Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on ACOUSTICS & MUSIC: THEORY & APPLICATIONS
Modality in the Hymns of the Armenian Church
HAIG UTIDJIAN
Socharska 5, 170 00 Praha 7
CZECH REPUBLIC
[email protected] mujweb.cz/www/haig/hu.html
Abstract: The paper discusses the meaning and function of modality in Armenian church music, its relation to issues of
neumatic notation, oral reconstruction and tonal ambiguity; and the manner in which the latter has influenced
nineteenth-century harmonisations, some of which evince a harmonic language anticipating similar effects deployed by
Western composers. Matters of performance practice are touched upon, and a critique of efforts to decipher neumatic
notation has been provided.
Key-Words: Armenian early orthodox chant, Armenian modal systems, performance practice, semiimprovisation, oral transmission and reconstruction, neumatic systems of notation, harmonization, tonal
ambiguity, Komitas and Britten.
hymns ceased to be added only at the end of the
fourteenth century (with minor exceptions).
Prior to engaging in a more detailed discussion of the
eight modes, it is appropriate also to consider the history
of the hymns themselves [4]. The hymns were composed
from the fifth century onwards. It is believed that they
were notated neumatically some time afterwards,
although as the earliest extant neumatically-notated
manuscript fragment dates only to the ninth century [5]
and the oldest such hymnbook to the twelfth [6], it is not
known exactly when they were first so notated. They
must thus have been transferred orally to subsequent
generations until such time as they came to be notated.
Then, from the seventeenth century or so, the art of
reading neumes gradually went into abeyance, and
hymns could, once again, be transmitted only orally,
with the neumes providing only limited hints here and
there (as will be discussed below). This fact, coupled
with the political and geographical circumstances of the
Armenian nation, rendered the modal melodies
particularly vulnerable to distortion due to inexactitude
of recollection, non-indigenous influences, or even utter
oblivion. In an attempt to prevent a complete
catastrophe, attempts were made to give fixity to the
melodies by transcribing them into what may roughly be
described as an Armenian precursor to the tonic sol-fa
notation, devised at the turn of the nineteenth century by
Hambartsoum Limonjean (see, for instance, [7]), though
the old neumes continued to be respectfully printed in
hymn books, for their limited but nonetheless practical
value (see, for example, [8]), and continue to be even
now.
The system of modality is intimately related to
contemporaneous systems of neumatic notation. First,
there is evidence to suggest that, at least in the case of
canonical hymns, the notation itself under-determined
the melody to be sung. The melody could be uniquely
fixed, at best – if at all – only when accompanied by two
1 Introduction
Subdivision of music into a system of modes goes back
to classical antiquity, and in the case of Armenian music
too, there are grounds for supposing that pagan tradition
already acknowledged four modes or “voices”,
associated with worship of the four elements [1]: Mode
1: earth, Mode 2: water, Mode 3: air, Mode 4:
fire.There are various traditions regarding the origins of
the modes, but to the modern reader they seem fanciful
rather than factual, and do not shed light on musical
aspects. For an interesting fourteenth-century exposition,
the reader is referred to the Book of Questions of St.
Gregory of Tathev ([2], p. 639 ff).
The system of modes still in use in Armenian church
music entails the subdivision of modes into “authentic”
and “plagal”, with the result that there are, in effect,
eight modes in all (but with a proviso to be stated later,
entailing modes possessing “variants”, which would
increase the above count): four “voices” or authentic
modes, and four “sides” or plagal modes – even though
in current practice there is no musical significance whatsoever associated with the terms “plagal” and “authentic”, and the continued usage of this nomenclature is
merely the result of custom. This system appears to have
been instituted by SS. Mesrop and Sahak in the early
fourth century A.D., and set down in writing shortly
after the invention of the Armenian alphabet.
2 The evolution of modal hymns and
neumatic notational systems
There is compelling evidence to suggest that the current
modes are not musically identical to their ancient forms.
This is immediately evident [3] upon comparing the
oldest items in the hymnal known as the Kanonagloukh
(psalm-based liturgical songs of blessing) with more
recent melodies of the canonical hymnal – to which
ISSN: 1790-5095
23
ISBN: 978-960-474-061-1
Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on ACOUSTICS & MUSIC: THEORY & APPLICATIONS
as a processional hymn. On palm Sunday, the morning
Miserere is performed in the evening in a more
melismatic manner – and so on. But the relative
durations of syllables of text remain the same,
irrespective of the degree of melismaticity.
