Is organ music forbidden?

[Shawn Lazar]

Hi all,

I'm a new Orthodox Christian who is about to move to a city with little or no Orthodox presence. The one nearby Orthodox Church I know of seems to be pretty modern in the sense of using pews and organ music. So my question is: Is organ music a good enough reason not to attend a particular Orthodox Church? Would it be better to read the services at home?

Cheers,
Shawn

[Andrew]

Hi all,

I'm a new Orthodox Christian who is about to move to a city with little or no Orthodox presence. The one nearby Orthodox Church I know of seems to be pretty modern in the sense of using pews and organ music. So my question is: Is organ music a good enough reason not to attend a particular Orthodox Church? Would it be better to read the services at home?

Cheers,
Shawn

No. The majority of large Greek Orthodox Churches in the US and Canada have organs, unfortunately. It's better to be with the Church and suffer through organs and modernism than be without the sacraments. Talk to your spiritual father. What area are you moving to?

[Misha]

"In olden times, people used to respect something because it was their grandfather’s, and they used to safeguard it like an heirloom. I once met a very good lawyer. His house was very simply furnished, and it relaxed not only him, but his visitors also. He told me this, some time ago :

“A few years ago, Father, my acquaintances made fun of me because of the old, family furniture that I had. Now they come and admire them as valuable antiques. While I make daily use of them and enjoy them because they remind me of my father, my mother, my grandparents, and I am always emotionally touched, those acquaintances now go around collecting various old pieces of furniture, to the point that they have turned their lounges into curiosity shops, in an attempt to take their minds off their problems and forget their secular stress.”

In the past, one would hold on to a tiny little coin of insignificant value as though it were a vast fortune, only because it was given to him by his mother or his grandfather. Nowadays, if someone has an expensive coin – a gold Pound for example – that was given to him by his grandfather, and that coin’s value is slightly higher than its original value, he will give it away to be sold. He will not show any respect, nor will he be concerned about any mother or father. It’s that “European spirit” that is slowly creeping in and is sweeping us all away....

I recall the first time that I visited the Holy Mountain – in one of the retinues, the Elder was a little old man, who was very pious. Out of piety, he had preserved from generation to generation, not only the stoles of his (spiritual) grandfathers, his predecessors, but also the moulds that had been used to make the stoles. He also had several old books and various manuscripts that he kept beautifully wrapped in his book-case, which was carefully closed so that they wouldn’t collect dust. He never touched those books; he kept them wrapped up. “I am not worthy to read such books” he would say. “I will just read these simpler ones – the Gerontikon, the Ladder...”.

Then a young monk came along (he finally didn’t stay on the Mountain permanently) who had asked the elder: “Why do you keep all this junk here?” He made a move to take away the moulds and dispose of them – to burn them. The poor old man begged him with tears: “that was from my grandfather – why do you mind my keeping it? There are so many other rooms here – leave them be in a corner.” Out of the piety that he had, he not only held on to the books, the heirlooms, the stoles, but even the moulds!

When there is a respect for small things, there will be an even greater respect towards the bigger things. When there is no respect for small things, then neither will there be for the bigger ones. This is how the Fathers maintained Tradition."

elder Paisios of Mt Athos

[Anthony Stokes]

Shawn,
to answer your thread title question, certain readings of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great would say yes, it is forbidden. But, here we are...




I'm a new Orthodox Christian who is about to move to a city with little or no Orthodox presence. The one nearby Orthodox Church I know of seems to be pretty modern in the sense of using pews and organ music.


I have never thought of the use of pews and organs as modern, since they have existed in the West for centuries. I have always thought of their use to be more of a way to fit in with the West, an attempt to blend with Protestant and Catholic churches, at least in the early 20th century in America.

Actually, a more modern trend in American Greek parishes is to start using Byzantine chant for most services.



So my question is: Is organ music a good enough reason not to attend a particular Orthodox Church? Would it be better to read the services at home?


I agree with Andrew, that it is better to attend a church with a priest, where you can at least receive the sacraments. Although, I will admit, that I have a hard time attending a church now that uses an organ. Which is a little strange, since I grew up singing in a Greek choir that used an organ.

Depending on where you are going and how big of a place it is, you may be able to find a mission or help start one. Just another option.

Subdeacon Anthony

[Shawn Lazar]

Thanks for the advice guys.

