I checked in volume four and couldn't find it last night.
I don't think it matters how we refer to it as long as we recognize that it is common practice in some seasons that the psalm 150 can have the same tune as the sharat. Not that it always follows that rule but that it can and does in fact in some seasons.
That being said, that is where you get the differences in interpretations between Tawfik, Ibrahim etc. Also, there are many things that aren't recorded that are still considered accurate.
I appreciate your comments but like I said before, critical thinking requires us to look at evidence, not create or fit observations in preconceived categories. Reducing the definition of Batos to a line with 7-9 syllables/notes is only partially true. It does not explain Ibn Kabar's definitions, nor does it explain the liturgical practices done today. For example, Minasafwat said the Third Hoos is a Batos hymn. Why is the Third Hoos Batos but the First, Second and Fourth Hooses are Adam? (The 1st, 2nd, and 4th hooses all have more than 7-9 notes in a line. Why are they called Adam?) In all the joyous feasts of our Lord (Nativity, Resurrection, etc), there are multiple Adam Psali for the Batos Third Hoos. The same is true for Kiahk. Why have Adam Psalies for Kiahk and joyous feasts (with 5-7 notes) in the middle of multiple Batos (7-9 note) hymns? Another example is the Acts response. In many seasons, the Acts response during the liturgy takes the exact text from Batos doxologies (7-9 notes), like <ere nak w pimarturoc for any martyr, while other seasons it takes the text from Adam theotokias, like <ere ne Maria and both texts use the same tune. As we can see this is more than just the number of notes.
Additionally, if Coptic hymns are merely categorized by the number of notes in a line, why has no Coptic musicologist used this nomenclature system? Why has no patristic father or contemporary musician define Adam and Batos as merely the number of notes in a line? If musicologists and theologists do not reduce the definition of Adam and Batos to the number of notes, why do we feel justified to do so when there is evidence against such categories defined by the number of notes?
Minasafwat talked about the difference of a batos hymn vs an psali. I agree with you that the definition of psali cannot be limited to a hymn before a theotokia. The definition of psali is another very confusing term that seems to be used randomly. I can appreciate that a batos psali can be inserted into a batos hymn. It remains unknown why a "static" (as you call it) batos hymn can have a "static" batos psali, but another batos hymn (like Tenouweh) is not "static". Or why does a "dynamic" batos hymn like Tenoueh not have any dynamic psalies attached to it permanently like static batos hymns with static psalies? We can conclude that the term "batos" cannot simply mean static (or non changing), even though the term batos is used for both "static" and "dynamic" hymns. By the way, "static" psalies do change their tune. The annual psalmody (adam or batos) psalies, have one tune and the same psali text is said in a different tune during joyous and Kiahk seasons. (Although, now we are seeing people break the rule and say psalies in the annual tune instead of the Kiahk tune during Kiahk (i.e., aikw] `ncwk and the Kiahk psali for aikw] `ncwk "I open my mouth with praise")).
Finally, in the interest of critical thinking, if anyone wants to make a claim about hymn terminology and/or musical tonality, please offer references and evidence so the discussion doesn't get reduced to mere opinions. If one wants to use Ibn Kabar as evidence (or any other primary source), it would be better to get the exact quote from Ibn Kabar's works, not just a summary from memory. This way we can discuss the actual text, not a secondary or tertiary interpretation that may not have anything to do with the primary text.
Minasafwat wrote "- but the base of chanting psalm150 in elsharat is not correct ..as we know from ibn kabar.."
Can you give us the exact reference or the text from Ibn Kabar? As you can see, we have conflicting information from Ibn Kabar. I quoted Ibn Kabar saying any batos hymn is defined has having 3 "shades", which Psalm 150 does have. In this case, we can justify the singing of Psalm 150 in the multiple seasonal Batos tones (or Sherat tunes).
- i qouted the exact word by ibn kabar .. i have read this book more than you can imagine..you can find it in pages(185-212)..(but did you gave the number of page of what you have quoted from ibn kabar..i did exactly what you have done and i did not say that you write a summary of the memory !!!!!!!)
