Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
kata ni khoros...short and long?
Christ is risen!
I was listening to "kata ni khoros" on this site from both CIA and Cantor Farag...I couldn't help but notice that Cantor Farag seems to cut the hymn short (at least when comparing it to CIA). I am referring to the hazzat in the word "evsop"...
Anyone know what the deal with that is?
CIA (3 min mark)
Cantor Farag (2 min 50 sec mark)
I was listening to "kata ni khoros" on this site from both CIA and Cantor Farag...I couldn't help but notice that Cantor Farag seems to cut the hymn short (at least when comparing it to CIA). I am referring to the hazzat in the word "evsop"...
Anyone know what the deal with that is?
CIA (3 min mark)
Cantor Farag (2 min 50 sec mark)
Comments
I noticed the same thing. Also in afrek tve HICS recorded it the way cantor Farag did, but I didn't hear that from cantor Ibrahim.
Oujai qen `P[C
Evsop from Kata Nikhoros and Afrek Etfe,
Efnouti Nai Nan that the priest says,
Agion Teero of Apekran
Amoini Anav of Nikhora
Ghar of The Great Gregorian Enthok Ghar
etc.
all follow the same pattern of hazzat (notes). They may be said either the long way or the short way. As far as cantors are concerned, let's not forget that the original source is Mlm Mikhail the Great. If you search through his recordings, you'll find that he said all of them in the long tune. I think this is because Mlm Mikhail had a thing for being very thorough and complete so he always said the long way. But the short way is permissible as well.
They are all the same pattern.
Evsop from Kata Nikhoros and Afrek Etfe,
Efnouti Nai Nan that the priest says,
Agion Teero of Apekran
Amoini Anav of Nikhora
Ghar of The Great Gregorian Enthok Ghar
etc.
all follow the same pattern of hazzat (notes). They may be said either the long way or the short way. As far as cantors are concerned, let's not forget that the original source is Mlm Mikhail the Great. If you search through his recordings, you'll find that he said all of them in the long tune. I think this is because Mlm Mikhail had a thing for being very thorough and complete so he always said the long way. But the short way is permissible as well.
If you can please share the recording of Mlm Mikhail of Kata Nikhoros. Thx
[quote author=Archdeacon link=topic=14428.msg164649#msg164649 date=1368902177]
They are all the same pattern.
Evsop from Kata Nikhoros and Afrek Etfe,
Efnouti Nai Nan that the priest says,
Agion Teero of Apekran
Amoini Anav of Nikhora
Ghar of The Great Gregorian Enthok Ghar
etc.
all follow the same pattern of hazzat (notes). They may be said either the long way or the short way. As far as cantors are concerned, let's not forget that the original source is Mlm Mikhail the Great. If you search through his recordings, you'll find that he said all of them in the long tune. I think this is because Mlm Mikhail had a thing for being very thorough and complete so he always said the long way. But the short way is permissible as well.
If you can please share the recording of Mlm Mikhail of Kata Nikhoros. Thx
Ditto. I can't find any recording from Mlm Mikhail - so if you have it, please share.
OK, so there is another point I would like to discuss with Archdeacon and every body (maybe after we listen to cantor Mikhail's version of the hymn). Is it OK to copy the priest's tunes into the congregations ones, even though there are some similar parts? There are same parts in Gregorian liturgy with arihouo of cmou eb[oic, but it isn't exactly the same. Same thing with the diptych and the Pauline edriby tunes. I don't think we should follow that principle. To me kata ni,oroc and afrek tve won't sound that joyful (but that is so subjective and not an integral part of the discussion anyway).
oujai qen `P[C
The traditional sources have the word 'evsop' from Kata Nikhorus elongated and likewise in the other hymns mentioned. I do not think it is right that we say the tune is the Priests' part of Efnouti nai nan and therefore not right that it is used by the congragation. There are probably hundreds of share tunes in our Coptic hymnology. You have already mentioned the Gregorian liturgy which shares numerous tunes with midnight praises, namely Efemepsha ghar/Aki epkholkhel - Hos erof, Ouoh etihap - Arihoou chasf etc. There is also a hymn Enthoten de for the Apostles which borrows some hezaat from the Priest litany of the oblations.
I have a more simplistic view of hymns which is the Coptic church should by this day and age be considered established and therefore whether a hymn sounds joyful or not is irrelevant and if the rituals call for it to be chanted then it should be chanted. For years people chanted the long Hiten without giving it a second thought yet all notes are shared with the hymn Fai etafenf. Also I believe that music in general is personal to the extent that what one person finds sorrowful or boring may sound joyful and emotional to another.
Then I thought "Let me see what HCOC did in their Ressurection Hymns collection since they always manage to find the rarest recordings." So I went back and found that even their source for that hymn was a recording of Mlm Mikhail saying it the short way. Then, just to be sure I opened up the recording of the actual choir singing it and they said it the long way! So their source said it the short way, but they recorded it the long way.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that 1) They didn't follow their source, which is unlikely or 2) Most cantors (inluding Albair) agree that, since the hazzat follow the same pattern, it is permissible to chant it in either the short way or the long way.