One comment, though. Subdeacon Anthony wrote:
"I have never thought of the use of pews and organs as modern, since they have existed in the West for centuries. I have always thought of their use to be more of a way to fit in with the West, an attempt to blend with Protestant and Catholic churches, at least in the early 20th century in America."

When did organs first come to be used in Church worship? Wikipedia says it can be traced to Pope Vitalian in the 7th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_(music)), though the Catholic encyclopedia denies this saying the organ only became widely used in the 12th century (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm).

Has any Orthodox father written a theological defense or explanation of a cappella worship?

~Shawn

[Anthony Stokes]

Thanks for the advice guys.
One comment, though.
When did organs first come to be used in Church worship? Wikipedia says it can be traced to Pope Vitalian in the 7th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_(music)), though the Catholic encyclopedia denies this saying the organ only became widely used in the 12th century (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm).

The pipe organ that we know today is a 14th century model, that really came into wide-spread use with Luther and Bach. (Luther was also a composer who wrote about half of the Lutheran hymnal). But, smaller organs were being using earlier in the Catholic church to provide a drone with the Gregorian chant when needed, but this was not a widespread practice.


Has any Orthodox father written a theological defense or explanation of a cappella worship? ~Shawn

Many of the references that you will see have to do with instrumental music leading to dancing, which leads to other passions. At least, this was the way that the early fathers saw it.

St. Basil the Great says: "Of the arts necessary to life which furnish a concrete result there is carpentry, which produces the chair; architecture, the house; shipbuilding, the ship; tailoring, the garment; forging, the blade. Of useless arts there is harp playing, dancing, flute playing, of which, when the operation ceases, the result disappears with it. And indeed, according to the word of the apostle, the result of these is destruction."

Chrysostom: "Marriage is accounted an honorable thing both by us and by those without; and it is honorable. But when marriages are solemnized, such a number of ridiculous circumstances take place as ye shall hear of immediately: because the most part, possessed and beguiled by custom, are not even aware of their absurdity, but need others to teach them. For dancing, and cymbals, and flutes, and shameful words and songs, and drunkenness, and revellings, and all the Devil's great help of garbage is then introduced."

Both Origen and Eusebius explain the Psalm 33:2, "Give thanks to the Lord on the harp; with the ten-stringed psaltery chant His praises" as the harp meaning the soul, and the ten-stringed psaltery being a body with 5 senses and 5 faculties.

Source: Weiss & Taruskin, Music in the Western World: a History in Documents.

Sbdn. Anthony

[Andrew]

Thanks for the advice guys.

One comment, though. Subdeacon Anthony wrote:
"I have never thought of the use of pews and organs as modern, since they have existed in the West for centuries. I have always thought of their use to be more of a way to fit in with the West, an attempt to blend with Protestant and Catholic churches, at least in the early 20th century in America."

When did organs first come to be used in Church worship? Wikipedia says it can be traced to Pope Vitalian in the 7th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_(music)), though the Catholic encyclopedia denies this saying the organ only became widely used in the 12th century (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11297a.htm).

Has any Orthodox father written a theological defense or explanation of a cappella worship?

~Shawn

I'm pretty sure Saint Ambrose of Milan wrote on this topic. A lot of Orthodox ascetical literature addresses the need for sober watchfulness over the senses - and how sober, proper chanting addresses this. Also, Constantine Cavarnos, Photios Kontoglou are good guides to look to in regards to the aesthetic and sensory aspects of Church tradition.

Organs in Orthodoxy originated in Vienna in the Greek Diaspora. In America many of the Greeks wanted to be like the Episcopalians and fit into American culture - to overtime gain "prestige" for Greek culture and the Greek Orthodox Church. This was not spiritually beneficial, and now thankfully there are many more examples of traditional, fruitful Greek Orthodoxy in our country than in past generations.

[Eric Peterson]

I've always seen the purpose of having organs in Orthodox churches was two-fold.1) tone deaf and/or unprofessional choirs2) (Main reason) you need an organ to play "Here comes the bride"

[Andrew]

I'm pretty sure Saint Ambrose of Milan wrote on this topic. A lot of Orthodox ascetical literature addresses the need for sober watchfulness over the senses - and how sober, proper chanting addresses this. Also, Constantine Cavarnos, Photios Kontoglou are good guides to look to in regards to the aesthetic and sensory aspects of Church tradition.

