› ›

Festal distribution psalm 150

MNagib
edited November 2015 in Hymns Discussion
Hello,

Two distinct versions exist for the festal psalm 150. 

One recorded by Cantor Zaher and another recorded by Cantor Ibrahim Ayad.

Which one do you recite at your church?
and
What made you pick that particular version?

A better questions would be: why do we have such a big variation between cantors regarding this hymn?

Thanks all,
God bless you
«1

Comments

  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Nice of you to bring this is up:

    So for Cantor Zaher version: it is based on C Tawfik recording which I think Abouna Mettias Nasr brought to HICS and recorded it in their Pentecost recordings.

    For Cantor Ibrahim version: it is based on a teaching from a cantor in Beni-swif (i think) that is really based on the festive sherat and is constructed only on the 4 alleluia's rather than the feast's response like Cantor Zaher's.

    We don't say this much in my church but most of the deacons do know it, and we learned it directly from Cantor Ibrahim on his first visit to the States a couple of years ago. I like this one because we wouldn't need to "rakeep" the hazzat on the response for every feast's verse since each has the 4 alleluia's in its start.


    To answer you last question, I wouldn't considering them to be "comparable" hymns since they are based on different teachings and different sources. They are simply two ways of saying the same things. 
  • ophadeceophadece
    We go by cantor Zaher.. construction on sharat doesn't seem to be a good idea especially when you say half of the verse in a long tune and the other half faster.. hehe.. never experienced that before.. innovation..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @ophadece:
    "construction on sharat doesn't seem to be a good idea especially when you say half of the verse in a long tune and the other half faster.. hehe.. never experienced that before.. innovation.."

    I am confused by that statement. So do you mean you'd rather rakeep the hazzat on every single feast response rather than have the hazzat on the alleluia's once and repeat it through all the feasts? If so, then you are really doing "more" innovation (i don't really agree to that word but you are the one using it) when constructing the hazzat on the verses since the source records only one of those responses.
  • ophadeceophadece
    @minatasgeel,
    Construction of words on recognised tunes is not an innovation...
    oujai khan ebshois
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    @ophadece...more confusion...why why why?! specially on a friday night at the end of a long work week...

    So no words are being "constructed" here. the words always existed. The words are not what's changing here, but the ornaments/hazzat are. 
  • ophadeceophadece
    @minatasgeel,
    Now I am the one who is more confused. Referring to cantor Zaher's and Towfik's style we could fit the words relevant to the Lordly feasts easily. That's not an innovation.. do you understand what I mean now?
  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    I understand what you are saying but I disagree with your reasoning.
  • dg920
    Cantor Zaher and Cantor Tawfiks Style is fit onto the Sherat of Upper Egypt which is different than that of Cairo. We've been through this about 10 times on the site. 

    Cantor Ibrahim learned the one he says from Cantor Emil of St. Georges church in Beba. There is nothing wrong with having one for all feasts of the Lord. It is constructed primarily on the same Sherat (Joyful) but that of Cairos which makes more musical sense than that of Upper Egypt. Cantor Tawfik hadn't even recorded this hymn and it wasn't released until way after M.Ibrahim had heard the one in Beba. We say it every liturgy during Festal Days. 



  • ophadeceophadece
    Dear @dg920,
    Can you refer me to a recording of upper Egypt sharat? Secondly let's not label everything Cairene vs Alexandrian vs upper Egypt etc. Cantor Ibrahim's hymn is flawed whatever the source is. There is nothing like a hymn with half of the verse in a long tune and the other half in another! Seems to me to be an incapability of the person attempting to construct. Don't forget that sharat have got a long tune over the whole length of the verse. Another thing is: psalm 150 doesn't follow sharat in any occasion but I'll wait until you refer me to the upper Egypt sharat..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • dg920
    @ophadece, The Sherat from Upper Egypt (Se3eed) is that of Cantor Tawfik, and i have other recordings I can send you. It is different partially from that of Cairo. 

