
what
> is not.
>
> You said: "I would say a big majority of American Greek Orthodox
> Christians feel that four-part harmony is their traditional Church
> music and they want to use it." To me this almost sounds as if you
> know they are wrong, but at the same time you are unwilling to be
the
> bad guy that breaks the bad news to them. As a result you're
> inadvertently encouraging them to continue believing their
delusion,
> instead of coming straight out at telling them the truth.
>
> You wrote: "My singers are not skilled enough to do a real
Byzantine
> Cherubic hymn with all the long melismas and ornaments, so we
> ornament it with triads." You know your choir members better than I
> do so I will assume you are correct. But it does seem hard for me
to
> believe that they wouldn't be able to learn even one single
Byzantine
> cherubic hymn if you gave them a recording of it and then did the
> same one every Sunday until they got it right.
>
> The arguement that three-part music is symbolic of the Trinity in
> unity doesn't seem any more valid that an arguement claiming
churches
> should be built three stories high. If this was a valid theological
> point, why did the great theologian Church Fathers miss it? It's
not
> like they never heard a chord before.
>
> It is true that instruments were used in Old Testament worship, but
> several Holy Fathers agree that God was condescending to their
> immature spiritual state. Therefore, citing these excerpts from the
> Old Testament has no more validity for us than the dozens of other
> excerpts one could find regarding ancient Jewish practices that
> Christians no longer apply to their lives. But if you're trying to
> say that the majority of people in the GOA need instruments because
> of their spiritual immaturity, well you might have a point there.
But
> if that is the case, we should at least have the honesty to admit
> that we are spiritually immature and not ready to follow the
> teachings of the Holy Fathers yet, rather than claim that organs
> are "our own tradition" that Byzantinophiles should respect.
>
> You wrote: "Polyphony is a natural phenomenon, based upon the
> overtone vibrations of any fundamental sound. Triads and even non-
> harmonic tones are a psychological part of every timbre--of every
> sound. They exist, even in monophony. They were created by God."
> There is a huge difference to the human ear between a chord and a
> single note that has overtones, although a computer might think
they
> are the same thing since they would both have more than one peak in
a
> spectrum analysis. This arguement and the previous arguement you
> presented by quoting the Old Testament practice, give me the
> impression that you are frantically trying to grasp any possible
> justification for polyphony no matter how far fetched it is. Let's
> just be honest and admit that the traditional practice of the Greek
> Orthodox Church is a capella monophony, and that instrumental
> polyphony is a heterodox innovation.
>
> One last thing, it is incorrect to say that the texts of papadic
> melodies are usually exhortations as opposed to prayers or
> instructions. If we look at the texts used for the communion hymns
of
> feast days (all of which are traditionally chanted papadically) we
> will see several instances which are clearly prayers and
> instructions. For example, on Mid-Pentecost we sing: "He who eats
my
> flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him, said the
Lord."
> This is clearly an instructive text. On Monday of the Holy Spirit
we
> sing the prayerful text: "Take not your Holy Spirit away from us,
we
> pray, O Friend of Man." Besides, in the fifteenth century the
entire
> Anastasimatarion was chanted to old sticheraric melodies, which
have
> so many notes per syllable that we would label them as papadic.
>
> -Alexandros
>

Dear Alexandros,

>It is true that the words becomes subordinate to the music in slow
>pieces such as the cherubic hymn, but this doesn't mean that we can
>allow just any music for those pieces. If we examine the origin of
>the kind of polyphony used in the GOA, we will see that it is a
>direcet descendent of the harmonizations done in Vienna back in the
>early 1800s.

I'm sure you know more about the history than I do, but let me just
ask, where did kalophonia come from? It is agreed that it was an
innovation of John Koukouzelis, isn't it? How do we know for sure that
the source wasn't outside of Orthodoxy? I've read the stories of how
Koukouzelis' mother sang him Bulgarian folk songs and the like when he
was young. And what is exactly the conclusive evidence that there was
no Turkish or Arabic influence on Byzantine chant since the fall of
COnstantinople? Western European music derived from Gregorian chant,
which, considering the dates of its origin, is an Orthodox Christian
form of music, is it not?

>anyone who claims that the music we do today in the GOA is "our
>own tradition" is either pitifully naive and/or incapable of
>discerning the difference between what is genuinely orthodox and what
>is not.

Well, then that naivete or incapability comes directly from the
Church, because they grew up with that music and that's all they knew.
It's a tradition to them because no priest or hierarch stood up and
told them it wasn't. In fact the hierarchs of the GOA were praising
left and right the Divine Liturgy music of this years Clergy-Laity
Congress, a harmonization of Sakellarides which is the most
Protestant-sounding one yet.