Organs in Orthodoxy originated in Vienna in the Greek Diaspora. In America many of the Greeks wanted to be like the Episcopalians and fit into American culture - to overtime gain "prestige" for Greek culture and the Greek Orthodox Church. This was not spiritually beneficial, and now thankfully there are many more examples of traditional, fruitful Greek Orthodoxy in our country than in past generations.

I don't mean to disrespect Greek Orthodoxy in America over the past hundred years... please forgive me, I wrote this pretty quickly and wasn't trying to convey a harsh tone about this. There are ups and downs in all corners of Orthodoxy in America, and the GOA has many downs, but many many many ups. As you would expect, as they are the largest and most financially wealthy jurisdiction in the US with a wide multitude of people of all different backgrounds and levels of understanding of the faith.

[Anthony Stokes]

I've always seen the purpose of having organs in Orthodox churches was two-fold.1) tone deaf and/or unprofessional choirs2) (Main reason) you need an organ to play "Here comes the bride"


But the Byzantine setting of "Awed by thy beauty" is so much better. No offense to Mendellsohn.

Actually, both reasons can be fixed with a good chanter or two.

Sbdn. Anthony

[Olga]

But the Byzantine setting of "Awed by thy beauty" is so much better. No offense to Mendellsohn.

To which I would add the Dostoyno Yest' (It Is Truly Meet, the most common magnificat to the Mother of God) sung to Lvov's arrangement, which is often sung at Russian weddings as the bride enters the church. The same one is usually sung at the vesting of a bishop at a patriarchal liturgy. Sublime in the hands of a half-decent choir. And not an organ within earshot, neither should there be with gorgeous vocal music like this.

[Andrew]

Honestly, I don't like the sound of church organs, even in non-church settings. Why would they be used in worship? The sounds are fairly annoying, in my opinion.

[Shawn Lazar]

Unfortunately, it sounds like there aren't very many well-thought out reasons for banning instruments in worship. I suppose, though there was never a pressing reason for the Fathers to raise the question in the first place?

I know some Presbyterians (who only sing the Psalms a cappella) who argue that instruments were used in the context of the Temple sacrifices, and thus disappeared with the passing of the Old Covenant.

[Anthony Stokes]

I know some Presbyterians (who only sing the Psalms a cappella) who argue that instruments were used in the context of the Temple sacrifices, and thus disappeared with the passing of the Old Covenant.

This is partly true. Early Christian worship is based on Synagogue worship, which did not involve instruments in worship. Instruments were strictly used in the Temple.

Sbdn. Anthony

[Jason Adams]

I've heard many times an argument that instruments are forbidden in several Christian churches because "human voice is the most perfect of all instruments".

To me it is clearly the matter of opinion.
I would like to bring to our attention all sorts of noble instrumental music that was composed over the centuries. All those symphonies, concertos etc.

Also Handel and Mendelssohn oratorios, Bach Passions and other vocal/instrumental works that bring the soul closer to God.

Many people seem to be thinking that instruments have everything to do with rock/pop etc and nothing to do with the spiritual world. Although I might be in minority in my opinion I don't think so. It is a matter of educating oneself and experiencing this kind of music before we make a judgment. The fathers of the past had no experience with this kind of instrumental music that I am talking about and coudn't make this judgment.

Even in the field of the vocal lithurgical music there are differences amongst churches.
Russian Orthodox Church accepted new music during the 18th century and we have gorgeous works of Bortnianski, Tchaikovski and Rachmaninov. On the other hand the Greeks accept only Byzantine Chant.

What do you people think?

Jason

[Andrew]

Even in the field of the vocal lithurgical music there are differences amongst churches.
Russian Orthodox Church accepted new music during the 18th century and we have gorgeous works of Bortnianski, Tchaikovski and Rachmaninov. On the other hand the Greeks accept only Byzantine Chant.

What do you people think?

Jason

A lot of the operatic liturgical music that came out of Russia is not practical in the context of the Liturgy, nor is it based upon Orthodox traditional worship. It sounds beautiful, but does not really do what Orthodox chanting is supposed to do, which is aid in sober repentance, prayer, and cultivation of love for God. Operatic music is sensual, whereas traditonal Orthodox music tries to strike a balance between sensuality and wooden lifelessness. Good Byzantine chant lifts the spirits, but inspires prayer and repentance. In addition, you can choose to not pay attention to it. You can pretty easily tune it out, or listen to each word. The polyphonic music overpowers your concentration, making it difficult to just pray when you are forced to also pay attention to the inflections of the words, the harmonies, and all such things. There is nothing wrong with instrumental music, but it is not natural to the traditonal dynamics of the Liturgy, so it shouldn't be included.