    Secondly, You must absolutely label everything as Cairo and Alexandria, and Upper Egypt because these hymns are music and it changes from place to place.

    Thirdly, Muallem Ibrahims is not constructed. Just because you don't know where he heard it and learned it doesn't mean its constructed. On the same point, they are part of the same tune. The Joyful Watos tune is comprised of three sub tunes that all have to do with each other and have clear similarity. 

    Fourthly, Psalm 150 follows the sherat in Palm Sunday, The 50s, The short tune of Kiahk, The short tune of great lent of both weekdays and weekends. So your statement is just plain wrong. 

    5) IF you do enough research and compile recordings from all over the place and study completely what all the cantors of egypt do you will realize that nothing Muallem Ibrahim is doing is wrong. But you obviously haven't done that research. Every cantor that has ever existed has had there own traditions and hymns and ways of doing different things and thats perfectly okay. ON TOP OF ALL THIS, YOU DIDN'T SPEND 50+ years living every day with the cantors that we now consider sources. HE knows MUCH more than you or I will ever know about what these cantors did say and didn't say. There are tons of things that are told and handed down orally that haven't been recorded. Recordings are NOT everything. Please before you comment again and continually try to prove your point, gather information, and research, and look for recordings from As many cantors as possible and see how the hymns actually lived and thrived in the church. Muallem Mikhail, Tawfik, Farag, Faheem, Asaad, Sadek, Habib Hanna, Wissa, Habib Hennawy, Abdo Isaac, Hanna Rizk, Wadee3, and more. Look at all of their recordings and teachings and what is said in their churches even till now. Only then will you understand the traditions of different areas and cantors. 
  • ophadeceophadece
    Dear @dg920,
    I'm sorry that I made you so frustrated by what I said in your defence of cantor Ibrahim. Ok, I won't argue anymore.
    Just one point though, construction of psalm 150 on Lenten sharat in the ceremonial of the Cross or Palm Sunday is again an innovation. Indeed, weekday Lenten psalm 150 cannot apply to sharat altogether, and I believe you understand why. Also, Kiahk psalm 150 bears no relationship to sharat. Thirdly, there was no reliable source of long tune of psalm 150 in Lent or Palm Sunday. As for the abbreviated watos tune, it's ok for the rest of the verses to follow it in whichever ceremonial, although I won't be surprised to learn that we had lost the tunes for those in such ceremonials..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • dg920
    @ophadece 

    1) There are sources to show that the Palm Sunday or Feast of the Cross is to be prayed on the sherat. Just to let you know. 
    2) the Lenten sherat is not the same as that of the cross and palm sunday.

    3) Like I said for the SHORT tunes of the psalm 150 on Lent Weekdays, Weekends, and Kiahk they all follow the sharat tune of that season. 

    4) This is not a defense of Muallem Ibrahim. This is a matter of education. Im extremely tired of people giving their opinions and going full force against teachings and hymns without having studied enough to make those arguments. 
  • dg920
    edited November 2015
    And on another side note, there is nothing wrong with innovation. The Church and its Hymns have changed and have been innovated and thats perfectly fine and part of nature. So even that is a faulty argument. What should never happen is uneducated innovation. Taking out change as a whole is completely wrong. 

    It isn't personal, its just the conclusions that people come to are not correct. There are loads of recordings and sources and teachings that have not been available to the public for a very very long time unless you are looking for it and very hard. So i am sure that you and most other people arguing about these types of topics don't have enough resource to make arguments

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    edited November 2015

    I'm going to expand on what dg920 said in light of what I wrote in the Altar deacon thread. We need to go back to our three tier requirement: (1) liturgical history, (2) patristic writings, and (3) church canons. When it comes to specific tunes, it is unlikely we will find a church canon that speaks of musical tunes. (Usually church canons deal with faith or preventing sinful behavior). We can extrapolate some information form liturgical history and patristic writing, if a church father wrote about musical tunes.