-appearntly mr. Remnkemi ...you did not get (or even try) what i wrote ..i did not make a relation between the epsali and tenoweh..they is not any link between them as they are of different time ...and any one who is interested in manuscripts knows the the correct location of aripsaleen is (AFTER) tenoweh not (BEFORE) it..you can see it in (مخطوط الدار البطريركية رقم 117 طقوس..:وعند نهاية تين او ويه تقال اريبصالين ان كان ثم مهل)...so aripsaleen was not written in for tenoweh.....
- i gave you an example for a static watoc epsali which has no relation with any other thing ..it is (xristoc anesti) as ibn kabar said in page(218)..
- we have to know that this epsali (aripsaleen) is the last appendage of the third hoos (tenen+ tenoweh) which has no relation in tune with them...
to sum up...as aripsalenen is after tenoweh..we can not say that what is applied to other psalis (change in tune) can be applied to it...i also can add that the correct location (after tenoweh and there is nothing after it to be prayed regarding third hoos) is the most reasonable cause of being unique in tune,,
mr,ophadece... please read what i had written well...i said in my last line (but the base of chanting psalm150 in elsharat is not correct ..as we know from ibn kabar..)....
-the mediafire is the most scientific regarding elsharat...or any thing as you wish as i did not force you to accept it...
Thank you for giving us the page number from Ibn Kabar. Since there are many different publications of Ibn Kabar's Lamp of the Darkness, you will either need to give us the whole reference including publisher and year or at least give us the chapter number or a picture of the text in question so we can see the actual text. This has nothing to do with your quote from Ibn Kabar. I was talking about any reference from primary sources.
I will start. My quote in a previous message is my own translation of a passage that comes from Villecourt, L, "Les Observances Liturgiques", Museon 37, 1924, p. 231. He in turn took it from the Upsalla manuscript of Ibn Kabar f. 182, 1.3. Here is Villecourt's French text "It y a, a la suite de la theotokie du jour du samedi, cette psallie Ⲭⲉⲣⲉ ⲑⲏⲉⲑⲙⲉϩ ⲛ̀ϩ̀ⲙⲟⲧ – jusqu'au but. Et poiur ses tons, les regles sont comme les negles pour les tons du Batos, si joyeux, joyeux; si triste, triste. Elle a dans les jeunes et Kihak et la cinquantieme, des tons connus." Since I don't have the Upsalla manuscript in front of me, I will have to rely on Villecourt's claims.
I did understand what you wrote. I never said you associated any psali with tenouweh. You made the relationship between aripsalin and the Third hoos (both batos). I took that example and asked why it can't be applied to Tenoweh and any other batos psali. Now since you mentioned that aripsalin was said after Tenouweh, my questions remain. What does a static batos psali like aripsalin have to do with third hoos or the Batos hymn Tenouweh? My claim is nothing and aripsalin is a late addition and that the term batos is not simply a matter of notes, nor is it applied uniformly to all batos hymns.
Finally, like Ophadece, I don't understand what you are trying to say about the recording you linked. You say psalm 150 in the sherat tune is not correct but the recording you linked IS psalm 150 in the sherat tune. Unless you are trying to say something else, your recording contradicts your statement. That's ok because this is good for our discussion. We just need clarification on how you understand the recording in light of your statement.
- i feel that i can not understand you ... i have said more than once that an epsali may have a unique tune such as (xristoc anesti) ..and i think aripsaleen.. as well especially if it is not linked before a special watoc hymn...and the 3 shade is (not applicable) on every tune under (watoc) ....am i clear enough?
-the book is (مصباح الظلمة فى ايضاح الخدمة..الجزء الثانى..طبعة خاصة للمهتمين بالدراسات القبطية اعدها للنشر الراهب صموئيل السريانى سنة 1992) ...i do not know how to put the image of the qouted words here.. can you show me how?
- regarding psalm 150 the base of sharat is not correct (refer to the page)...but as we lack the correct tune we can refer to the sharat tune..and the sharat tunes we use( both Tawfiq and ibrahim) are not 100% correct..the most correct one regarding the musical aspect is the one i downloaded...what i want to say that the one i downloaded is the best obligated tune of psalm 150 in feastival seasons..am i clear?
- we sometimes are obligated to chant a tune which may be not correct but at least lets chant the best one of the non-correct... - i want to thank everyone for this good discussion!
