Talk:Neobyzantine Octoechos

Intelligibility

You do realise that even the header is unintelligible to even the reasonably educated (as in, graduate in anthropology of religion and music) general public, do you ? Shouldn't you consider getting your own website dedicated to the topic, and pare down this page to an encyclopedia article ? I mean it seriously, people with the specialised knowledge necessary to profit from what seems a considerable amount of work won't look for such on wikipedia, and people looking for an introduction to the topic, such as myself, can't use your work as is.84.97.218.151 (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess you rather look for something like this:

http://www.asbm.goarch.org/articles/a-brief-overview-of-the-psaltic-art/

Maybe you would like to rework the article "Byzantine music".

Before you do this, I recommend to read this article dedicated to a rather specialised topic octoechos, because you will learn what is the difference between Byzantine and Neobyzantine (already a careful look on the last picture explains all these differences, but you are right, you have also to read more, if you would like to follow your questions). This article does not only provide you with some useful suggestions for your lecture which you can add to your bibliography with one click, but also with some facsimiles of manuscripts from different periods.

The term Neobyzantine notation is, by the way, widely accepted by traditional singers as by historians and philologues like its synonym Chrysanthine notation. I just applied it to the other mysterious term "octoechos" and therefore I am obliged to explain, that the living tradition today is based on the compositions of three generations of teachers at the New Music school of the Patriarchate before Chrysanthos, since Ioannes Trebizond. They composed the music and they did not just invent the notation used today. And they did not agree among each other, when they innovated the different traditions of Orthodox chant.

If you are further interested to know about older layers which go back to the time of the Byzantine empire, I recommend the articles Papadic octoechos (13th-19th century) and Hagiopolitan octoechos (6th-13th century). I agree with Grammenos Karanos, that an article about Byzantine music has not just to deal with vocal church music, and like everybody reasonably educated I do not talk about psaltic art with respect to Orthodox traditions today. The reason is that one of its experts Manuel Chrysaphes would call us ignorants, if we do so, since we rely on Chrysanthine or Neobyzantine notation and the transcriptions of his generation, without making any difference between the foreground realised during a performance (the melos) and the notated background. Where older generations used to apply a method to do the thesis of the melos, we rely on their method which was already called by Chrysanthos himself "the New Method."

Let us say that history is like a mirror, and some in front of it might look at it and they will look at Caliban's face. Platonykiss (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I have a basic practical grasp of Byzantine music and can follow the general thread of the article, but it should be more clear and concise. It could also use some editing for better English. But that should probably be done only after it is cut down to more manageable size. Horatio325 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be grateful for some support to improve the English, but if you know a better article, I am always envious to learn. Concerning the size, please take your time and visit us more often, you are always welcome. And never mind, if you find here more than expected. Platonykiss (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It is very fundamental discussion, what is supposed to be a wikipedia article. There is a certain kind of wikipedians who seem to know that it should not be like this article, but this is only a very small part of the truth. By all respects I have for the authors of musicological encyclopaedia, it is interesting that also the most snobbish academics consult wikipedia quite more often, as they are ready to admit. One of the reasons is that its technology is far more advanced than the one of New Grove (which is a disgrace from a technological point of view), the other is that the level of global education is meanwhile so low, that the majority of students just copy and paste from here (with the logical result that they get a bad note, because it is evident that they could not have written something which you find here).

Since this article was already splitted into three parts, you are perfectly right to say that too many informations are given here. I just had the idea, because it was really about this topic Octoechos, but not as unsufficient as the usual musicological articles (you will find that Peter Jeffery's contributions are most appreciated here, but his Grove article is more or less a bibliography to his brilliant long essay). Believe it or not, wikipedia will also change them, and in a positive way. Because the readers here have very different backgrounds and expectations, and I do know many professors who are either not familiar, either not capable or in many cases they regard it as their job to exclude certain backgrounds. This is the real potential of wikipedia, and its articles do improve, at least in a long term development (I never deleted former content, but I corrected, if necessary, and integrated it).

Concerning this article I already wrote, that other related articles will take the burden that this article has right now (but this is a slow process which needs time). I did not feel up to write this big amount of articles, just three big ones should offer you an introduction which has not been written by anyone so far. Meanwhile something did happen which I also would never have anticipated. Another user who obviously did not share certain negative opinions of some readers here (which I do understand anyway and I apologise, if I cannot fulfill all these expectations), liked the oktoechos articles so much, that this user was not afraid of all the work to translate them as articles of the Greek wikipedia. At the end, we should not standardise knowledge, we should always read critically, whatever it is. If you prefer the beginner level for an introduction into Orthodox chant in order to get a very rough and concise idea, just follow the link I offered you. Octoechos as a subject requires some expertise. Please do not underestimate the readers here, usually it is just a prejudice which was provoked by certain bureaucrats here among the editors. There are certain rules, but there are as well different levels how to deal with them. For this reason, wikipedia has not only a banal general view (like the Oxford companian of music, which is just the repetition of Grove who as the first author just offered a basic knowledge for music loving concert visitors). It had never the ambitions and international perspective of the Parisian "Dictionnaire du Conservatoire", and this is still a conceptual problem of the New Grove for its current musicological readers. Now wikipedia deals, thanks to its technology, in a much faster way with available data and open access resources. This way it does change the world, it documents common ignorance, but it has also the medecin or antidot for it.

Platonykiss (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neobyzantine Octoechos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304065834/http://www.ipamiet.gr/miet/material/xml/gallery.zhtml?oid=598 to http://www.ipamiet.gr/miet/material/xml/gallery.zhtml?oid=598

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)