A particularly intriguing analogy from Western music
may be afforded by the splendid arioso “Possente
spirito” in Monteverdi’s Orfeo, where the composer
provided two versions of the vocal part – one consisting
mostly of notes of longer duration, and the other of a
highly embellished and melismatic version of the same.
But the two versions are superimposed over the same
basso continuo, which remains constant as we proceed
from the plain version to the ornamented.
In short, even at present, a “modally-aware” singer
finds that a melody almost suggests itself in real time,
the process being helped and partly determined by the
neumes over the verbal underlay as well. (Sadly,
however, this quasi-improvisational faculty is gradually
disappearing, given the current practice of singing
hymns from fully worked-out realisations published in
Limonjean’s or modern Western notation; or that of
eschewing the hymns – or, even worse, the various
divine services in which they are to be sung – altogether.
Nonetheless, this does not affect the arguments and
observations presented in this paper.)
There is an interesting consequence to this. We
strongly suspect that a high proportion of the less wellknown, and infrequently-sung, items in the hymnal, must
have been recorded (using Limonjean’s notation) in the
nineteenth century through such a process of
reconstruction, rather than precise recollection of the
exact melodies of those hymns. This is particularly
plausible when we consider the huge number of hymns
in the canonical hymnal – around one thousand. Thus,
the power of the modes sufficed to allow a limited recomposition of some of the hymns, and hence their
subsequent transmission. Incidentally, in our opinion this
fact greatly complicates, and even partly invalidates,
attempts to decipher neumatic notation through a mere
direct comparison with melodies transcribed in the
nineteenth century – first, the process does no more than
merely confirm the very assumptions (most notably,
regarding temporal duration associated with the
neumes) made at the time when the melodies were
virtually re-composed for transcription, and second, the
melodies that were so devised need not have been
consistent with the neumes in any other respect at all.
Another source of difficulty arises from the sometimes
shockingly diverse and highly confused melodic
traditions between the various Armenian schools
(Constantinople, Jerusalem, New Julfa, etc.): there is no
discernible, one-to-one mapping between these and the
differently notated manuscripts (the two principal
schools of neumatic transcription being those of Cilicia
crucial pieces of information: the mode, and the tempo
(implying as it did the degree of syllabicism or
melismaticism of the appropriate realisation of the given
hymn – and thus very much more than mere speed of
execution). Although the meaning of the neumes is now
largely unknown, Bzhshkean [9] and Tntesean [3] were
able to establish the time durations associated with
syllables bearing various neumes (albeit without
information as to internal rhythmic content). Thus, even
at present it is not unusual to encounter feats of semiimprovisation – whereby hymns are sung convincingly
at the requisite “tempo”, wholly on the strength of one’s
familiarity with the mode and, to a limited degree
(restricted to information as regards the duration of a
given syllable), aided by the neumes.
For, in Armenian church music, a mode does much
more than merely establish the scale on the basis of
which a melody belonging to that mode may be formed.
The mode immediately suggests certain melodic and
rhythmic formulaic motifs, including (but not confined
to) standard beginnings and endings. The choice of motif
is governed by the number of syllables of text to be
covered, the manner in which the verbal text is
subdivided (punctuated), its natural accentuation, the
presence of any crucial words warranting special
emphasis, and so on – although, in our experience, most
skilled singers do not seem to be explicitly conscious of
the processes governing these choices in the course of
live performance.
Prior to (if one may so designate the process) semiimprovising an appropriate melody, a singer, in addition
to knowing what mode a hymn is in, needs also to know
as to whether it is meant to be sung in the parent mode or
its variant (in a sense to be made precise later) – a matter
that is often itself evident from the neume groupings
over the verbal underlay, as will be discussed later. The
situation is sometimes complicated by the fact that in
special cases (e.g. the IIIA Magnificat sung on the
evening of Good Friday and on Saturday morning) the
same hymn might equally be sung in the basic mode or
indeed in the associated variant mode.
We have already mentioned that the singer also
needs to know the tempo at which the hymn is to be sung
– that is, the degree to which the hymn is to be syllabic
or melismatic. Contrary to what one might expect (after
all, there are many manuscript sources where the
existence of dense neumes over a single syllable is
highly suggestive), for most hymns in the canonical
hymnal, the same hymn may be sung in differing
degrees of melismaticity on different occasions, yet in a
manner that is always consistent with the relative time
durations associated with different syllables of text as
implied by the neumes. Typically, a fairly melismatic
hymn is performed syllabically when used as a Midday
hymn, and perhaps yet more melismatically whilst sung
ISSN: 1790-5095
24
ISBN: 978-960-474-061-1
Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on ACOUSTICS & MUSIC: THEORY & APPLICATIONS
levels of complexity. But the objective of reading the
ancient neumes remained elusive. There are several
reasons for this. We have already alluded to some
fundamental causes of difficulty – perhaps insuperable in
themselves. But we have further reservations also.
