Does anyone know any contemplations on the the hymns of the Epiphany, mainly Ouran enshosho? Also, is ekechosi considered the paralex or is pachois said right after the hymn consider the paralex?
so then what's the point of the mo7ayer? like the paralex, from my understanding, means "next to the word" (it being a Greek word), and is meant to explain what was just said or to be an addition to what was said. So what does the mo7ayer serve as? (and also, the southern diocese Deacon service book refers to all of the mo7ayers as paralex)
[quote author=matthabib24 link=topic=14125.msg162522#msg162522 date=1357664517] so then what's the point of the mo7ayer? like the paralex, from my understanding, means "next to the word" (it being a Greek word), and is meant to explain what was just said or to be an addition to what was said. So what does the mo7ayer serve as? (and also, the southern diocese Deacon service book refers to all of the mo7ayers as paralex)
the word Mohayyar refers to the tune.....it's an arabic word that means confusing or perplexing. it refers to how the tune or the hazzat on the text are not long but they are also not short....middle ground. best example, lahn tenoweh ensok from tasbeha. it is said in different watos tunes depending on the occasion. each of those occasions has three tune long, mohayyar, short (kiahk is a lil differnt...there is an extra tune to the 3).
paralex refers to the hymn...what is the hymn?! it is a greek word that i THINK refers to how it is said, an alternation between two choruses or a cantor. it is also a repeating identification of hymn to many of the church hymns...one that comes to mind is Aleethos ghar of Apekran that is actually said like pi-epnevma.
Good to know, mina. thx. now does anyone have anything on the spirituality of the hymn, ouran enshoo-shoo? (which is the main reason i posted this). Like why does the first and the fourth part of the ekchosi are the same, while the second part has a slight variation to the beginning and the third line is completely different and much higher pitched than the rest? and why does ouran and pipnevma have the same lahn? (maybe because St. John witnessed to the Holy Spirit when he said 'I saw the Spirit descending like a dove" on Christ whom he baptised) anyone???
[quote author=matthabib24 link=topic=14125.msg162536#msg162536 date=1357701865] Good to know, mina. thx. now does anyone have anything on the spirituality of the hymn, ouran enshoo-shoo? (which is the main reason i posted this). Like why does the first and the fourth part of the ekchosi are the same, while the second part has a slight variation to the beginning and the third line is completely different and much higher pitched than the rest? and why does ouran and pipnevma have the same lahn? (maybe because St. John witnessed to the Holy Spirit when he said 'I saw the Spirit descending like a dove" on Christ whom he baptised) anyone???
hmmm.... I hope there are someone out there who can give you what you are looking for. ....but it's very hard. There isn't much study about hymns and hazzat (ornaments)....and when there is, they are people's intuition of what they feel sometimes about the hymns--like what George Kerrelos does sometimes, being the head of David Ensemble http://www.davidensemble.com/.
Sometimes I think its best if I meditate on the hymns myself and find a meaning to it that suits me. That way it becomes a deep prayer not just a nice hymn.
Mina, great words but I don't agree that you necessarily divide such hymns between choruses.. please remember that liturgy hymns don't follow the same criteria as tasbeha.. there are hymns where it's specified that alternation exists for them, like Dimatesnowdy or agios (not even in all books) resembling the picture the Book of Revelation teaches us, but otherwise other hymns are for the congregation without dividing into two choruses.. that's an innovation.. oujai
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=14125.msg162547#msg162547 date=1357716805] Mina, great words but I don't agree that you necessarily divide such hymns between choruses.. please remember that liturgy hymns don't follow the same criteria as tasbeha.. there are hymns where it's specified that alternation exists for them, like Dimatesnowdy or agios (not even in all books) resembling the picture the Book of Revelation teaches us, but otherwise other hymns are for the congregation without dividing into two choruses.. that's an innovation.. oujai
ana mish fahim......what are we talking about exactly?! i get the reference to the Revelation.