[Olga]

May I offer the following comment: While operatic, and particularly the florid, Baroque-styles of polyphony are indeed contrary to the ethos of liturgical music, there is much, much else in Slavic polyphony which undeniably evokes a sense of awe, prayer and repentance. To name but two well-known pieces which immediately come to mind: Nikolai Kedrov's Lord's Prayer, and the standard setting of the troparion for Great Friday, Noble Joseph. Polyphonic, yes. But not operatic or baroque.

It is not polyphony per se which is problematic, but the particular musical style used by the composer may be so.

[John Frangos]

Hi Shawn,

To me the guidling principle here is whether organ music or any other kind of liturgical music can be considered an essential element of the sacrament? For mine the answer is no it is not essential. Liturgical music surely can be considered no more than a local tradition (tradition that can be different between localities and churches). The sacriment and liturgical experience is the holy tradition (unchangeable essential element).

There is one local canonical Greek Orthodox Church in Australia that uses organ music during the liturgy.

In Christ
John

[Andrew]

It is not polyphony per se which is problematic, but the particular musical style used by the composer may be so.

That's what I was trying to get at! Thank you for the correction of terms :)

[Herman Blaydoe]

As one who loves a good pipe organ (Bach's Tocatta and Fuge in D minor on a "real" pipe organ is sheer bliss!), came from a Protestant background with organs and praise bands and all, into Orthodoxy, I can only appreciate the wisdom of the Church.

To me, instrumental music can be distracting. As another poster said, is instrumental music essential to worship? What does it really add?

Little thoughts from a bear of little brain.

Herman the a capella Pooh

[Olga]

There is one local canonical Greek Orthodox Church in Australia that uses organ music during the liturgy.


There are also many Greek parishes in the USA which also use organs, as Andrew mentioned earlier. The reasons for this vary:

- the organ is used to "give the tone" to the singers instead of the choirmaster doing so with his own voice, and not used as a backing to the singing which follows

- the parish "inherited" the organ on acquiring a non-Orthodox church for its use, so "we may as well use it"

- let's use an organ as it might make it easier for non-Orthodox people to accept an Orthodox service as it makes it more "culturally familiar".

- "our choir finds it hard to stay in tune without an instrumental accompaniment"

Of the above reasons, I find only the first one acceptable. Even so, if a choirmaster cannot properly give out the right tone himself because he lacks a good enough "ear" (a sense of pitch), then one should question his suitability for the position. The same goes for the last reason. I do not wish to sound harsh, but any unaccompanied singing, particularly Byzantine, is an art and a discipline. A musical ear can be developed where a latent ability exists, and a good choirmaster or choirmistress should be able to build on this.

And lest I seem too much of a purist on this, in all of the churches, Greek and Slavic, I have attended over the years, very few of the singers had (or have) formal musical training. They are simply ordinary folks, amateurs in the proper sense of the word, who have a wish to serve the Church, and enough of a musical ear and quality of voice which has been encouraged and developed by their choirmasters. Yet, on a day when everything "cooks", such choirs can sound as good and as uplifting as any "professional" choir with formal musical and vocal training. I have stood at Russian Vigils where only four singers are present: one soprano, one alto, one tenor, and one bass. All amateurs. Yet the sound produced by these mere four singers can be indescribably beautiful and reverential. Instruments? Utterly unnecessary.

I reiterate that any music (not just Orthodox liturgical music) which is composed with only voices in mind, simply sounds wrong when accompanied by instruments, Byzantine chant particularly so.

[Andreas Moran]

I agree with Olga. Musical instruments have no place in Orthodox services. There oughtn't to be pews either. How can one do a prostration in a pew? I don't know when pews started to be put in western churches but I'm sure that throughout the early centuries and the middle ages there were no pews. Mediaeval churches had ledges at the north and south walls where the weak and infirm would sit, hence the expression, 'the weakest to the wall'. Orthodoxy should not compromise its tradition just so as to pander to heterodox customs.

[Paul Cowan]

To me, instrumental music can be distracting.
Herman the a capella Pooh

Yes, but so can the chanters and choir. Especially those that are tone deaf. God bless their hearts and my judgementalism.