Allow me to quote from the Liturgical Guidebook of some of the
descriptions of Divine Liturgy arrangements offered to American Greek
Orthodox Churches. Keep in mind that the National Forum does not write
these descriptions. They are sent in by the composers and publishers.
Also, when ther word "traditional" is used, it mostly means Sakellarides.

For the Bogdanos liturgy:

"Written for mixed chorus in the Byzantine modal ethos. SATB with some
plain chant with ison or organ harmonic background..."

For the Cardiasemos liturgy:

"Traditional melodies...SATB...The setting is modal throughout. For
the most part, the work has been written for a mixed choir of 4-6
parts, with a few examples of chant with ison. The chant melody found
in the primary Trisagion was constructed and composed based on 12th
Century chant formulas and style, and then harmonized..."

For the Desby liturgy:

"Traditional material as a basis...The 'ethos' of each melody has been
kept in mind in the harmonization in order to retain the modal
characteristics. Except for a few chants with ison, the work has been
written for a mixed choir of 4-6 parts..."

For the George liturgy:

"...based on traditional melodies. It also incorporates music by Dr.
S. A. Spathis as arranged and adapted for any size mixed choir, with
or without accompaniment...It opens in D, moves to G...and finishes in
Eb..."

For the Harmand liturgy:

"This is a choral Liturgy, with some of the music adapted and arranged
from Mozart. It has an organ part..."


For the Kanaracus liturgy:

"The first completely original setting of the Divine Liturgy composed
in the U. S. Basic key is G major with excursions into related keys.
Some attention is given to the Greek idea of 'ethos'..."

For the Kypros liturgy:

"Liturgy of Peace...Original music combines eastern and western
musical flavors. SATB..."

For the Rev. Mendrinos liturgy:

"Choral Arrangements and Keyboard Accompaniment...This four-part
accompaniment and choir arrangement follows page by page the Divine
Liturgy Hymnal described under the Ernest Villas listing..."

For the Revezoulis liturgy:

"This Liturgy offers something out of the ordinary...The material is
original...it incorporates various musical elements and styles: Greek
liturgical music, Greek demotic music, and music of the Renaissance
and Middle Ages. It is modal and has a chant-like quality. In general,
it suggest the style of music of the early church. The setting is
challenging."

There's more, but I'm sure you get the idea. No one has told any of
these people the "bad news."

>To me this almost sounds as if you
>know they are wrong, but at the same time you are unwilling to be the
>bad guy that breaks the bad news to them. As a result you're
>inadvertently encouraging them to continue believing their delusion,
>instead of coming straight out at telling them the truth.

I've never shied away from telling people my opinions in regards to
Church music. I was also a history major in college (my other majors
were humanities and music) and to me, history is just telling what has
happened with no opinions stated, so sometimes I'm relating opinions
and sometimes I'm relating history. My comments on American Greek
Orthodox music are history. Are these people deluded? I don't know. I
just know how they feel.


>The arguement that three-part music is symbolic of the Trinity in
>unity doesn't seem any more valid that an arguement claiming churches
>should be built three stories high. If this was a valid theological
>point, why did the great theologian Church Fathers miss it? It's not
>like they never heard a chord before.

I've heard this idea expressed before, although after I came up with
it myself. I don't see anyting God-like in the idea of a three-story
church. I do in a triad. It's one of my opinions.

I'm not going to get into how spiritually immature you have to be to
use instruments in worship. I'm also not going to try and pick and
choose which parts of scripture we can ignore because they've been
trumped by New Testament theologions. All I know is that the Psalms
are an important part of Orthodox worship, and some of the psalms tell
us to use instruments. Now, they don't specifically say we should use
them in the Divine Liturgy. I'll give you that.

>This arguement and the previous arguement you
>presented by quoting the Old Testament practice, give me the
>impression that you are frantically trying to grasp any possible
>justification for polyphony no matter how far fetched it is. Let's
>just be honest and admit that the traditional practice of the Greek
>Orthodox Church is a capella monophony, and that instrumental
>polyphony is a heterodox innovation.

First, I don't think justification for the use of polyphony is
far-fetched. It's obviously used quite a bit both in Orthodoxy and
throughout Christendom. Also, I'm not frantic to justify anything. I'm
perfectly relaxed about using modest, homophonic harmony occasionally
with the Western-trained singers of my choir. I'm also relaxed about
trying to teach them to chant, as miserably qualified as I am for that
notwithstanding.

>One last thing, it is incorrect to say that the texts of papadic
>melodies are usually exhortations as opposed to prayers or
>instructions...

I didn't mean to imply that all of the papadic hymns in the lexicon
are that way. I was only referring to the normal Sunday Divine Liturgy
Cherubic and Communion hymns. The Divine Liturgy, actually, is the
only service of the Orthodox Church that my choir is qualified to
chant for.