Sorry Mina, typing from the mobile makes it so hard for me to elaborate on what I would like to express. What I was basically talking about is the comment you made about having baralex hymns divided into choruses, with one chorus singing one verse and the other the next. This is not the regular practice in Liturgy hymns, with the exceptions I gave in the last post (agioc - ]mytcnou]). The latter two are specified in kholagy books, but others aren't. They are congregation hymns, that the whole congregation sings all the verses. I hope that is clear. This is of course not like tasbeha, where the general rule is two choruses alternating. oujai qen `P[C
[quote author=ophadece link=topic=14125.msg162551#msg162551 date=1357723807] Sorry Mina, typing from the mobile makes it so hard for me to elaborate on what I would like to express. What I was basically talking about is the comment you made about having baralex hymns divided into choruses, with one chorus singing one verse and the other the next. This is not the regular practice in Liturgy hymns, with the exceptions I gave in the last post (agioc - ]mytcnou]). The latter two are specified in kholagy books, but others aren't. They are congregation hymns, that the whole congregation sings all the verses. I hope that is clear. This is of course not like tasbeha, where the general rule is two choruses alternating. oujai qen `P[C
I hope i didn't give the expression that all our hymns are that way. I was specifically talking about the paralex. I can't find a clear definition of the word in Greek other then a mathematical term other then this: The term is derived from the Greek παράλλαξις (parallaxis), meaning "alteration" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax, referring to mathematical/physical concept. OTHER THEN THAT, in M Farag khidmit shamas, pg 739 (the latest couple of versions have the same page) a footnote referring to the title برلكس Paralex on Aleethos ghar of Apekran......he says "برلكس: معناها لحن مكرر بتناوب بنفس النغمة" translation: "Paralex: means a repeating hymn, with alternation, in the same tune."
[quote author=minatasgeel link=topic=14125.msg162552#msg162552 date=1357725023] [The term is derived from the Greek παράλλαξις (parallaxis), meaning "alteration" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax, referring to mathematical/physical concept. OTHER THEN THAT, in M Farag khidmit shamas, pg 739 (the latest couple of versions have the same page) a footnote referring to the title برلكس Paralex on Aleethos ghar of Apekran......he says "برلكس: معناها لحن مكرر بتناوب بنفس النغمة" translation: "Paralex: means a repeating hymn, with alternation, in the same tune."
παραλλαξις is different than παραλεξις. παραλεξ is not actually a Greek word. It is a Coptic derivative of παραλέξαι. παραλλαξις and παραλέξαι come from different Greek root words. The root word, λάξις, means "that which is allotted". So παραλλαξις means "alternating position". This is probably what M. Farag thought paralex meant or where it was derived from. But this is wrong. Paralex is derived from παραλέξαι, which in turn is derived from παραλέγω. παραλέγω has three meanings: 1. pluck out superfluous hair (pluck out a unibrow for example) 2. Sail or coast along 3. speak beside the purpose, wander in one's talk, rave, speaking besides the point, ranting
It is obvious that definition #3 is meant in our Coptic hymnological context. Paralex or paralexis or paralegw means to speak besides the point or expand the talk. It can best be thought of as "free speaking" or "expanding the speech" or "expanding the hymn" or "a secondary comment on the initial hymn". It has nothing to do with alternating the actual singing. I think paralex was meant to show a change of tune in the hymn with some sort of "free speaking" form. This secondary "free speaking form" adopted another tune and the two tunes became two parts of the hymn, with the title "paralex" in the middle to denote the shift in the tunes. Therefore the first part of the hymn or text had one tune (usually melismatic) and the hymn continued with the paralex, a free (simpler) tune. We see the Coptic version of the Psalms interjects the word "lexis" in between verses. I think this was an abbreviated derivative form of paralex to demarcate a shift in the tune which the Coptic forefathers probably sung like their Jewish predecessors.
Somehow this simpler tune (or the intention to change to a simpler tune) became confusing and it took on the name mohayyar (confusing or perplexing) - giving the exact opposite meaning and intention of paralex.