[Paul Cowan]

I agree with Olga. Musical instruments have no place in Orthodox services. There oughtn't to be pews either. How can one do a prostration in a pew? I don't know when pews started to be put in western churches but I'm sure that throughout the early centuries and the middle ages there were no pews. Mediaeval churches had ledges at the north and south walls where the weak and infirm would sit, hence the expression, 'the weakest to the wall'. Orthodoxy should not compromise its tradition just so as to pander to heterodox customs.

If I were to venture a guess, it started in the East. Orthodo churches were built on top of pagan temples. SO here as well, Orthodox churches take over protestant or other denomination's buildings and can't seem to get all the bolted down pews out of the concrete floors without having to bust up the whole floor and start from scratch at great financial expense.

Just a thought.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Yes, but so can the chanters and choir. Especially those that are tone deaf. God bless their hearts and my judgementalism.

Well, perhaps because I AM the tone-deaf cantor, perhaps it doesn't bother me so much.

Herman the off-key Pooh

[John Frangos]

There are also many Greek parishes in the USA which also use organs, as Andrew mentioned earlier. The reasons for this vary:

- the organ is used to "give the tone" to the singers instead of the choirmaster doing so with his own voice, and not used as a backing to the singing which follows

- the parish "inherited" the organ on acquiring a non-Orthodox church for its use, so "we may as well use it"

- let's use an organ as it might make it easier for non-Orthodox people to accept an Orthodox service as it makes it more "culturally familiar".

- "our choir finds it hard to stay in tune without an instrumental accompaniment"

Of the above reasons, I find only the first one acceptable. Even so, if a choirmaster cannot properly give out the right tone himself because he lacks a good enough "ear" (a sense of pitch), then one should question his suitability for the position. The same goes for the last reason. I do not wish to sound harsh, but any unaccompanied singing, particularly Byzantine, is an art and a discipline. A musical ear can be developed where a latent ability exists, and a good choirmaster or choirmistress should be able to build on this.

And lest I seem too much of a purist on this, in all of the churches, Greek and Slavic, I have attended over the years, very few of the singers had (or have) formal musical training. They are simply ordinary folks, amateurs in the proper sense of the word, who have a wish to serve the Church, and enough of a musical ear and quality of voice which has been encouraged and developed by their choirmasters. Yet, on a day when everything "cooks", such choirs can sound as good and as uplifting as any "professional" choir with formal musical and vocal training. I have stood at Russian Vigils where only four singers are present: one soprano, one alto, one tenor, and one bass. All amateurs. Yet the sound produced by these mere four singers can be indescribably beautiful and reverential. Instruments? Utterly unnecessary.

I reiterate that any music (not just Orthodox liturgical music) which is composed with only voices in mind, simply sounds wrong when accompanied by instruments, Byzantine chant particularly so.

With no disrespect intended have you not missed the point of the question? The question as I understood it was that Shawn was the new kid in town, the only Orthodox Church had instrumental music and should he go to church or stay home? Surely the answer is go to Church and accept the local tradition!

[Anthony Stokes]

What do you people think?Jason


Jason,
one of main reasons that instrumental music is not allowed is that it is not needed or helpful. The most important aspect of our liturgical music is the text. Instruments do not help us bring out the meaning in the text any more than what vocal music can already do.

I see Orthodox music in the same way as iconography in the regard that both should be almost emotionless. By adding emphasis, dynamics, etc., to music, we are in a way putting our own interpretation into the text. This is why Readers are usually directed to read on a single pitch, with a few cadences here or there, and not to emphasize certain words that might give a meaning to the text that could be foreign to our teaching.

With regards to the organ in the Greek church in America, it often became a required part in the newly composed liturgies of the 1980's and 1990's. If you tried to sing some of the contemporary Greek liturgies without an organ, you would have quite a bit of silence. Kypros' "Liturgy of Peace" stands out in my mind as one of these. We sang that Liturgy quite a bit when I was young. The Cherubic Hymn is half organ solo.

Sbdn. Anthony

[Anthony Stokes]

May I offer the following comment: While operatic, and particularly the florid, Baroque-styles of polyphony are indeed contrary to the ethos of liturgical music, there is much, much else in Slavic polyphony which undeniably evokes a sense of awe, prayer and repentance. To name but two well-known pieces which immediately come to mind: Nikolai Kedrov's Lord's Prayer, and the standard setting of the troparion for Great Friday, Noble Joseph. Polyphonic, yes. But not operatic or baroque.