Respectfully,

Stan


Dear Papa Ephraim:

>I suppose there's nothing wrong with
>discreetly using a keyboard to help the choir start on the right
>pitch, but to actually play it is going a bit too far, in my opinion
>at least.

Well, at least my organist doesn't improvise harmony if there isn't
any. I instruct her just to play the melody and ison, and only on the
longer and more difficult hymns. My choir has wonderful people, but
they are mostly not formally trained in music. Regardless, I would not
expect any less of an uncompromising position from you, and I truly
find your consistency and integrity inspiring. Much as I would like to
be, I cannot be like you in this matter. Pragmatism has solved many
dilemmas for me regarding the modernists and the traditionalists.
Sometimes compromise is not a bad thing, but I'm still trying to
figure out when that is.

Respectfully,

Stan

Dear Stan,

Thanks for presenting all those quotes from the Liturgical Guidebook. It
amazes me to see how so many of them want to claim that their music is
based on tradition, when in reality they disregard the basic tenets that
make the Byzantine music tradition what it is. If we make a list of what
aspects of traditional Greek Orthodox music they have kept and what they
have discarded, I think it would go something like this:

Kept:
* The original words
* The original melodic line (when in Greek)

Discarded:
* a capella singing
* single melodic line with ison
* traditional "hyphos" (style) of singing
* traditional intervals and attractions
* the eight modes
* proper application of formulas (when in English)
* traditional notation
* traditional tempo

With so many basic elements changed, it amazes me that they still have
the audacity to claim that their music is still traditional and some of
them even label their music as "Byzantine". It is about as absurd as
calling a Native American Indian dance "based on tradition" even if it
is done to the music of Michael Jackson, with strobe lights and electric
guitars on MTV!

> I'm sure you know more about the history than I do, but let me just
> ask, where did kalophonia come from? It is agreed that it was an
> innovation of John Koukouzelis, isn't it? How do we know for sure that
> the source wasn't outside of Orthodoxy? I've read the stories of how
> Koukouzelis' mother sang him Bulgarian folk songs and the like when he
> was young. And what is exactly the conclusive evidence that there was
> no Turkish or Arabic influence on Byzantine chant since the fall of
> COnstantinople? Western European music derived from Gregorian chant,
> which, considering the dates of its origin, is an Orthodox Christian
> form of music, is it not?

We could say that the roots of the classical music of Bach, Mozart,
Beethoven, etc. can be traced back through the Baroque, Renaissance, and
Medieval periods into Gregorian and other forms of (Orthodox) Christian
chants. But in the exact same way we could also say that the roots of
Pentecostalism can be traced back through Protestantism and Roman
Catholicism back to Orthodoxy. Does this mean that we Orthodox can
incorporate Pentecostal traditions without harm? Of course not. Does
this mean we can incorporate classical music traditions without harm? Of
course not.

As far as the liturgical arts of Orthodoxy are concerned, change is
inevitable. I am not scandalized by the fact that the so-called
Byzantine music we do today is different than what was chanted in
Byzantium 1500 years ago. Nor am I scandalized to see that so-called
Byzantine iconography of today has a different style than the icons
written 1500 years ago. The same applies to styles in liturgical dress,
church architecture, etc. But I am scandalized when I see that there is
a sudden break in tradition done by a small minority in the Church. So
when I see an "orthodox" church that looks weirder than a flying saucer,
I am scandalized. When I see an "orthodox" icon that looks like a
Renaissance painting, I am scandalized. And when I hear an "orthodox"
liturgy based on Mozart with organ and all, I am scandalized.

We are not in a position to say precisely how Bulgarian St. John
Koukouzelis' music is or exactly how Turkish neo-Byzantine music is. But
it is comforting to know that the church as a whole accepted those
developments. It is equally discomforting to know that while Greek
Orthodoxy as a whole has rejected instruments and polyphony, the Greek
Orthodoxy in America has immortalized the fad of Western influence that
was rabid in Greece in the early 20th century. Greece was fortunate to
have strong spiritual leaders with a deep understanding of tradition so
as to help people get over that fad and return to traditional
iconography and liturgical music. America has been unfortunate to lack
such spiritual leaders, which is why we are still 60 years behind the
times, sort of like in a time capsule. Thank God, we have caught on in
terms of Byzantine iconography. All that we need now is to return to our
traditional musical roots as well.

> I'm also not going to try and pick and
> choose which parts of scripture we can ignore because they've been
> trumped by New Testament theologions. All I know is that the Psalms
> are an important part of Orthodox worship, and some of the psalms tell
> us to use instruments.