Eventually mohayyar came to mean a type of paralex tune. For some liturgical hymns like Meghalo, the mohayyar tune is commonly known as the "Apenchois Isos Pikhristos" tune. For Psalmody hymns, mohayyar - as Mina explained - refers to the second or sometimes the third tune in the Batos doxologies, like tenoweh. The same Batos doxologies tune is also used in the liturgy, like Ooniatoo. In some liturgical hymns, like Piepnevma the hymn starts with a simple free tune and continues to the paralex which has a melismatic tune. Paralex here means a shift in tune, not a shift to a simpler tune. Paralex now takes on another meaning (simple to complex tune shift)
Mohayyar therefore has multiple meanings referring to different things. Maybe that is why it is confusing and the name mohayyar stuck. But mohayyar does not mean paralex or parallaxis. And paralex does not mean parallaxis or alternating choirs (the word used for this is antiphonarium or difnar in Coptic).
I hope I wasn't mohayyar in my explanation and I hoped this helped.
[quote author=matthabib24 link=topic=14125.msg162536#msg162536 date=1357701865] Good to know, mina. thx. now does anyone have anything on the spirituality of the hymn, ouran enshoo-shoo? (which is the main reason i posted this). Like why does the first and the fourth part of the ekchosi are the same, while the second part has a slight variation to the beginning and the third line is completely different and much higher pitched than the rest? and why does ouran and pipnevma have the same lahn? (maybe because St. John witnessed to the Holy Spirit when he said 'I saw the Spirit descending like a dove" on Christ whom he baptised) anyone???
I don't think the line of rationalization is the reason why Pipnevma and Ouran enshosho have the same tune and why parts of the hymns repeats and other parts don't repeat.
Here's my theory: All tunes developed over time independently in the beginning. Eventually they all became part of a musical corpus and as time progressed new hymns adopted familiar parts for memorization and musical purposes. But they also contained uncommon parts to differentiate or denote different hymns. So we have a "one tune with different texts" style and we have "multiple tunes with different text" style and we have a "multiple tunes with one text" style in our hymnological tradition and corpus. This is also found in all Christian musical traditions (Byzantine, Syriac, Latin, Indian, Armenian, Ethiopian Churches) What complicates things is that all of these churches call this system the "octoechos" or eight tune system. But octoechos means different things to different musical traditions and Churches. It can mean one of eight tunes for one text or one tune for one text said in an eight week calendar cycle or one of eight tunes for different texts or the book that contains the liturgical cycle in musical notation for an eight week period or the book that contains the eight tunes for all hymns. Each church means something different when using the term octoechos. But all churches have repetitive musical tunes used in some sort of cycle. The Coptic Church is no different.
In our church, musical theory never developed. Instead Copts use memorization and rational spiritual contemplations to describe different hymns, not musical notation or musical theory. However, spiritual contemplations can't explain musical trends and observations adequately...As you can see, the meaning of mohayyar and paralex can't adequately describe the musical observations, nor the spiritual meaning behind the these terms and music. But that doesn't stop Copts from using spiritual contemplations for musical phenomena. And that's a good thing.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14125.msg162558#msg162558 date=1357760483] Here's my theory: All tunes developed over time independently in the beginning. Eventually they all became part of a musical corpus and as time progressed new hymns adopted familiar parts for memorization and musical purposes. But they also contained uncommon parts to differentiate or denote different hymns. So we have a "one tune with different texts" style and we have "multiple tunes with different text" style and we have a "multiple tunes with one text" style in our hymnological tradition and corpus. This is also found in all Christian musical traditions (Byzantine, Syriac, Latin, Indian, Armenian, Ethiopian Churches) What complicates things is that all of these churches call this system the "octoechos" or eight tune system. But octoechos means different things to different musical traditions and Churches. It can mean one of eight tunes for one text or one tune for one text said in an eight week calendar cycle or one of eight tunes for different texts or the book that contains the liturgical cycle in musical notation for an eight week period or the book that contains the eight tunes for all hymns. Each church means something different when using the term octoechos. But all churches have repetitive musical tunes used in some sort of cycle. The Coptic Church is no different.