It is not polyphony per se which is problematic, but the particular musical style used by the composer may be so.


Just to clarify, Kedrov's Lord's Prayer or Noble Joseph are not really polyphonic, but homophonic. There is really only one melodic line in each with accompaniment. Now, for Polyphonic Russian church music, look to Sarti's beautiful setting of Now the Powers of Heaven, or much of Bortniansky, Rachmaninoff, etc. More than one melody and sometimes up to 16 different parts singing different things. Beautiful music, but it doesn't always help with bringing out the text.

Sbdn. Anthony

[Jason Adams]

I must confess that I find it confusing.

On one hand the music is considered a s being secondary to the delivery of text and wished to be kept at the minimal.
On the other hand, as the lithurgical language thread suggests the reason of keeping koine Greek is the sound of it (which is kind of music, isn't it?).

So, why is the sound if koine Greek superior to the sound of instruments?
Should the church avoid singing entirely to keep the text best understood?
As, everyone knows the lithurgy anyway, is it not reasonable to try to bring understanding, feelings and mystery of the Spirit together by using various means?


I my humble opinion:

1. The homophonic choral music does nothing or vety little to prevent the text from being understood.

2. Even in the Byzantine plainchant there are repetitions of text set to various melismata. These don't help to understand the text but do help to highlight it and set our soul in the desired mood.
The harmonisation serves the same role and even polyphony can do the same(I am not talking about really complex polyphonic works from the 14 or 15 century).

3. The instruments and their various colours highlight the atmosphere of the music and the text and help to set the soul into "spiritual" mood.

4. Both the choral and the instrumental music can be performed beautifully or badly and this is nothing to do with the general discussion.

5. The style of the music is a matter of taste. In the western tradition there is quite a lot of resistance from the older generation towards rock bands playing for the church service. I can understand them because this kind of music makes me angry at the beginning (the noise!) and bored at the end when my ears start being deaf. Howeve, this is my personal taste and I am not sure whether God really cares as long as people worship Him.

Again as I said, this my humble opinion.

Jason

[Anthony Stokes]

I must confess that I find it confusing.

On one hand the music is considered a s being secondary to the delivery of text and wished to be kept at the minimal.
On the other hand, as the lithurgical language thread suggests the reason of keeping koine Greek is the sound of it (which is kind of music, isn't it?).

I have never heard this argument before for the language issue, although I agree that liturgical Greek is a beautiful language.


So, why is the sound if koine Greek superior to the sound of instruments?
Should the church avoid singing entirely to keep the text best understood?
As, everyone knows the lithurgy anyway, is it not reasonable to try to bring understanding, feelings and mystery of the Spirit together by using various means?

I always come back to the idea that there is no need for various means.

I have experienced almost every type of Chrisitan musical worship. I grew up singing in a GOA choir with an organ, and listening to Byzantine chant at services like orthros and vespers.

In college, the trombone choir I was in performed at various churches throughout the year to make money for our annual tour. We played them all, even Unitarian services. Sometimes we would play a modern jazz service at a Presbyterian church, then put our tuxes on, and drive over the the Episcopal cathedral for a "high church" formal service playing Brahms, Mozart, etc.

Now, I have been a choir director in the OCA for over 7 years. Of all of my experiences, I find that the non-instrumental, choral/chant settings do the best job of not only helping realize the text, but also involving the people.

It's hard for congregations to feel involved if they are just listening to an instrumental performance, or even a choral performance that doesn't encourage congregational participation. Even well done Byzantine chant can encourage congregational participation.

These are just my findings from years of experience in church music.


I my humble opinion:

1. The homophonic choral music does nothing or vety little to prevent the text from being understood.

Very true. Choral music does not prevent the text from being understood, even well written polyphonic music.


2. Even in the Byzantine plainchant there are repetitions of text set to various melismata. These don't help to understand the text but do help to highlight it and set our soul in the desired mood.
The harmonisation serves the same role and even polyphony can do the same(I am not talking about really complex polyphonic works from the 14 or 15 century).

And of course in Russia, the high point of this music was the 18th century, when the court composers were sometimes Italian.


3. The instruments and their various colours highlight the atmosphere of the music and the text and help to set the soul into "spiritual" mood.