Fortunately, the Orthodox Church has not left it up to us to pick and
choose which parts of the Old Testament are applicable today. In regards
to this verse in the Psalms and the use of instruments, we can rely on
the opinions of St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom, St.
Isidore of Pelusium, St. Theodoret of Cyrus, and the Rudder itself. We
can't call ourselves Orthodox if we choose to interpret a verse in
scripture while ignoring their unanimous opinion of it. Protestant yes,
Orthodox no.

-Alexandros
--
   Alexandros Andreou
   aalexandros@...

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail

Dear Alexandros:

You wrote:

>We are not in a position to say precisely how Bulgarian St. John
>Koukouzelis' music is or exactly how Turkish neo-Byzantine music is.
>But it is comforting to know that the church as a whole accepted those
>developments.

If the Church could accept the non-Orthodox contributions to the
liturgical music of the Turks and the Bulgars, why can't it accept the
musical descendants of Gregorian chant? Or am I just not understanding
you here?

Stan

Dear Stan,

It is one thing for the Orthodox Church to allow subtle influences from
heterodox music and another thing entirely for her to abruptly discard
her own traditional music and to adopt heterodox music virtually
unchanged. As I demonstrated in my list of things kept and discarded,
most contemporary composers in the GOA throw out the window almost every
aspect of traditional Greek Orthodox music. They keep only the bare
necessities (and occasionally not even that!) If we were able to make a
comparable list of things kept and discarded by the Church musicians
under the Turkish yoke, we would probably see that out of those ten
aspects I listed, only two of them (at most) might have changed: the
hyphos of singing and perhaps the tonal attractions. I will pass over in
silence the arguement by Ballindras that it was Turkish music that was
influenced by Byzantine music rather than vice-versa. So even if we
concede the point that these two aspects changed, that is still only two
out of ten aspects. But in the case of those contemporary GOA composers,
EIGHT out of ten aspects are changed. Therefore, the two instances are
completely different phenomena, and one cannot justify the latter by
citing the former.

But even if they were comparable, the bottom line is that the Church as
a whole DID accept the supposed Bulgarian and Turkish influences, while
the Church as a whole has NOT accepted the importation of Western
European music. And I don't think it ever will, considering that it
directly contradicts the phronema of all those saints I mentioned. On
the other hand, the subtle Bulgarian or Turkish influences (that some
people claim affected Byzantine chant) were never condemned by the
Church or by her saints.

-Alexandros


On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:51:38 -0000, "Stan Takis" <takistan@...>
said:
> Dear Alexandros:
>
> You wrote:
>
> >We are not in a position to say precisely how Bulgarian St. John
> >Koukouzelis' music is or exactly how Turkish neo-Byzantine music is.
> >But it is comforting to know that the church as a whole accepted those
> >developments.
>
> If the Church could accept the non-Orthodox contributions to the
> liturgical music of the Turks and the Bulgars, why can't it accept the
> musical descendants of Gregorian chant? Or am I just not understanding
> you here?
>
> Stan
>
>
--
   Alexandros Andreou
   aalexandros@...

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access all of your messages and folders
                           wherever you are

Dear Alexandros:

Right. The only thing is, up until 1054 the "Church as a whole"
included Western Europe, and by then the Western European musical
tradition was already moving in another direction from that of the
East. The eventual flowering of Western European music was probably
more influenced by its history up to 1054 rather than any heretical
theological influences of the Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Stan

Dear Stan,

Those statements of yours are very misleading.

First, it would be rather simplistic to believe that everything in the
West until 1053 was perfectly Orthodox, and everything after 1054 was
Roman Catholic. The heresies of the filioque, papal supremacy, etc., had
been brewing in the West for centuries before they culminated in the
Great Schism in 1054.

Second, if we research the history of ecclesiastical polyphony, we will
see that it wasn't until the 11th and 12th centuries that it starting
developing. Likewise, if we look into the history of the use of
instruments in church, we will again see that, according to the Catholic
Encylcopedia: "For almost a thousand years Gregorian chant, without any
instrumental or harmonic addition, was the only music used in connection
with the liturgy."

The fact that polyphony and instruments start getting their "foot in the
door" of church around the same time as the Great Schism is no
coincidence, and this fact strengthens my arguement that these aspects
of worship are foreign to genuine Orthodoxy.

-Alexandros

On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 22:27:17 -0000, "Stan Takis" <takistan@...>
said:
> Dear Alexandros:
>
> Right. The only thing is, up until 1054 the "Church as a whole"
> included Western Europe, and by then the Western European musical
> tradition was already moving in another direction from that of the
> East. The eventual flowering of Western European music was probably
> more influenced by its history up to 1054 rather than any heretical
> theological influences of the Roman Catholics and Protestants.
>
> Stan
>
--
   Alexandros Andreou
   aalexandros@...

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?