I think that many hymns are also set up in the form that the first part has a tune and then the paralex follows in a similar tune that fits many texts. Examples that follow this: - Apekran - O oniatto - Enthoten dthe and Niromi (both have paralex) Now many other hymns have the same structure where the first part, I THINK, is meant to be said in a special tune--it's unique tune--and then the paralex is defined (depending on the period, there are actually different tunes for a paralex...i can think of 3 known ones). that can be found in MANY hymns: - Etav eni-eskhai - Adam Abel - fa ni-tenh enhab - many other hymns for saints that are in books but never recorded in a special tune (some sources just rakeeb on other know tunes)
To complicate things even more, most "paralexes" (or is the plural paralexi?), have two tunes. So in your examples: Apekran (Long first tune, long paralex tune for a few stanzas and simpler paralex tune starting with Amoini sotem) Enthoten Ze (short, simple tune, then paralex starts out very melismatic in the second stanza and stanza 3+ are in the same simple paralex tune of Apekran) Pipenevma (same as Enthoten). Short first tune for fist stanza. Then the paralex is very long in the second stanza and the 3+ stanzas are in the same paralex tune as Apekran. Niromi, Ouran enshosho - same story Fa nitenh enhat (not enhab), can belong to this family or genre. The first stanza is short, the second stanza is very long and stanzas 3+ follow the same paralex tune as Apekran and the hymns above
Other hymns like etaven nieskhai, Adam Abel, Piehlog have a short tune for the first stanza, then a melismatic tune for verses 2+.
Another strange exception is Kata nikhoros for the communion. It belongs to the same family as Afrek etve, and Thomas. But Afrek etve and Thomas have a quick first hymn in the first stanza, a long melismatic tune for the 2+ stanzas, while Kata nikhoros has the same long melismatic tune as Afrek and Thomas but no first short tune. It's almost as if Kata nikhoros had the first stanza removed and we are only singing the paralex.
Additionally, the 5 Batos tunes (Year round, Kiahk, Lent, Palm Sunday and Joyous) can have all stanzas in one tune all the way through or a mix of 3 or 4 tunes for that part of the liturgical calendar (remember octeoechos. We have 5 Batos tunes, which would be pentaechos).
So we have more exceptions than an actual standard rule.
Come on.....why did you have to bring in Kata nikhoros and Thomas.....i was trying to hide that because it'll confuse things. I think the "Farayehi" paralex is that tune of Kata Nikhoros and also Maroonof in Afrek etfe (my favorite hymn ever).
but we are still just considering what we have of recording and not what we have lost......noromi and enthoten dthe are saved.....but i think fa nitehn enhat has a unique tune....so is adam abel...so are a couple of other hymns that are tarkeep on that (which i think originated from M tawfik's etav enni eskhai)
What's this hymn thomas you guys are talkin about? and also, based on the above conversation, does this mean that the paralex does not have to have the same tune? or do u just consider the last part (that is more or less demgan) the paralex?
[quote author=matthabib24 link=topic=14125.msg162568#msg162568 date=1357789121] What's this hymn thomas you guys are talkin about? and also, based on the above conversation, does this mean that the paralex does not have to have the same tune? or do u just consider the last part (that is more or less demgan) the paralex?
Comments
so then what's the point of the mo7ayer? like the paralex, from my understanding, means "next to the word" (it being a Greek word), and is meant to explain what was just said or to be an addition to what was said. So what does the mo7ayer serve as? (and also, the southern diocese Deacon service book refers to all of the mo7ayers as paralex)
the word Mohayyar refers to the tune.....it's an arabic word that means confusing or perplexing. it refers to how the tune or the hazzat on the text are not long but they are also not short....middle ground. best example, lahn tenoweh ensok from tasbeha. it is said in different watos tunes depending on the occasion. each of those occasions has three tune long, mohayyar, short (kiahk is a lil differnt...there is an extra tune to the 3).
paralex refers to the hymn...what is the hymn?! it is a greek word that i THINK refers to how it is said, an alternation between two choruses or a cantor. it is also a repeating identification of hymn to many of the church hymns...one that comes to mind is Aleethos ghar of Apekran that is actually said like pi-epnevma.