    To our luck, we do. Ibn Kabar's Mizbah al zolma written in the 14th century speaks a lot about musical tunes and liturgical history of the 14th century. (We also to keep in mind 14th century liturgical history is not that old compared to other information we have from prior centuries. I just can't find anything that speaks about musical tunes).


    Ibn Kabar, speaking as a priest, disapproves of false terminology like "joyous", "annual", "kiakhy", "mournful", etc. Speaking of tenoueh `ncwk, Ibn Kabar writes "And the praise that comes after the Hoos [the Third Hoos], is called Batos in all shades at all times”. Note, Ibn Kabar uses terms like "joyous", "annual", "mournful" to describe other hymns and tunes but he does not approve using these terms in conjunction with hymns that are called "Batos". Thus, a hymn is either "Batos" or "Joyous", not both. So when someone says Psalm 150 is a Batos tune, we can't add Joyous, Palm Sunday, Lent, etc. Nowadays, we dropped the title “Batos” for tenoueh `ncwk and call these Batos tunes by its incipent and season (for example, “lahn tenoweh ensok al faraihy”) or by an alternative title and its season (for example, “al sherat al sanowe”, or “al mazmoor al hazaine”, etc)


    Ibn Kabar adds more useful information when he speaks about the Saturday Sherat (which he only calls the Batos Lobsh). He writes, "And its tones, [follow] the rules [which] are rules for the Batos tone, [which] are happy, happy and sad, sad. It is the Nativity, Kiahk, and the Pentecost known tones.” 


    Thus, we can conclude that in the 14th century, according to Ibn Kabar, tenoueh `ncwk and ,ere ;ye;meh `n`hot - and I would add Psalm 150 - are Batos hymns that are either, happy, happy and sad, sad (which are said during Nativity, Kiahk, Pentecost, Lent, year round/annual, Pascha, regardless of the season). In my opinion, I think "happy, happy and sad, sad" are more properly called "large melismatic, semi-melismatic, and fast". Put in modern Copto-Arabic terms it would be "lahn al kabeer", “al mohayyer" and "damg". As you can say tenoueh `ncwk and ,ere ;ye;meh `n`hot in any of these tones, you can say the same about Psalm 150 because Psalm 150 IS a Batos tune. Thus, it is wrong to say Psalm 150 cannot be a long tune because there are no recordings or it is an innovation. Actually, the innovation is the terminology of "joyous Batos" or "Joyous Psalm 150" or "Joyous tenoueh `ncwk". 

  • dg920
    @Rem thank you for the more educated stance as always. 

    I understand your logic in reaching the conclusion you did. I don't understand Ibn Kabars logic for the Watos tune. By that i mean i understand that he doesn't describe things but hazainy faraihy which i agree with. But does that mean that during the different seasons everyone just knew what the watos tune is? 

    Also couldn't that watos tune be Aripsalin, which is always watos?
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    I'm not sure why you think the tune in question is Aripsalin. Ibn Kabar specifically speaks of Tenouweh ensok. More to follow below. 

    It's hard to say what exactly Ibn Kabar means. He is not very detailed sometimes. I think his point is that the Batos tone had 3 variations (shades as he calls it.) They are kabeer, mohayyar, and damg in all seasons (i.e., joyous season, Pentecost season, lent season, annual, etc). That's it. In other places, he enumerates the different tones and mentions, hazainy, faraihy, and a bunch of other tones that are extinct, etc.  I would assume that Ibn Kabar wasn't concerned if the deacons knew what the Batos tune was for a particular season, rather that the specific hymn Tenouweh is an example of a Batos tune said during known seasons with three different variations. It is possible that Joyous Tenouweh said during Nativity and/or Pentecost was semantically equal to "long melismatic" or happy, while annual Tenouweh was semantically equal to "damg" or sad. (Of course, this is just an assumption. For all we know Joyous Tenouweh was equal to "sad" or to "damg" and not the other way around). The whole point was that the Batos tone had 3 variations in the 14th century. Given that Psalm 150 is also a Batos tone, it is very plausible that Psalm 150 has 3 different tone variations for every season.