Dear Alexandros:

Well, you are right about that. The Church did not become schismatic
over night. It took a couple of hundred years or more. I still think
the music is shaped by the language more than the theology and the
differences between Latin and Greek are the main reasons for the
differences in the two chants and subsequent elaborations.

It would be interesting to see what would happen, in terms of music,
if reconciliation did occur, as Pope Benedict indicated this week, it
is one of his primary goals.

By the way, don't you find it odd that the mainstream media is
ignoring the real reason for the pope's trip to Istanbul and is
billing it as a clash of "cultures," i. e. Catholicism vs. Islam?
There is hardly any mention of it as a mission of Christian
reconciliation, which, in a historical sense, would be a much larger
story.

Stan

If language was a primary factor in shaping the music, it wouldn't have
taken them 1000 years to realize that Latin is supposedly more
compatible with polyphony and instruments. The fact that both Greek and
Latin can be set to either polyphony or monophony and can be sung either
a capella or with instruments leads me to believe that language has
little to do with their adoption of polyphony and instruments. It seems
to be much more expressive of their cultural tastes, which is evident
also in the style of art the Latins prefer. The sensuous art of the
Renaissance period matches their sensuously elaborate music.
But don't get me started on the Patriarch's spineless betrayal of
Orthodoxy with all his polite words to the Pope implying that the
Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches are equal "sisters". It takes
someone with the guts of a confessor (like St. Mark of Ephesus, St.
Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, or St. Nectarios of Aegina to name a
few) to condemn Roman Catholicism as the heresy it really is. Too bad
St. Cosmas of Aitolos isn't around, since he was the one who warned
people: "Curse the Pope, because he will be the cause [for the end to
come]"!
-Alexandros

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:24:01 -0000, "Stan Takis" <takistan@...>
said:
> Dear Alexandros:
>
> Well, you are right about that. The Church did not become schismatic
> over night. It took a couple of hundred years or more. I still think
> the music is shaped by the language more than the theology and the
> differences between Latin and Greek are the main reasons for the
> differences in the two chants and subsequent elaborations.
>
> It would be interesting to see what would happen, in terms of music,
> if reconciliation did occur, as Pope Benedict indicated this week, it
> is one of his primary goals.
>
> By the way, don't you find it odd that the mainstream media is
> ignoring the real reason for the pope's trip to Istanbul and is
> billing it as a clash of "cultures," i. e. Catholicism vs. Islam?
> There is hardly any mention of it as a mission of Christian
> reconciliation, which, in a historical sense, would be a much larger
> story.
>
> Stan
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
--
   Alexandros Andreou
   aalexandros@...

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm... Fastmail...

Hello,

I was born and raised in Detroit and my church was on Oakland County.
I miss it terribly.  I'm having problems locating a church similar. I
know its a stretch but I have been to about 12: 7 Greek and 1 Serbian,
Russian, and Antiochian and an Evangelical.

I'm looking for a church with a priest who can carry a tune, has a
choir with an organ, and I'm bound by the MBTA.  I'm thinking about St
Catherine's in Braintree and I would like to go to St Demetrios in
Weston but that's not possible at this time.

If there are any more that fit the bill please let me know.

Thank you,

Maria

Dear Maria:

Well, I know that Dean Limberakis conducts a choir with organ at the
Annunciation Cathedral at the corner of Parker and Ruggles Streets in
Boston.

Stan

--- In greekorthodoxmusic@yahoogroups.com, "justduck26"
<justduck26@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I was born and raised in Detroit and my church was on Oakland County.
> I miss it terribly.  I'm having problems locating a church similar. I
> know its a stretch but I have been to about 12: 7 Greek and 1 Serbian,
> Russian, and Antiochian and an Evangelical.
>
> I'm looking for a church with a priest who can carry a tune, has a
> choir with an organ, and I'm bound by the MBTA.  I'm thinking about St
> Catherine's in Braintree and I would like to go to St Demetrios in
> Weston but that's not possible at this time.
>
> If there are any more that fit the bill please let me know.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Maria
>

Dear Maria,

I'll send your request to the Boston area Church Music Federation.

Vicki

For all my friends on this board, I want to share a congregational
song sheet that my priest requested. He wanted the congregation to
sing some carols after Vespers tomorrow, so I created these. There are
English lyrics on one side and Greek on the other. You can download it
here:

http://newbyz.org/christmassongs.pdf

You will probably need the keyboard/chord chart for Ta Kalanda:

http://newbyz.org/kalandaorgan.pdf

I hope this proves useful to somebody.

Kala Christougenna!

Stan

Hi!  I'm putting together this year's schedule for personal leave, at
work.  Each year that there's been a Tri-Level Summer Institute at
Holy Cross, I've been caught by surprise and have been unable to clear
my calendar in order to attend.  I'm trying to be a little more
pro-active, this year.