Good to know, mina. thx. now does anyone have anything on the spirituality of the hymn, ouran enshoo-shoo? (which is the main reason i posted this). Like why does the first and the fourth part of the ekchosi are the same, while the second part has a slight variation to the beginning and the third line is completely different and much higher pitched than the rest? and why does ouran and pipnevma have the same lahn? (maybe because St. John witnessed to the Holy Spirit when he said 'I saw the Spirit descending like a dove" on Christ whom he baptised) anyone???
hmmm.... I hope there are someone out there who can give you what you are looking for. ....but it's very hard. There isn't much study about hymns and hazzat (ornaments)....and when there is, they are people's intuition of what they feel sometimes about the hymns--like what George Kerrelos does sometimes, being the head of David Ensemble http://www.davidensemble.com/.
God Bless
great words but I don't agree that you necessarily divide such hymns between choruses.. please remember that liturgy hymns don't follow the same criteria as tasbeha.. there are hymns where it's specified that alternation exists for them, like Dimatesnowdy or agios (not even in all books) resembling the picture the Book of Revelation teaches us, but otherwise other hymns are for the congregation without dividing into two choruses.. that's an innovation..
oujai
Mina,
great words but I don't agree that you necessarily divide such hymns between choruses.. please remember that liturgy hymns don't follow the same criteria as tasbeha.. there are hymns where it's specified that alternation exists for them, like Dimatesnowdy or agios (not even in all books) resembling the picture the Book of Revelation teaches us, but otherwise other hymns are for the congregation without dividing into two choruses.. that's an innovation..
oujai
ana mish fahim......what are we talking about exactly?!
i get the reference to the Revelation.
What I was basically talking about is the comment you made about having baralex hymns divided into choruses, with one chorus singing one verse and the other the next. This is not the regular practice in Liturgy hymns, with the exceptions I gave in the last post (agioc - ]mytcnou]). The latter two are specified in kholagy books, but others aren't. They are congregation hymns, that the whole congregation sings all the verses. I hope that is clear. This is of course not like tasbeha, where the general rule is two choruses alternating.
oujai qen `P[C
Sorry Mina, typing from the mobile makes it so hard for me to elaborate on what I would like to express.
What I was basically talking about is the comment you made about having baralex hymns divided into choruses, with one chorus singing one verse and the other the next. This is not the regular practice in Liturgy hymns, with the exceptions I gave in the last post (agioc - ]mytcnou]). The latter two are specified in kholagy books, but others aren't. They are congregation hymns, that the whole congregation sings all the verses. I hope that is clear. This is of course not like tasbeha, where the general rule is two choruses alternating.
oujai qen `P[C
I hope i didn't give the expression that all our hymns are that way. I was specifically talking about the paralex. I can't find a clear definition of the word in Greek other then a mathematical term other then this:
The term is derived from the Greek παράλλαξις (parallaxis), meaning "alteration" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax, referring to mathematical/physical concept.
OTHER THEN THAT, in M Farag khidmit shamas, pg 739 (the latest couple of versions have the same page) a footnote referring to the title برلكس Paralex on Aleethos ghar of Apekran......he says "برلكس: معناها لحن مكرر بتناوب بنفس النغمة" translation: "Paralex: means a repeating hymn, with alternation, in the same tune."
oujai
[The term is derived from the Greek παράλλαξις (parallaxis), meaning "alteration" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax, referring to mathematical/physical concept.
OTHER THEN THAT, in M Farag khidmit shamas, pg 739 (the latest couple of versions have the same page) a footnote referring to the title برلكس Paralex on Aleethos ghar of Apekran......he says "برلكس: معناها لحن مكرر بتناوب بنفس النغمة" translation: "Paralex: means a repeating hymn, with alternation, in the same tune."