    Regarding aripsalin, aripsalin is a late addition (19/20th century).     Ibn Kabar includes Aripsalin as a Kiahk psali. It was Claudis Labib who put Aripsalin into the annual Third Hoos. I think the original rite was Bright Saturday minus Aripsalin, then the Church added Aripsalin to the Bright Saturday and the annual psalmody rites, then made the annual Psalmody an abridged version of the Bright Saturday version. My hypothesis is that the original rite of the Third Hoos consisted of 4 parts (This is based Paris Copte 68 and other manuscripts): (1) The Third Hoos proper which is 40 verses from Daniel 3:52-88 from the Septuagint (but it doesn't match exactly), (2) Tenen (which is loosely based on Daniel 3), (3) the hymn (auen piagioc eqoun sa pouro) which has 12 verses where the first 6 are from the Praise of the Three Children of the deuterocanonical Daniel 3, and (4) the last 6 verses are tenoueh `ncwk.) tenoueh `ncwk  itself is Daniel 3:41,42,40,34-45 of the same Praise of the Three Children. So we can see that outside of Aripsalin, all of the Third Hoos, Tenen, Aven piagios, and Tenouweh are from Daniel 3 (with an additional six intercessory and expository verses). 

    Aripsalin, on the other hand, has no verses from Daniel 3 (excluding the refrain "praise Him and exalt Him above all")  and only mentions the Three Jewish Youth by their Babylonian names in one line in the whole psali. Additionally, everyone calls Aripsalin Batos, but according to Ibn Kabar's definition, it is not a Batos hymn since it doesn't have three shades/variations. Granted, we can't simply apply 14th century definitions to 21st century practice. But logically and through liturgical history, aripsalin raises more questions than it answers in today's Coptic psalmody. 


  • minatasgeelminatasgeel
    Why not consider Aripsalin to just be an psali that was written by Fr Sarkis, a watos one that is, and it should be said according to the watos tune of the season?...and at someone point of time, someone decided to just give it it's own tune. 
  • dg920
    So a few things:

    1) For Watos Tunes now, 
    The Joyous one has Melismatic, Mohayyar, and Recitative
    The Palm Sunday one has the three as well
    The Annual one has the three
    The Lent Weekends Have the three

    The only two that are different are Lent Weekdays which is only one and Kiahk which is five. 

    2) For the hymn "aven piagios" Do you have the text? I know there is another hymn for the three youth called Shomt but I'm wondering if those are the same hymn. 

    3) In terms of Bright Saturday and Annual Psalmody and Kiahk. There are several hymns that were said to be reserved for Bright Saturday and Kiahk, but seeing as the two days have nothing in common other than an overnight vigil tradition, the only reason that the hymns were reserved was time constraint. These hymns include, Al el 3asr, Aretenthounti (Kiahk and Lent), Great Exposition, Al Nos el lel, Great Hoos, Tenen, Teoi Enhikanos, Evol hiten Maria. 

    For the Great Hoos, it is now more apparent that it was said at anytime, as manuscripts have been found with a hoos even for annual days. There is also one for the resurrection, lent, kiahk etc.

  • ophadeceophadece
    edited November 2015
    Dear @dg920,
    No more comments but please don't refer to sharat tune in the same sentence with Lent weekdays tune. There is no such a thing. By the way sorry if I had confused you as I didn't mean sharat of Palm Sunday are the same as Lenten ones.
    @Remnkemi,
    I don't think you got the right end of the stick. Watos and Adam are two descriptive words that have a more generalised meaning than just tunes. Basically nearly all the hymns sung in the church are either except things like hoses, hedan's, and the readings. I therefore think that reference you had mentioned is very complicated or unclear..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • dg920
    @ophadece, There is such a thing. Maybe you'd prefer lobsh watos as a better terminology. But i mean the Watos tunes of the seasons. 
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    @ophadece,
    Is it really necessary to say I got the wrong end of the stick? What do mean to say with these ad hominem comments? If you want to discuss the content of what I wrote, we will. But I'm getting tired of comments like this to introduce your responses, as you have done in the past.