Though Atayian and Tahmizean have undeniably
done much useful background work, they have confined
themselves to melodies in a version of the hymnal
transcribed in the late nineteenth century in
Vagharshapat. They have not attempted to bring together
the numerous extant melodic versions of each hymn,
with a view to seeking a more primitive, fundamental
version that might perhaps just come to bear a measure
of true correspondence to the neumatically notated
sources – at least to an extent to which some reasonable
deductions about the meanings of given neumes can be
made by comparing the primitive melody with the
neumatically-notated equivalent. What is even worse is
that the Vagharshapat hymnal must undeniably include
its fair share of rather unconvincing-sounding melodies,
sometimes bespeaking of hasty attempts to impose
various successive melodic fragments to the words in a
bid to remain consistent with what little was understood
of the neumes, particularly in the case of certain hymns
of which perhaps no one was able to recall a more
natural-sounding melody. Surely this must reduce the
usefulness of the Vagharshapat melodies in any attempts
to guess the meanings of the neumes through a
comparison with these melodies. But similar criticisms
can, and should, be made of particular melodies from
other traditions. We feel that there is much scope for
comparing, classifying, purifying, combining and
selecting the various melodic versions of hymns, with a
view to improving their usefulness for research on
neumes. There is, frankly, little historical evidence to
suggest that the Vagharshapat version, or indeed any one
extant version, is any more “authentic” or any closer to
the versions that were notated neumatically, than any
other. Thus, it is desirable that in some systematic
manner, use should be made of all reasonable versions in
combination. For instance, it might be reasonable to
suppose (if somewhat of an over/simplification) that the
original melody of a hymn may have been better
preserved if its various known melodic versions
associated with the various traditions are close to each
other, and less so if the divergence is greater.
It is thus regrettable that “decipherments” of Atayian
and Tahmizean are confined to quoting passages from
the Vagharshapat version of selected hymns of a given
mode (transcribed from Limonjean’s to modern Western
notation), juxtaposed against the neumatic version from
a manuscript hymnal. Moreover, they have at times
jumped into all too facile conclusions, e.g. that one
neume or another implies an upward leap of some
interval in this mode or that. But for their cited
and of Eastern Armenia), or at least none has hitherto
been discerned or identified. Presumably a hymn was
indeed sung differently in Cilicia than in Eastern
Armenia, if it was differently notated. But there are
reasons to believe that what was sung in the Cilician
metropolis of Adana prior to the 1909 catastrophic
pogroms there, and what was sung in Etchmiadsin, need
not correspond to these respective traditions. The
destruction or loss of a high proportion of original
sources during the Armenian genocide, as well as the
decimation of the oral traditions, is also debilitating.
And, perhaps most fundamentally, the existence of
several historic systems of neumatic notation is a source
of great confusion: neumes initially served merely to
help intone biblical chants, being little more than fairly
primitive prosody signs; later, to notate modal hymns –
this being the stage of particular interest to our
discussion; and, finally, a more sophisticated system,
known as manrousoumn, came into existence in a bid to
record very complex and highly melismatic odes, that
went beyond the modal system and fell outside the
canonic hymnal. It is thus possible that this whole multilayered system came to collapse under its own weight,
particularly when it strove to transcend the bounds of the
modal system by which it had been underpinned. Yet, as
already menioned, a hymn notated in the hymnal with
fairly sparse neumes is rendered variously in settings
that are syllabic or melismatic.The system of neumatic
notation of relevance to canonic hymns is the second
(chronologically) of the above three, though even it
appears to be multi-layered [6].
Many scholars have attempted to work out the
significance of particular neumes in particular modes,
with a view to an eventual decipherment and definitive
reconstruction of the melodes of hymns; but only very
minor successes have been achieved – indeed, one might
say that there has been little progress since the
nineteenth-century work due to Bzhshkean on the
temporal durations associated with the various neumes
and of Tntesean, who was in addition able to spot
characteristic agglomerations and combinations of
neumes associated with particular modes, as well as
establishing, on the basis of neume combinations used,
whether a hymn to be sung in the parent mode or in its
variant (in a sense shortly to be made precise).
