Tetraphony

[Ryan]

The website of St. Anthony's monastery includes a patriarchal encyclical (http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/music/encyclical.pdf) from the 19th century condemning four-part harmony. This encyclical mentions ancient church canons on hymnody but does not directly quote them. So I have a few questions- what do the canons says about hymnody exactly, and how does it lead to a condemnation of four-part harmony?
How much weight does this particular encyclical carry?
Isn't tetraphony employed in Russian church music?
Is four-part harmony really condemned or is the patriarch here expressing a cultural bias?
How old is the use of tetraphony and was it not used in the pre-Schism western churches?

The choir of the parish I attend frequently employs western-style four-part harmony. I tend to find their music selections somewhat distasteful, and infinitely prefer the Byzantine chants, but I still wonder if there isn't a place for (good) western hymnody in Orthodoxy.

[Olga]

For what my opinion is worth, this encyclical probably would have had little or no effect outside the Greek church, which has maintained the Byzantine monophonic style to this day, though there are instances of a departure from this from time to time. I have an interesting old (40-50 years old) recording of liturgy from a church in Athens which uses simple harmony. Also, the singing is still a male activity only, apart from monastic choirs of nuns.

By contrast, the Slavic churches have used polyphony for several centuries, and also allow mixed choirs. I have listened to much Byzantine chant and Slavonic church singing in my time, and there is a distinct difference in the "feel" and style of Slavic polyphony to conventional Western church choirs, despite both using polyphony. However, I heartily agree that excessively florid, baroque influences go counter to the spirit of Orthodox music. The baroque style, be it in music, architecture or art, was characterised by ornamentation for its own sake, often playful, and very often to excess - hardly compatible with the dignity, gravitas and compunction associated with Orthodoxy, where everything has a purpose and meaning, where church singers are there to serve the Church and to glorify God by their efforts, not to self-aggrandise.

An analogy can be found in iconography: Over the centuries, iconographic styles evolved. The Byzantine severe formality contrasts with the "warmer" styles which evolved in various regions of Russia, yet they share the common features of abstract stylism and "otherworldliness", and are easily distinguishable from conventional "realistic" or "passionate" western religious art. A western artist signs his work, an iconographer should remain anonymous, as he is but an instrument in the service of God. The theological and doctrinal integrity of iconography and Orthodox music was seriously and almost irreparably compromised by the westernisation which began affecting the Orthodox world in the 15th century, and became a flood during the 17th-19th centuries.

If an element of western music, thought or art is incorporated into an Orthodox work, and where this does not run contrary to canon or the "mind" of the Church, and if it complements that work, then I feel there should be little objection. I would not regard polyphony as such to be problematic, only that there are particular styles which, to me and many others, are not compatible with Orthodox worship. The shrill, overblown singing style of the St Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Paris under P. I. Spassky in the 1950s and '60s is a world away from the rightly-praised choirs of the Trinity-St Sergius Lavra, the Srenenskogo Monastery of Moscow, and many other Slavic monastic and laymen's choirs.

As an aside, I am also disturbed by the use of church organs or other instruments by some Greek churches in the USA and other countries. This is one western "innovation" we can certainly do without. Church tradition is certainly clear on this, all singing must be unaccompanied.

One of the few directives I have come across, though it might not quite qualify as a canon, regarding church singing style is from the Russian Typikon (forum members of longer standing might have seen this already), though it does not explicitly condemn polyphony:

Chapter 28: On disorderly cries

Disorderly cries by the church singers ought not to be allowed in church singing. And those who make them are not allowed either. Let them be removed from their ministry, and sing in the church no more. For it is proper to sing according to the order, and with one accord to glorify the Master and Lord of all, as if coming from our hearts through one mouth. Those who disobey are condemned to eternal torture, since they do not follow the tradition and rules of the Holy Fathers.

One choirmistress I know has printed the above in both English and the original Slavonic, and pinned it on the corkboard at the entrance to the choir balcony to keep her troops in line .... :))

[Ryan]

I definitely agree with your assessment of baroque... it's the kind of "beauty" that is purely self-indulgent. This is the sort of feeling I get from the choir of the church I attend too. What strikes me about Byzantine chant is an element of darkness- a certain degree of fear or mystery that takes it far beyond beauty. It's music by people who love God but also fear for their souls.

Some of the early renaissance music I feel has some merit, for instance Allegri's Miserere.

My church does have a church organ. Fortunately, it's rarely used, usually for tuning the choir before hymns, but there is one part, I think when the priest is blessing the Holy Gifts, that there is some extended organ playing and it's pretty tacky IMO. I think the priest is actually fairly traditionalist but he is also relatively new to the parish, which had accumulated it's own "traditons".