    Batos and Adam are two tunes that mean different things to different people, both now and in the 14th century. If you choose to exclusively apply a generalized meaning of these musical tunes, that is your choice. But I have given manuscript evidence and patristic evidence to show how musical terminology is applied at different times and different locations. Don't tell me that all church hymns are either Adam or Batos with few exceptions when clearly there is much disagreement on what Adam or Batos means, or what Batos Psalm 150 means. 

    Just because there is information that is complicated and unclear, it doesn't mean we get to ignore it or call it an innovation because it falls outside any preconceived categories - categories which are most often decided by preference and familiarity rather than evidence and data. You did the same thing when you commented on labelling a hymn tradition based on geography (Upper Egypt vs. Lower Egypt vs Alexandria), and on various versions of joyous Psalm 150 tune where the tune is half long and half fast.  Critical thinking requires us to examine all evidence and come to conclusions based on the evidence, not simply retrofit or dismiss difficult evidence in and out of convenient categories. 
  • ophadeceophadece
    @dg920,
    Thanks for the clarification bro..
    @Remnkemi,
    I'm awfully sorry I didn't mean to..
    Oujai khan ebshois
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    edited December 2015




    So it turns out I was wrong on some things and some other points need clarification. 

    1. It turns out the hymn of Auen piagioc is found only in Paris Copte 68. I mistakingly thought this hymn was the same as the passage we read after Tenen that begins with "Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished." Technicaly the Auen piagioc is part of the biblical passage with some additions from part of Daniel read before Tenen, commonly known as the "Revelation of Daniel the Prophet". Both of these passages on Tasbeha.org's lyrics library read "Daniel 3:1-23", which is not their fault, nor any past and current publisher of the Bright Saturday Rite, because the Bohairic Coptic version of Daniel inserts the deutrocanonical parts of Daniel (Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon) in the middle of the (Masoretic) canonical Daniel with verse numbers restarting in the middle. My point though is that Auen piagioc is taken from these two biblical passages which we read on Bright Saturday in a different order with some additions. More importantly, Tenoueh is part of this Auen piagioc and over time Tenoueh remained in the annual Batos prayers of the Third Hoos while Auen piagioc was removed. 

    2. From a brief overview of some manuscripts of the Bright Saturday service Ari'alin was always part of the Bright Saturday Rite as we currently have. It remains unknown how old these manuscripts are. My guess remains that the Bright Saturday rite and the Annual Sunday Psalmody rite were late additions. If anything, I am now leaning to believe that the Annual Sunday Psalmody Rite is older than the Bright Saturday Rite because Ari'alin was not initially found in the Annual Psalmody as Ibn Kabar stated. 

    3. Fr Sarkis is thought to have lived somewhere between the 15th-17th centuries, while Paris Copte 68 is thought to have been written as early as the 12th century and no later than early 17th century when Vansleb brought the manuscript to Paris. It is very likely Ari'alin and Fr Sarkis lived after Paris Copte 68 was written. 

    4. In response to Dg920's comment on Annual and Kiahk psalmody, I know that many hymns were reserved for Kiahk only because of custom and night-long vigils during Kiahk. My point was in the context of the hymns, not the practicing custom. All of the hymns you mentioned for Kiahk vigil have nothing to do with Daniel 3, why should ari'alin be any different? Just because we mention one line in the refrain and one small mention of the three Jewish Children of Babylon, while the rest of the hymn speaks generally of God's providence, we should consider the title inaccurate. It is inaccurate because (1) it really has nothing to do with the three children and (2) it really is not part of the scriptural Third hoos of Daniel 3 and  (3) it is not Batos like any other Batos hymn. As I said before all Batos hymns, as Ibn Kabar described, have multiple "shades" or versions. ari'alin doesn't.