As for ophadece's concerns, my short answer would be that we definitely know for sure that Apekran and Nikhora use the long version of the music in question. So you can't say that this is copying a priest's part. I would also add that I don't think Coptic hymnology differentiates music based on who is supposed to say it, but rather what the mood or feeling should be. It doesn't matter if it is a priest part or a deacon part, if the mood is the same then the music is the same. For example, the litany of the oblations right before the commemoration is said using Pascha tunes. After the commemoration, the priest mentions the names of the departed (Those whose names we have mentioned ...). All the major cantors record this in the tune of Pekethronos, although it is well known that Pekethronos is something deacons say during the 12th hour of Good Friday. But the mood is the same because in both cases we are talking about the departed. In Good Friday it's Jesus Christ who departed, on any other Sunday, it's our friends and relatives and fellow Christians. I think there are plenty more examples like this where the music of a priests part is the same as the music for something else.
Ibrahim Ayad sometimes puts his signature on hymns.
Sorry imikhail thats not true. He knows what he's doing. He doesn't just make stuff up like everyone thinks.
In terms of Kata nikhoros. Many muallemeen have recorded it that way. And that is a standard part in hymnology. Those group of hazzat can always be said either long or short it is not a point of discrepancy. Whenever you have that group you can do either depending on the time. Keep in mind also, a lot of the old recordings especially muallem mikahil he records just to say that this hymn exists but he cuts them off. Like al el korban he only recorded part of it but he taught the entire thing. These things are also handed down orally. When the muallem tells them well learn it short for now but you can also say it long. And you already know the hazzat for it so whenever there is time. So there was really no reason to record it.
There is also kata nikhoros el hegab. That is another long hymn before o nim nai.
in terms of priest parts and congregation parts. These are tunes that were placed into different areas. Whether these tunes have a meaning or whether they fit into the hymn and thats why they are placed. They are there it has nothing to do with priest or congregation. The litany of the oblations has parts of pekethronos. Efemepsha like evol hiten and Aki eepkholkhel like hos erof and ari hoo. It is part of the hymnology that shouldnt even be subject to change.
Thanks all for the great responses. I am on your wavelength now.
oujai qen `P[C
Pretty much every youtube video or online recording of this hymn says it the long way. This is probably due to influence from modern cantors like Ibrahim Ayad and Gad Lewis. So I went back and combed through all my Mlm Mikhail recordings. I found that in fact, he says it the short way only. There are about 3/4 distinct recordings of this hymn in the entire collection and they all have it the short way. So it looked like I was mistaken.
Then I thought "Let me see what HCOC did in their Ressurection Hymns collection since they always manage to find the rarest recordings." So I went back and found that even their source for that hymn was a recording of Mlm Mikhail saying it the short way. Then, just to be sure I opened up the recording of the actual choir singing it and they said it the long way! So their source said it the short way, but they recorded it the long way.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that 1) They didn't follow their source, which is unlikely or 2) Most cantors (inluding Albair) agree that, since the hazzat follow the same pattern, it is permissible to chant it in either the short way or the long way.
As for ophadece's concerns, my short answer would be that we definitely know for sure that Apekran and Nikhora use the long version of the music in question. So you can't say that this is copying a priest's part. I would also add that I don't think Coptic hymnology differentiates music based on who is supposed to say it, but rather what the mood or feeling should be. It doesn't matter if it is a priest part or a deacon part, if the mood is the same then the music is the same. For example, the litany of the oblations right before the commemoration is said using Pascha tunes. After the commemoration, the priest mentions the names of the departed (Those whose names we have mentioned ...). All the major cantors record this in the tune of Pekethronos, although it is well known that Pekethronos is something deacons say during the 12th hour of Good Friday. But the mood is the same because in both cases we are talking about the departed. In Good Friday it's Jesus Christ who departed, on any other Sunday, it's our friends and relatives and fellow Christians. I think there are plenty more examples like this where the music of a priests part is the same as the music for something else.
Thanks for the research, Archdeacon.
To make things more confusing, the HCOC chanted it the short way during a live service. (So, there source was short, they recorded it long, but actually chanted it short!)
Kata Ni Khoros (scroll down, it's the last hymn)
Maybe someone who is familiar with Albair can contact him?
I think it is unlikely that the hymn started long and was truncated. It's more likely that the hymn was short and developed into a longer hymn over time. Who is responsible and why it happened will probably never be known.
But here's my theory: A moalem who thought he had the hymn memorized was chanting it in church one day. As he got to the word "evsop" he forgot what was coming next! Not wanting to look incompetent, he added enough hazzat to buy time as he searched for the lyrics in his book. After the liturgy the people complimented him on it. He thought to himself, "that actually came out pretty good, I'll do it next week too." His taught his students this way and so it spread.
As a response to Andrew. I disagree with that although that may happen with other hymns that are much longer than kata nikhoros. but in this hymn that sequence of hazzat is very popular. It is obvious that it has been taught both ways for a very long time.The music itself is repeating. and it ends on the same note as well. Being that it is in several hymns it is obvious that it is an original thing and not a mixup. and i would also assume that that segment was used for something specific in the music of the egyptians or at least the people who put these hymns together. It must have had some sort of meaning or at least a certain mood that it evoked. On another note, As you can see from albair both things are there. Both ways are there and both are accurate. It is about time constraint
Yes i have recordings of muallem Mikhail doing shere and omonogenees. And on a side note muallem mikhail also extends thanato in the same way as atreptos and athanatos and agios in omonogenees.
Where in the hymn is the "thanato" are you referring to that he extends on like he does for "Atreptos" and "Athanatos?"
Because before the Funeral Prayer for HH Pope Shenouda, Cantor Ibrahim extended "Diateen" in the same manner as he did for "Atreptos" and "Athanatos" so I was wondering if Cantor Mikhail also recorded it that way too.