παραλλαξις is different than παραλεξις. παραλεξ is not actually a Greek word. It is a Coptic derivative of παραλέξαι. παραλλαξις and παραλέξαι come from different Greek root words. The root word, λάξις, means "that which is allotted". So παραλλαξις means "alternating position". This is probably what M. Farag thought paralex meant or where it was derived from. But this is wrong. Paralex is derived from παραλέξαι, which in turn is derived from παραλέγω. παραλέγω has three meanings:
1. pluck out superfluous hair (pluck out a unibrow for example)
2. Sail or coast along
3. speak beside the purpose, wander in one's talk, rave, speaking besides the point, ranting
It is obvious that definition #3 is meant in our Coptic hymnological context. Paralex or paralexis or paralegw means to speak besides the point or expand the talk. It can best be thought of as "free speaking" or "expanding the speech" or "expanding the hymn" or "a secondary comment on the initial hymn". It has nothing to do with alternating the actual singing. I think paralex was meant to show a change of tune in the hymn with some sort of "free speaking" form. This secondary "free speaking form" adopted another tune and the two tunes became two parts of the hymn, with the title "paralex" in the middle to denote the shift in the tunes. Therefore the first part of the hymn or text had one tune (usually melismatic) and the hymn continued with the paralex, a free (simpler) tune. We see the Coptic version of the Psalms interjects the word "lexis" in between verses. I think this was an abbreviated derivative form of paralex to demarcate a shift in the tune which the Coptic forefathers probably sung like their Jewish predecessors.
Somehow this simpler tune (or the intention to change to a simpler tune) became confusing and it took on the name mohayyar (confusing or perplexing) - giving the exact opposite meaning and intention of paralex.
Eventually mohayyar came to mean a type of paralex tune. For some liturgical hymns like Meghalo, the mohayyar tune is commonly known as the "Apenchois Isos Pikhristos" tune. For Psalmody hymns, mohayyar - as Mina explained - refers to the second or sometimes the third tune in the Batos doxologies, like tenoweh. The same Batos doxologies tune is also used in the liturgy, like Ooniatoo. In some liturgical hymns, like Piepnevma the hymn starts with a simple free tune and continues to the paralex which has a melismatic tune. Paralex here means a shift in tune, not a shift to a simpler tune. Paralex now takes on another meaning (simple to complex tune shift)
Mohayyar therefore has multiple meanings referring to different things. Maybe that is why it is confusing and the name mohayyar stuck. But mohayyar does not mean paralex or parallaxis. And paralex does not mean parallaxis or alternating choirs (the word used for this is antiphonarium or difnar in Coptic).
I hope I wasn't mohayyar in my explanation and I hoped this helped.
Good to know, mina. thx. now does anyone have anything on the spirituality of the hymn, ouran enshoo-shoo? (which is the main reason i posted this). Like why does the first and the fourth part of the ekchosi are the same, while the second part has a slight variation to the beginning and the third line is completely different and much higher pitched than the rest? and why does ouran and pipnevma have the same lahn? (maybe because St. John witnessed to the Holy Spirit when he said 'I saw the Spirit descending like a dove" on Christ whom he baptised) anyone???
I don't think the line of rationalization is the reason why Pipnevma and Ouran enshosho have the same tune and why parts of the hymns repeats and other parts don't repeat.
Here's my theory: All tunes developed over time independently in the beginning. Eventually they all became part of a musical corpus and as time progressed new hymns adopted familiar parts for memorization and musical purposes. But they also contained uncommon parts to differentiate or denote different hymns. So we have a "one tune with different texts" style and we have "multiple tunes with different text" style and we have a "multiple tunes with one text" style in our hymnological tradition and corpus. This is also found in all Christian musical traditions (Byzantine, Syriac, Latin, Indian, Armenian, Ethiopian Churches) What complicates things is that all of these churches call this system the "octoechos" or eight tune system. But octoechos means different things to different musical traditions and Churches. It can mean one of eight tunes for one text or one tune for one text said in an eight week calendar cycle or one of eight tunes for different texts or the book that contains the liturgical cycle in musical notation for an eight week period or the book that contains the eight tunes for all hymns. Each church means something different when using the term octoechos. But all churches have repetitive musical tunes used in some sort of cycle. The Coptic Church is no different.