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    edited December 2015

    5. Regarding Minatasgel's comment on ari'alin's tune as a Batos hymn, I would say it is possible that ari'alin was a traditional Batos hymn with multiple "shades"/versions but then the tune only changed to the current version. There are a few problems here. First, if ari'alin changed, why still call it Batos? It doesn't follow logically to call it Batos merely because that is how it was in the past and no longer is. This by definition means the title "Batos" is inaccurate. Secondly, as far as I know, no hymn changed its tune radically and dropped the original. There are hymns that adopted new tunes (kalwc for the pope comes to mind) but they never dropped the original tune. Now some tunes are completely lost but no cantor "creates" a tune for it. It is uncharacteristic for Coptic hymns to create tunes AND drop the original tune. Thirdly and most importantly, following Baumstark's first law of comparative liturgy, liturgies (and I would add musical liturgical practice), move from diversity to uniformity and not the other way around. Thus, it is very possible to have many versions found practiced differently in an area (like having many versions of one hymn in the Cariene area), that eventually become one version for the Cairene area. This was actually accomplished by HICS that unified one version for Cairene cantors. The reverse is not likely. We would have a hard time finding a musical practice where uniformity was practiced (in our example ari'alin sung in the same Batos tunes as described by Ibn Kabar and/or done today) but then diversity took place (ari'alin only changed its Batos tune but all other Batos hymns remained uniform). Now Baumstark himself states that there will be retrograde direction where uniformity is replaced with diversity because of certain pressures. But this is an aberration, not the normal process. It is also violates Baumstark's second law where liturgies (and again musical liturgical practice) move in the direction of simple to complex, not the other way around. Thus, the simpler tune for ari'alin would actually be older than multiple complex Batos versions, not the other way around as you proposed. However, Baumstark also says that if a practice becomes too complex, there will be pressure for retrograde movement. So it is possible ari'alin is a retrograde example of uniform to diverse and complex to simple music but this requires more research. I think it is much more likely that ari'alin was originally the simple tune we now have and inaccurately called a Batos hymn. 

    6. The above comment also may explain Dg920's comment on the different versions of Batos hymns. There are 5 kiahk tones and 4 lent tones (Most people consider the weekday lent tone part of the lent group.), while all other seasons have 3 tones as described by Ibn Kabar. Following Baumstark's second law, this would tell us that all seasons had 3 tones and later 2 seasons added more tones (simple to complex direction). Thus, Kiahk and Lent additions would be more recent than the other Batos tones since Kiahk has 2 melismatic, 2 mohayyar, and 1 recitative tones and Lent has 1 melismatic, 1 mohayyar and 2 recitative tones. Secondly and more importantly, having more tones doesn't violate Ibn Kabar's definition of Batos, but having less does.

    7. I will add that things are not so cut and dry. This whole conversation started because we were discussing Psalm 150, which I think we all consider a Batos hymn. But doxologies are also Batos hymns (at least in Ibn Kabar's definition) and Ibn Kabar describes another tone alongside Adam and Batos that is called "Doxology". Thus, we don't know if doxology is an actual, separate tone or simply an application of the Batos tone (as I and others have argued for Psalm 150). More research is needed to really understand what Ibn Kabar was saying and if this applies today.