@minasafwat, Thanks for the clarification.. that makes it very clear now and by the way I do agree with all what you said.. can you provide @Remnkemi with references for adam and watos henkat? I don't know the exact reference but I remember having read it somewhere in one of the hymns books.. history of hymns or something.. @Remnkemi, As you can see from the above adam and watos distinction is not based on observations and deductions. I hope that @minasafwat can provide you with a reference. Secondly the practice of borrowing doxology verses for acts response is actually wrong, but ignorance prevails. The verses should be borrowed from verses of cymbals which are adam in themselves. You'll actually notice in your deacon service book that some saints have both asbasmos, and the adam is used as acts response. While others don't have except a watos and it is not borrowed for acts response.. Oujai khan ebshois
@ophadece How can you claim ignorance? You haven't provided a source or a recording for a single opinion of yours. Those concepts are things that were taught and handed down by cantors that you now consider sources and have learned from...
Dear @dg920, I'm sorry if I offended you or caused you any kind of evil. Please forgive me and my style in posting on forums generally.. sorry again.. Oujai khan ebshois
I think if you guys are discussing the topic of the 'festal psalm 150', you might want to watch this video of ibo himself answering this question. I've put the link below:
Comments
http://www.mediafire.com/download/50bl33duyymuby8/Al+el+farai7y+kiama+FrAbraam.wma
-secondly comes the recording of m,Tawfiq and lastly the one by m.Ibrahim...
Thanks mate..
Oujai khan ebshois
The mediafire recording you posted is exactly on sharat.. how is this scientific or even reliable?
Oujai khan ebshois
-appearntly mr. Remnkemi ...you did not get (or even try) what i wrote ..i did not make a relation between the epsali and tenoweh..they is not any link between them as they are of different time ...and any one who is interested in manuscripts knows the the correct location of aripsaleen is (AFTER) tenoweh not (BEFORE) it..you can see it in (مخطوط الدار البطريركية رقم 117 طقوس..:وعند نهاية تين او ويه تقال اريبصالين ان كان ثم مهل)...so aripsaleen was not written in for tenoweh.....
- i gave you an example for a static watoc epsali which has no relation with any other thing ..it is (xristoc anesti) as ibn kabar said in page(218)..
- we have to know that this epsali (aripsaleen) is the last appendage of the third hoos (tenen+ tenoweh) which has no relation in tune with them...
to sum up...as aripsalenen is after tenoweh..we can not say that what is applied to other psalis (change in tune) can be applied to it...i also can add that the correct location (after tenoweh and there is nothing after it to be prayed regarding third hoos) is the most reasonable cause of being unique in tune,,
please read what i had written well...i said in my last line (but the base of chanting psalm150 in elsharat is not correct ..as we know from ibn kabar..)....
-the mediafire is the most scientific regarding elsharat...or any thing as you wish as i did not force you to accept it...
-the book is (مصباح الظلمة فى ايضاح الخدمة..الجزء الثانى..طبعة خاصة للمهتمين بالدراسات القبطية اعدها للنشر الراهب صموئيل السريانى سنة 1992)
...
- we sometimes are obligated to chant a tune which may be not correct but at least lets chant the best one of the non-correct...
- i want to thank everyone for this good discussion!
Thanks for the clarification.. that makes it very clear now and by the way I do agree with all what you said.. can you provide @Remnkemi with references for adam and watos henkat? I don't know the exact reference but I remember having read it somewhere in one of the hymns books.. history of hymns or something..
@Remnkemi,
As you can see from the above adam and watos distinction is not based on observations and deductions. I hope that @minasafwat can provide you with a reference. Secondly the practice of borrowing doxology verses for acts response is actually wrong, but ignorance prevails. The verses should be borrowed from verses of cymbals which are adam in themselves. You'll actually notice in your deacon service book that some saints have both asbasmos, and the adam is used as acts response. While others don't have except a watos and it is not borrowed for acts response..
Oujai khan ebshois
Oujai khan ebshois
I'm sorry if I offended you or caused you any kind of evil. Please forgive me and my style in posting on forums generally.. sorry again..
Oujai khan ebshois
Enjoy!