Roman Chant vs Eastern Chant

[UnityofTrinity]

What is the difference between the style and the way they chant the hymns?

[Hesychios]

Originally Posted by UnityofTrinity

What is the difference between the style and the way they chant the hymns?

That is too complex a question for one thread. And anyway I would not expect most people who have not studied the subject to be able to compare the style of chant they are familiar with to one that they are not.

In other words, if an eastern Christian were to go to another site and ask the same question, I would expect a huh , Same here, although many eastern Christians have been exposed to western chant, one should not assume so (indeed, most western Christians have probably had only fleeting exposure to western chant and could not describe it properly).

You might have noticed that there is more than one style of chant in the Latin west (or perhaps you have not) and this is true of the chant from the many areas 'east' of Rome too.

It might be a good idea to ask about the differences between the types of western chant in the Traditional Catholicism section first.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Western chant has acoustic guitars and bongos.

[George G.]

Originally Posted by Alveus Lacuna

Western chant has acoustic guitars and bongos.

Maybe you should keep your snide remarks to yourself.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by Alveus Lacuna

Western chant has acoustic guitars and bongos.

[MaroniteRosary]

Originally Posted by malphono

HaHa!!

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Alveus Lacuna

Western chant has acoustic guitars and bongos.

Not at all a fair accusation. The only instrument permitted in Western chant is the organ; and that is usually kept to a minimum (at least if the monks of Solesmes can be considered a proper gauge with which to measure the current authentic expression of the Western/Roman tradition).

Western "religious music" (if it can even be called music) that is often inappropriately used at the Mass has guitars and bongos. Heck, if guitars and bongos were the worst of it I wouldn't have quite such a problem with it.

It is noteworthy that the Ethiopian (Ge'ez) Catholics and Orthodox utilize drums, harp-like instruments, and tin whistle-like instruments in their traditional form of chant as well. Their use of instruments in chant proves that it can be done tastefully. However, the sad fact is that it rarely is.

[Stephentlig]

Apart from the technical differences in notation and timing, Western chant displays the quietness and silence of Christ and Eastern Chant leans more to proclaiming the Majestic power of Christ. But that said both Silence and Sound display the power of Christ and thus compliment one another.

[Bendix]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

Not at all a fair accusation. The only instrument permitted in Western chant is the organ; and that is usually kept to a minimum (at least if the monks of Solesmes can be considered a proper gauge with which to measure the current authentic expression of the Western/Roman tradition).

Western "religious music" (if it can even be called music) that is often inappropriately used at the Mass has guitars and bongos. Heck, if guitars and bongos were the worst of it I wouldn't have quite such a problem with it.

It is noteworthy that the Ethiopian (Ge'ez) Catholics and Orthodox utilize drums, harp-like instruments, and tin whistle-like instruments in their traditional form of chant as well. Their use of instruments in chant proves that it can be done tastefully. However, the sad fact is that it rarely is.

I agree that the accusation was unfair. I suspect it was just meant to offend rather than add to the discourse.

You are mistaken that "The only instrument permitted in Western chant is the organ." That's not true. While the pipe organ has primacy of place in the Latin Rite of the Church it is certainly not the only allowed musical instrument -- with or without chant.

Maronite Catholics also use a number of musical instruments from recorders to triangles. All with a great deal of beauty.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by Bendix

I agree that the accusation was unfair. I suspect it was just meant to offend rather than add to the discourse.

I think it was meant to make a point. At least that's how I read it.

Originally Posted by Bendix

Maronite Catholics also use a number of musical instruments from recorders to triangles. All with a great deal of beauty.

Traditionally, very few instruments were used. Those that were included the sistrum, the mraweh (fans), something akin to a triangle (the name escapes me), etc. In any case, the purpose was essentially to keep time rather than provide "music" as such.

It did not include flutes or recorders, violins, ouds, electronic keyboards, etc. Those are recent additions, having made their appearance in the post-conciliar years. FWIW, personally I don't generally care for them, mainly because of they way they're usually played.

Although clearly a latinization of very long standing, one must also note that the harmonium, and even the organ, were (and are) commonly used. In general, they simply provide accompaniment to the vocal, but on occasion they are over-played in the Western manner.

As well, one must note that guitars and such things are also seen. Their use, of course, is anything but "traditional" and amounts to nothing more than a neo-latinization.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Bendix

You are mistaken that "The only instrument permitted in Western chant is the organ." That's not true. While the pipe organ has primacy of place in the Latin Rite of the Church it is certainly not the only allowed musical instrument -- with or without chant.

I apologize, you are correct. It is interesting to note, however, that on the official level Rome has condemned the use of a number of instruments at the Mass, including, but not limited to, woodwinds, pianos, drums, and, I believe, violins. I wish I could remember the encyclicals that contained these prohibitions. Unfortunately I read them in a Gregorian chant class that I took in college six years ago (gosh, has it been that long!). The use of guitars was never actually condemned, but that is primarily because they either didn't exist at the time the encyclicals were written, or they were simply not in popular usage.