Does anyone know (1) whether there will be one, this summer? And if
so, when?

As far as I can tell, Holy Cross's web site has no info; ditto, the
Archdiocesan web site.

Thanks --

-- Dana Netherton

Hi Dana!

Vicki would know for sure. You could always email her.

Stan

--- In greekorthodoxmusic@yahoogroups.com, "dananetherton" <dana@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi!  I'm putting together this year's schedule for personal leave, at
> work.  Each year that there's been a Tri-Level Summer Institute at
> Holy Cross, I've been caught by surprise and have been unable to clear
> my calendar in order to attend.  I'm trying to be a little more
> pro-active, this year.
>
> Does anyone know (1) whether there will be one, this summer? And if
> so, when?
>
> As far as I can tell, Holy Cross's web site has no info; ditto, the
> Archdiocesan web site.
>
> Thanks --
>
> -- Dana Netherton
>

Here's an article I wrote for our church bulletin. Feel free to post
your thoughts. Our priest strongly favors active congregational
participation.


A BRIEF HISTORY OF CONGREGATIONAL SINGING

by Stan Takis, Choir Director


Colossians 3:16 â€" Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all
wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and
spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

Ephesians 5:18-19 â€" Be filled with the Spirit, speaking to yourselves
in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in
your heart to the Lord.

The above verses from the epistles of Paul make it very clear that in
the worship practices of the earliest Christians, entire congregations
participated in the musical activities. This, no doubt, comes from the
practices of the Jewish synagogue. In the ancient Jewish temple, the
Levite musicians, through the use of hand signs, taught cantillations
from the Torah to congregations. In the homilies of St. John
Chrysostom and other early Christian manuscripts, we find descriptions
of liturgical services that make it clear congregational singing was
an integral part of worship. No serious scholar of the early Church
questions this fact. However, sometime during these early years, the
office of chanter was established as an appointed position, as in the
temple, probably as a continuation of Jewish practices, and perhaps
because as the order of the service developed and number of the hymns
increased, knowledgeable chanters were needed to lead the
congregational singing.

So why did congregational singing die out, almost completely
disappearing from Orthodox practice? The answer begins in the canons
(laws) of the early Church. In the Fourth Century, the Council of
Laodicea decreed in its fifteenth canon that, “No others shall sing in
the Church, save only the canonical singers, who go up into the ambo
and sing from a book.”  The most common explanation of this canon is
that the amateur singing of the congregation was interfering with the
dignified execution of the services, and by then, the chanters were
considered an ordained office of the lower clergy, and thus their role
was expanding. This is a reasonable assumption, given the context of
the other canons of the Council, which were highly concerned with the
decorum of the Church leaders and practice. (You can read the canons
of the Council of Laodicea at this website:
http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm. It is a very
interesting document.)

In the monasteries of the early medieval period, the hymnody of the
Orthodox Church began to flower. New forms of hymns were developed
such as the kontakion and kanon. Monastics such as St. Romanos the
Melodist, St. Andrew of Crete, and St. John of Damascus made
significant contributions and changes. As the duties of the office of
chanter expanded, and the practices of the monasteries influence the
Patriarchal churches, the system of music became more arcane and
distant from the congregations. With the development of “kalophonic”
chanting in the 14th Century, a style pioneered by St. John
Koukouzelis which featured long melodic figures and frequent vocal
ornamentation, the music of the Orthodox Church did not lend itself to
congregational singing anymore.

Interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church in western Europe underwent a
similar change in its musical practices. Their ancient system of
monophonic Gregorian chant took on polyphonic ornamentationâ€"that is, a
complicated system of harmony that required skilled singers of four or
five vocal parts. Thus, a good deal of the music for the Catholic mass
became the responsibility of a trained choir and congregational
singing was greatly reduced. In 18th Century Russia, Peter the Great,
who admired Western European culture, banned the old chants and
instituted a Catholic-style, polyphonic choir to the Russian Orthodox
Church.

Martin Luther is credited with reviving congregational singing after
the Protestant Reformation. The Lutherans, over time, became known as
“the Singing Church,” eventually producing a hymnal of over 600 songs
to be sung by congregations. It is possible that the joyful hymn
singing of Protestant congregations influenced a movement in the
Catholic church to revive their older musical traditions. In 1903,
Pope Pius X declared, “Special efforts are to be made to restore the
use of Gregorian chant by the people, so that the faithful may again
take a more active part in ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in
ancient times.” It was also around this time that John Sakellarides, a
chanter in Athens, was going about the process of simplifying the
ancient Byzantine music of the Greek Orthodox Church, adapting it to
staff notation, and encouraging his congregations to chant.