This statement I do not completely agree with, being an instrumentalist myself. At one point I was studying for a doctoral degree in orchestral and opera conducting. I love Classical and Romantic music. But, of all of the music in the world that I find moving, more than strings, or even brass, nothing can have the same effect as an a capella choir, especially a Russian choir (or a great Byzantine choir). Of course, this is my opinion, but from someone who spent much of their life, albeit a short one, in the instrumental music world.


4. Both the choral and the instrumental music can be performed beautifully or badly and this is nothing to do with the general discussion.

Very true, but in discussing the differences in which is more proper, it is assumed that both would be performed well.


5. The style of the music is a matter of taste. In the western tradition there is quite a lot of resistance from the older generation towards rock bands playing for the church service. I can understand them because this kind of music makes me angry at the beginning (the noise!) and bored at the end when my ears start being deaf. Howeve, this is my personal taste and I am not sure whether God really cares as long as people worship Him.

I'm not even going to touch that topic.


Again as I said, this my humble opinion.

Jason

Mine too. thanks,
Sbdn. Anthony

[Herman Blaydoe]

I must confess that I find it confusing.

On one hand the music is considered a s being secondary to the delivery of text and wished to be kept at the minimal.

This is not quite correct. The singing is also a very important aspect of delivery of the words. A famous saying in Orthodoxy is that when you sing your prayers, you pray twice. The musical aspect of it is integral to the message.


On the other hand, as the lithurgical language thread suggests the reason of keeping koine Greek is the sound of it (which is kind of music, isn't it?).

Tone and meter contribute to the worship, making the prayers easier to remember and recite in a communal setting.


So, why is the sound if koine Greek superior to the sound of instruments?

Not sure who you are addressing here. Some people like Koine, some others are partial to Slavonic since it is what they grew up with and are used to. I am certainly no Koine fanatic. I will leave its defense to those who care about it.


Should the church avoid singing entirely to keep the text best understood?

Absolutely not. Singing helps facilitate the understanding, by making it easier to hear. Singing carries better than simply speaking and once it is familiar it is much easier to recognize and remember. The words and the tune are integral to each other, without either, something is lost.


As, everyone knows the lithurgy anyway, is it not reasonable to try to bring understanding, feelings and mystery of the Spirit together by using various means?

Depends on the means. All things may be lawful, but not all things edify.


I my humble opinion:

1. The homophonic choral music does nothing or vety little to prevent the text from being understood.

Then it is a good thing right? It HELPS us hear and understand the words, we are agreed.


2. Even in the Byzantine plainchant there are repetitions of text set to various melismata. These don't help to understand the text but do help to highlight it and set our soul in the desired mood.

EEEKS! Ouch! No it is not about "mood". Please. But yes, it can facilitate a receptive state of mind.


The harmonisation serves the same role and even polyphony can do the same(I am not talking about really complex polyphonic works from the 14 or 15 century).

I fear that looking at things in isolation is like taking a car apart, looking at the pieces and then trying to figure out how it works. Synergy is lost when you look at things in isolation.


3. The instruments and their various colours highlight the atmosphere of the music and the text and help to set the soul into "spiritual" mood.

yes and therein lies the great danger. Pagan worship used instrumental music to set a "mood" which was an ecstatic state where other than Godly influences could creep in. Artificially induced emotions are not what we are going for here.


4. Both the choral and the instrumental music can be performed beautifully or badly and this is nothing to do with the general discussion.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.


5. The style of the music is a matter of taste. In the western tradition there is quite a lot of resistance from the older generation towards rock bands playing for the church service. I can understand them because this kind of music makes me angry at the beginning (the noise!) and bored at the end when my ears start being deaf. Howeve, this is my personal taste and I am not sure whether God really cares as long as people worship Him.

I'm not so sure. I suspect it is more than simply a matter of taste. I don't dare to presume as to God's preferences or cares, but I do know that the angels sing in the presence of God, I don't know of any Scriptural descriptions of musical instruments being used in Heaven and we are trying to recreate Heaven on earth in our worship, as described by the Holy Apostle John in his Revelation.


Again as I said, this my humble opinion.

Jason

My not-so-humble opinion is that the wisdom of the Church trumps opinion, humble or otherwise. Orthodox worship is lessened, not increased by musical instruments in Church. I don't miss the organ in the Church, as much as I love a good pipe organ outside the Church. Instrumental music has its place, just not as part of Liturgical worship. That is not opinion, that is a basic teaching of the Church.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Owen Jones]

My priest is interested in hearing the gaelic psalm chanting. Does anyone here still have the link?