What most people don't realize is that orchestral Masses such as those composed by Motzart, while beautiful, are equally liturgical abuses as much of the "liturgical music" of today. The popes condemned orchestral Masses because they reduced the Mass to a form of entertainment for the people, and made it a way for composers and musical virtuosos to get their names out there.

I didn't realize that the Maronites traditionally used some forms of instruments (thanks to both you and Malphono). I knew that instruments were being used today by the Maronites, but I wrongly presumed that it was a Latinization (may our Maronite members and readers forgive me).

[Bendix]

Originally Posted by Phillip Rolfes

I apologize, you are correct. It is interesting to note, however, that on the official level Rome has condemned the use of a number of instruments at the Mass, including, but not limited to, woodwinds, pianos, drums, and, I believe, violins. I wish I could remember the encyclicals that contained these prohibitions. Unfortunately I read them in a Gregorian chant class that I took in college six years ago (gosh, has it been that long!). The use of guitars was never actually condemned, but that is primarily because they either didn't exist at the time the encyclicals were written, or they were simply not in popular usage.

What most people don't realize is that orchestral Masses such as those composed by Motzart, while beautiful, are equally liturgical abuses as much of the "liturgical music" of today. The popes condemned orchestral Masses because they reduced the Mass to a form of entertainment for the people, and made it a way for composers and musical virtuosos to get their names out there.

I didn't realize that the Maronites traditionally used some forms of instruments (thanks to both you and Malphono). I knew that instruments were being used today by the Maronites, but I wrongly presumed that it was a Latinization (may our Maronite members and readers forgive me).

My apologies if I was too direct in my initial response.

The piano is certainly not prohibited for use at the Mass. I'm trying to think of the obscure document you mentioned and I cannot think of its name either but it holds no authority. It prohibited the piano based on the fact that classes pianos as "percussion instruments" which is absurd in practice. Next to the pipe organ and possibly the harp, there is no more beautiful instrument at the Mass than the piano.

Your comments about orchestral Masses yet a gifted pipe organist can make it sound almost as if a symphony is located up in the choir loft. I love to hear orchestral instruments at the Mass.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Bendix

My apologies if I was too direct in my initial response.

The piano is certainly not prohibited for use at the Mass. I'm trying to think of the obscure document you mentioned and I cannot think of its name either but it holds no authority. It prohibited the piano based on the fact that classes pianos as "percussion instruments" which is absurd in practice. Next to the pipe organ and possibly the harp, there is no more beautiful instrument at the Mass than the piano.

Your comments about orchestral Masses yet a gifted pipe organist can make it sound almost as if a symphony is located up in the choir loft. I love to hear orchestral instruments at the Mass.

No, no no... No need to apologize. You were not at all too direct in your initial response. I appreciated your honesty and correction.

Why do you say that the document on the piano holds no authority? I ask out of curiosity. I was taught that since the document was never repudiated, then it still holds weight. As an Irish musician I can understand why the piano would be classified as a percussion instrument. Within Irish music it is definitely played percussively. Whether or not that was the case when it originally came out I do not know. I was told that it was prohibited because it was a novel performance instrument. It's use in the Mass, supposedly, was meant to showcase the talent of the pianist, not to accompany the chanting.

I too love the compositions composed for the Mass. Whether or not such compositions have a place in the Mass is a different question. At the time they were deemed inappropriate because composers would utilize the Mass to showcase their latest pieces. Mass became a form of entertainment. I believe we could ask whether such compositions could be given a place in the Mass today. I remember once hearing a modern composition for the feast of Pentecost written for the pipe organ. The composition resembled a traffic jam in downtown Mannhatten more than music.

Personally I'd prefer to hear unaccompanied Gregorian chant - no organ, no polyphony, no Palestrina, just straight up Gregorian chant.

[Hesychios]

Traditionally (or should I say 'originally') musical instruuments were generally not used in the liturgy in the east or the west, I am not sure when they started to be introduced. As for an official 'banning' of instruments, I cannot say for certain.

Actually, it's not even clear when singing started (very early, of course, but when?).

There was a point in western church history when polyphony was about to be condemned during a reform period. I can't say for certain when that was (I am thinking 13th or 14th century ...) , but as I recall the reason was largely the style or rendition of the music had taken a life of it's own, the sound of it taking precedence, that the text had become largely incomprehensible. I am sure there are others here who know a lot more about this part of music history.

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by Hesychios

Traditionally (or should I say 'originally') musical instruuments were generally not used in the liturgy in the east or the west, I am not sure when they started to be introduced. As for an official 'banning' of instruments, I cannot say for certain.

Actually, it's not even clear when singing started (very early, of course, but when?).

There was a point in western church history when polyphony was about to be condemned during a reform period. I can't say for certain when that was (I am thinking 13th or 14th century ...) , but as I recall the reason was largely the style or rendition of the music had taken a life of it's own, the sound of it taking precedence, that the text had become largely incomprehensible. I am sure there are others here who know a lot more about this part of music history.

God bless you, Hesychios!