In the 1920’s and 30’s, in the American Greek Orthodox Church, an
attempt was made to assimilate American church culture, which is
predominantly Protestant and Catholic. Orthodox churches acquired
pews, priests shaved their beards and began wearing clerical collars,
and lay choirs were organized. Two thick Protestant-style hymnals were
produced, entirely in Greek and featuring the music of Sakellarides,
harmonized in three or four parts by George Anastassiou in one hymnal,
and Christos Vryonides in the other. Another hymnal featured original
music by Nicholas Roubanis. These hymnals were clearly written for the
choirs, however, and not congregations. Since then, many new liturgy
books with more complicated polyphonic arrangements and compositions
have emerged, thus solidifying the preeminent position of the choirs.
As choirs grew, congregations remained silent.

In the 1977, in an effort to spur congregational singing, the Greek
Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America produced a hymnal for
the pews of Greek Orthodox churches using the by-then, well-known
melodies of Sakellarides. This hymnal, known as “the Green Book,”
achieved moderate success in a time of dwindling participation in
choirs and in the number of trained chanters in churches. Priests who
favored congregational singing turned to the Green Book, and it is
still being used today. Unfortunately, the Green Book is weakest in
its English adaptations, and thus, with the increased use of English
in Greek churches, a plethora of new congregational singing tools has
appeared. Despite all of this encouragement, congregational singing
still has not established itself as a regular practice in Greek
Orthodox churches. Ironically, congregational singing has diminished
in Protestant churches as choirs and hymnals have given way to “praise
services” featuring theatrical rock bands with microphone soloists,
and the styles of music are adopted from the world of popular
entertainment.

What are the arguments for congregational singing today? The late
Archbishop Averky of the Russian Orthodox Church in America made a
passionate statement favoring it. He wrote:

“Thus, according to the concept of our Divine Services, all the
faithful must take part in the singing, if not in all, then at least
in the majority of our Church hymns, rather than standing in church
like idle spectators and listeners. The church is not a theater, where
one goes only to see and hear beautiful singing, but a place of common
prayer, in which all must participate in a fully conscious manner.

“The intrusion into our Divine Services of Western concert-singing,
accessible only to specially experienced singers with careful and
lengthy preparation, forced out the choir of believers from a living
participation in common liturgical singing and made those who come
into church only listeners, but not living participants in common
Church prayer. In this Western theatrical singing; all the attention
is concentrated not on the words, but on the melody, which is more or
less artificialâ€"with bravura or sentimentalityâ€"but not at all
churchly. Under the influence of this singing, in which it is often
impossible to even make out the words, and which is deeply alien to
the Orthodox ascetical spirit, many begin to come to church not for
prayerful participation in the Divine Services, as in a common action
of all the faithful, but only to listen to beautiful singing, in order
to experience aesthetic pleasure, which is, unfortunately, accepted by
many in our time as a prayerful feeling. This, in union with
irreligious upbringing and irreligious, often godless, school
education, penetrated by an atheistic and materialistic spirit, leads
to a greater and greater departure from genuine church mindedness and
the understanding of the Divine Services by the broad majority of the
believers…Thus, the surest path for a return of our irreligious
society to the Church is the return to the ancient practice, which is
in accord with the Church rubric: the restoration of congregational
singing in our churches.”

The style of music that one chooses is important for the encouragement
of congregational participation. Byzantine scholar and musical
historian Dimitri Conomos has written:

“My preference for monophonyâ€"that is, single-line or horizontal
melodyâ€"is more practical than it is aesthetic. It's usually easy to
sing, easy to learn, and easy to remember. The chanters can readily
match their note to the celebrant's without worrying whether it's too
high for the sopranos or too low for the basses. This style of music
is ideal for congregational singing and one never has to worry about
going flat. And the liturgy ceases to be interrupted by the annoying
arpeggio humming of the conductor before the beginning of every
troparion. Polyphonic music, on the other hand, is by its very nature
more complex, denser, and more difficult. In order for it to be done
well, both musically and liturgically, one has to concentrate. The
music demands a lot of attention, attention that could better be given
elsewhere during a divine service. This is not horizontal but vertical
music. It depends on the interplay of consonance and dissonanceâ€"that
is, musical tension and releaseâ€"to arouse our senses and to draw our
attention to the excellence (or its lack) of the composition.

“Monophonic music serves the liturgy perfectly well. Unlike polyphony,
the music of fashion in the Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods,
simple chant melodies can be tailored to follow the text, to amplify
its meaning and rhetoric, to give it an appropriate musical dress. But
even monophonic music can be made inappropriate if the singers engage
in vocal display with dominating voices, unnecessary exaggerations,
poor phrasing and unclear diction. As transmitters of the sacred
texts, the vocalists must edify the chant by singing well, singing
together, and by praying the hymn. With regard to expression, true
liturgical singing should be self-effacing and objective. The sacred
words must speak for themselves without the intervention of
subjective, personal interpretation. Dramatic renditions and
theatricality are out of place in the liturgy.”