In our church, musical theory never developed. Instead Copts use memorization and rational spiritual contemplations to describe different hymns, not musical notation or musical theory. However, spiritual contemplations can't explain musical trends and observations adequately...As you can see, the meaning of mohayyar and paralex can't adequately describe the musical observations, nor the spiritual meaning behind the these terms and music. But that doesn't stop Copts from using spiritual contemplations for musical phenomena. And that's a good thing.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=14125.msg162558#msg162558 date=1357760483]
Here's my theory: All tunes developed over time independently in the beginning. Eventually they all became part of a musical corpus and as time progressed new hymns adopted familiar parts for memorization and musical purposes. But they also contained uncommon parts to differentiate or denote different hymns. So we have a "one tune with different texts" style and we have "multiple tunes with different text" style and we have a "multiple tunes with one text" style in our hymnological tradition and corpus. This is also found in all Christian musical traditions (Byzantine, Syriac, Latin, Indian, Armenian, Ethiopian Churches) What complicates things is that all of these churches call this system the "octoechos" or eight tune system. But octoechos means different things to different musical traditions and Churches. It can mean one of eight tunes for one text or one tune for one text said in an eight week calendar cycle or one of eight tunes for different texts or the book that contains the liturgical cycle in musical notation for an eight week period or the book that contains the eight tunes for all hymns. Each church means something different when using the term octoechos. But all churches have repetitive musical tunes used in some sort of cycle. The Coptic Church is no different.
I think that many hymns are also set up in the form that the first part has a tune and then the paralex follows in a similar tune that fits many texts. Examples that follow this:
- Apekran
- O oniatto
- Enthoten dthe and Niromi (both have paralex)
Now many other hymns have the same structure where the first part, I THINK, is meant to be said in a special tune--it's unique tune--and then the paralex is defined (depending on the period, there are actually different tunes for a paralex...i can think of 3 known ones). that can be found in MANY hymns:
- Etav eni-eskhai
- Adam Abel
- fa ni-tenh enhab
- many other hymns for saints that are in books but never recorded in a special tune (some sources just rakeeb on other know tunes)
To complicate things even more, most "paralexes" (or is the plural paralexi?), have two tunes. So in your examples:
Apekran (Long first tune, long paralex tune for a few stanzas and simpler paralex tune starting with Amoini sotem)
Enthoten Ze (short, simple tune, then paralex starts out very melismatic in the second stanza and stanza 3+ are in the same simple paralex tune of Apekran)
Pipenevma (same as Enthoten). Short first tune for fist stanza. Then the paralex is very long in the second stanza and the 3+ stanzas are in the same paralex tune as Apekran.
Niromi, Ouran enshosho - same story
Fa nitenh enhat (not enhab), can belong to this family or genre. The first stanza is short, the second stanza is very long and stanzas 3+ follow the same paralex tune as Apekran and the hymns above
Other hymns like etaven nieskhai, Adam Abel, Piehlog have a short tune for the first stanza, then a melismatic tune for verses 2+.
Another strange exception is Kata nikhoros for the communion. It belongs to the same family as Afrek etve, and Thomas. But Afrek etve and Thomas have a quick first hymn in the first stanza, a long melismatic tune for the 2+ stanzas, while Kata nikhoros has the same long melismatic tune as Afrek and Thomas but no first short tune. It's almost as if Kata nikhoros had the first stanza removed and we are only singing the paralex.
Additionally, the 5 Batos tunes (Year round, Kiahk, Lent, Palm Sunday and Joyous) can have all stanzas in one tune all the way through or a mix of 3 or 4 tunes for that part of the liturgical calendar (remember octeoechos. We have 5 Batos tunes, which would be pentaechos).
So we have more exceptions than an actual standard rule.
I think the "Farayehi" paralex is that tune of Kata Nikhoros and also Maroonof in Afrek etfe (my favorite hymn ever).
but we are still just considering what we have of recording and not what we have lost......noromi and enthoten dthe are saved.....but i think fa nitehn enhat has a unique tune....so is adam abel...so are a couple of other hymns that are tarkeep on that (which i think originated from M tawfik's etav enni eskhai)
What's this hymn thomas you guys are talkin about? and also, based on the above conversation, does this mean that the paralex does not have to have the same tune? or do u just consider the last part (that is more or less demgan) the paralex?
A hymn said on Thomas Sunday.