  • ophadeceophadece
    edited December 2015
    Dear @Remnkemi,
    Don't be confused. Treat watos and adam as descriptions for word arrangements or syllables numbering if you like. Adam tunes are composed consisting of 5-7 syllables a quartet, while watos 7-9. They are not tunes in themselves just to simplify. Yes I am aware that some hymn intros say adam tune or watos tune, but those are to be constructed on the ceremonial prevalent in such periods. I hope I didn't complicate matters further..
    Oujai khan ebshois
    PS: I mostly edit from the mobile and don't know how to use Coptic fonts yet..
  • minasafwat
    i have some words to say here...
    1- it is not accurate to apply what we sing in (lobsh) to what we sing in (psali)..they are of different positions..and i want to remember every one that (THIRD HOOS) is a (watos) song ..so can we apply the different versions on it??..the third hoos is an example of a ((static watos tune)) which has no relation with seasons.. the same for the watoc aspasmoc ..the same i think is for (aripsaleen)..

    2-..if we want to talk about Ibn Kabar...we have to say that ibn kabar regards (xristoc anesti) AN EPSALI FOR the ressurection..so epsalis regarding ibn kabar are not confined to those who are song before (tawdokia)... so not all psalis change their tunes in different seasons...

    3- to state that a specific song is (adam) or (watos).. it is done by (Hankat)..in watos there are 7 hankat in each stikhon..but adam has 5 for each stikhon..the (hankat do not follow seasons...we can construct thousands of songs with 7 hankat and call all of them( watoc)..

    4- regarding the psalm 150 ...there is no relation between the hymn of (lobsh) and the psalm 150..we have to understand that even if two hymns are the same in (7 hankat=watoc) that they are the same in (tune) ..again there is no relation between being a (watoc) and the tune..lets move to the evidence..Ibn kabar on speaking about psalm 150 states that ( it has tune which are different in their seasons..tune of weekdays..sundays..feasts..middle of friday..great lent weekdays..tune of EL MOOG for kiahk...)..which are not the tunes of the lobsh..so the tune of psalm 150 is very different from the tune of the lobsh...

    5- regarding doxolodies ..the are said in the tune of the watoc lobsh..we have unlimitted evidences..i will only remember what had Ibn kabar said ( and the tawdokia of saturday and its lobsh in the doxologia tune...).. another evidence from ibn kabar..(and they say tenoweh in the doxologia tune...)...

    6-...to sum up what i want to say...it is not a matter of strangeness to see a (static watoc tune) for an epsali such as aripsaleen..
     
  • minasafwat
    regarding the questions...
    1- to say that cantor Tawfiq has constructed the psalm 150 in sahidic sharat is not accurate at all.. the old sahidic sharat has no relation with what cantor Tawfiq has recorded.. i myself do live in upper Egypt and i can say clearly that the recording of Tawfiq is not the sahidic sharat..the sahidic one is totally different in tune and way of chanting... most of the ones who are out of upper egypt will not undertand the tune..and when i say different i mean in every aspect you can imagine....

    ...the sharat of cantor Tawfiq is the one of cairo..but apparently he has made (some mistakes) in it..so please.. it is not the one of upper egypt at all...

    ..   the one of cantor tawfiq is not totally correct as his sharat included some mistakes...the one of cantor Ibrahim is not correct as well because the last part he made it up to end the sharat and he has not a recording of it...we have to remember that there is a musical notation of cantor Mikhail of the hymn..the best way is to stick to it... but does your church have the mentality to make such a move?
  • dg920
    @minasafwat When I say the Upper Egypt sharat, I do not mean the hymns that are completely se3eedy like Zinneya, I mean the upper egypt rendition of the sharat known in cairo. 
  • dg920
    Also, where are the notations for the hymn? in which section of NEwlandsmiths notes?
  • minasafwat
    edited December 2015
    ...i know your point of view.. but we have to deffrentiate between upper egypt hymns ( not only zinneya).. and upper egypt cantors who taught from late M.mikhail...as cantor tawfiq is not the only repesenative of cairo hymns in upper egypt..i have listened to a beautiful old recording by cantor Hanna Mikhail Temsah(who taught from m. elbatanony) form (Isna) in upper egypt of the sharat .. 
    - i guess it is in volume 4.. but let me check..
    - i have it audio by by a fr. Abraam eljawarjy who recorded it from the notation...

Sign In or Register to comment.