Here at Assumption, our choir has taken steps to aid in congregational
chanting during the Divine Liturgy. We have simplified most of the
music we sing to a monophonic melodic line harmonized only by a
droning tone (ison). We limit the use of difficult polyphonic harmony
to the Cherubic hymn, the Consecration, and the Communion, times at
which congregations normally do not sing. These are usually the most
excellent pieces of the modern liturgical composers and arrangers, and
it allows us to continue the legacy of the last eighty years without
sacrificing congregational participation. We have introduced into the
pews a hymnal of the same music the choir sings, with Greek and
English side-by-side. Father Michael and Father Tom have exhorted
parishioners to chant along with the choir and the chanters during the
services.  We have begun an educational program in the Sunday school,
teaching the hymns of the Divine Liturgy, and we have invited the
children and their parents up to the choir loft to physically join
with the choir. We have encouraged both younger and older adults to
make a commitment to becoming choir members. All these measures have
been taken to improve our worship and our knowledge of Orthodox
spirituality as a community. The rest is up to the parishioners
themselves.

--- In greekorthodoxmusic@yahoogroups.com, "Stan Takis" <takistan@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Dana!
>
> Vicki would know for sure. You could always email her.
>
> Stan

Thanks, Stan. Sorry for the late response.

Vicki caught my e-mail, either here or over on Typikon, and we've
exchanged e-mails off-list.

Short answer is, nobody knows yet. The Powers That Be haven't made any
decisions about whether (much less when) it might be held this year.

Ah well. I'll let myself be caught by surprise a week before it
starts, as in previous years.

-- Dana
"I'm not a member of any organized religion: I'm Eastern Orthodox."
(with a tip o' the hat to Will Rogers)

Dear List:

The former priest at my church, Assumption in St. Clair Shores,
Michigan, has passed away. His funeral will be on Friday morning,
March 2. If any of you in the Detroit area knew him and will be
attending his funeral, we invite you to join our choir to sing some
music after the service during the last farewell procession. I
uploaded the music packet to the files area. We will rehearse at the
church on Thursday evening at 8:15 PM, and warmup in a classroom on
Friday morning at 10:00. The funeral begins at 10:30.

Thanks,

Stan

Sorry, Maria. I put his name in the title, but not in the text. His
name is Demetrios Kavadas.

Stan

--- In greekorthodoxmusic@yahoogroups.com, Tracey Anderson
<justduck26@...> wrote:
>
> What is the Priest name?
>
> I used to live in Detroit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> + Maria Despina
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Stan Takis <takistan@...>
> To: greekorthodoxmusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:23:33 PM
> Subject: [greekorthodoxmusic] +Fr. Demetrios Kavadas
>
> Dear List:
>
> The former priest at my church, Assumption in St. Clair Shores,
> Michigan, has passed away. His funeral will be on Friday morning,
> March 2. If any of you in the Detroit area knew him and will be
> attending his funeral, we invite you to join our choir to sing some
> music after the service during the last farewell procession. I
> uploaded the music packet to the files area. We will rehearse at the
> church on Thursday evening at 8:15 PM, and warmup in a classroom on
> Friday morning at 10:00. The funeral begins at 10:30.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stan
>

Some members who use Macintosh computers and downloaded PDF files from
our website, www.newbyz.org, were unable to open them. I did a little
investigating, and it seems that the MAC OS X Preview program, which
is the default for PDF files, will not read certain PDF's that were
created on Windows machines, especially ones that use Ghostscript,
such as PrimoPDF, which is the PDF printer driver I use. The solution
is to open your PDF files in Adobe Reader. You can download the
Macintosh version here:

http://www.download.com/Adobe-Reader/3000-2214_4-10614504.html

It's a big program, but worthwhile since you will be able to open
every PDF made on any computer.

I hope this helps somebody.

Stan

Dear List Members:

I have been busy over the last few weeks updating our website. I will
continue to do this over the next few months, but I've made enough
changes for it to be interesting. The biggest change is that I have
re-arranged the special hymns according to the Menaion, Triodion, and
Pentecostarion. I think this arrangement is better because you have
all the hymns you need for a certain day all together in one place.

I have also separated the Plagal Fourth and Plagal First liturgies
into separate books. I've updated and corrected many files, and I have
begun to add MIDI files of the music, so you can hear the parts. These
MIDI files can also be used as accompaniments for rehearsals.

If you'd like to see the new changes, click here:

http://www.newbyz.org

This site is getting about a dozen hits a day, and we've received some
nice comments from around the world. Click on the guest book to read
the comments.

Stan