Incidentally, such findings were quite consistent with the
melodies sung at the time, thereby improving their
credibility. Komitas is reputed to have made progress on
neumes, but the destruction of his archives by the Turks,
and his loss of mental balance during the Armenian
genocide, mean that it is difficult to establish what
precisely he was able to achieve in this field. An
overview is provided by Atayian [5]. More recently,
Tahmizean [6] has done much to disentangle various
layers of neumatic notation, of different periods and
ISSN: 1790-5095
25
ISBN: 978-960-474-061-1
Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on ACOUSTICS & MUSIC: THEORY & APPLICATIONS
misalignement between verbal and musical phrases in
Armenian hymns – where it would be (from the point of
view of the text) unacceptable, yet musically logical and
(in the case of a lone singer) physically necessary to
breathe in the middle of a word, strongly suggest that
many hymns were intended to be sung by several singers
in unison. It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that
certain neumes were largely employed to achieve
unanimity of detail in performance by choral forces
which already knew the basic melodic contours
associated with a hymn. If so, such neumes did not
supply information about the basic melodic contours.
examples, counter-examples can be easily found that are
inconsistent with their hypotheses. The procedure is
naïve and unsystematic, and they does not prove that the
alleged correspondences transcend mere coincidence.
The number of such correspondences is not shown to be
statistically meaningful, examples cited constitute but a
tiny proportion of the total material available, and
instances where the evidence is not so helpful to their
hypotheses are not explained or even acknowledged.
And, finally, their opinions about the meanings or
functions associated with the various modes are woefully
insufficient to allow one to reconstruct the same (or, for
that matter, any other) melodies from the neumes.
A more fruitful avenue might mirror the semiimprovisatory practices referred to earlier. Given our
experience and knowledge of a mode, and our current
knowledge of time durations associated with certain
neumes, how would we devise a convincing melody to
fit the words? Several candidate melodies could be
devised in addition to those already known, and at that
stage correlations between the neumes and a number of
such melodies be sought. This should be repeated with
many hymns. An iterative process would be appropriate,
and though arduous, it would at the very least shed light
on the melodic structure of hymns. Also, we should
endeavour, through all means possible, to come close to
the mental and aural frame of those who notated the
hymns into Limonjean’s notation, or into Western
notation, as far as possible. This could help us evaluate
different melodic versions of the same hymn, weeding
out more dubious examples and retaining more promisng
ones – and thus provide a kind of telescope with which
we could strive, as it were, to peer back a little further
into the past. And, conversely, we might put oneself in
the position of a medieval singer and scribe: if one
already knew a hymn melody by heart – say of a
particularly celebrated and thus well-known hymn (and,
after all, these very hymns would have been less
vulnerable to distortion and oblivion over the years),
how would one seek to notate it neumatically, to ensure
proper performance by one’s pupils and colleagues?
What information in addition to time duration, would the
neumes need to provide the singer? It is even possible
that, whilst the modal aspects of hymns, coupled with
some of the neumes, were perhaps sufficient to
characterise the melodic contours to a considerable
degree, certain neumes were crucial, rather, in helping to
achieve uniformity of detail in (monophonic) choral
performance (for instance, in helping to specify whether
or not passing notes should be executed, in instances
where some singers might be inclined to render them and
others not – often a cause for disarray and sloppiness
even in the present day wherever singers rely on
recollection alone and do not have a score before them).
The fact that frequently there is a deliberate
ISSN: 1790-5095
3 A brief exposition of the principal
modal scales
For simplicity, we confine the compass of each mode to
the minimum required to capture its fundamental tonal
characteristics. To save space, we denote authentic by A,
plagal by P, and employ the Austro-Germanic nomenclature for sharps and flats, as well as h to mean B natural
and b to mean B flat, and a plus sign to denote a quartertone sharp and a minus sign to denote a quarter-tone flat.
IA: g ais (a, a+) h c d (d+) e
IP: g a (ais) h c d e
IIA: a d e fis g e f e d c h a
IIP: cis d e f g a
IIIA: fis g a b (h) cis d e f
IIIP: g a h c dIVA: a h c (cis) d e f
IVP: fis g a h c d
Quarter tones (denoted above as a+, d+ and d-) are
gradually falling into disuse. Also, note that certain notes
denoted above in parentheses, may sometimes be used,
in preference to those immediately preceding them in the
above table, depending on their position within the
phrasal contour, or the position or the phrase within the
verse. These effects can be rather subtle, and (for
instance) influence the choice between ais and a in the
IA mode, or the interplay between fis and f in the IIA
mode – reminiscent of the Western melodic minor scale,
where direction – ascent or descent – is a determining
factor. And some accidentals appear exclusively at the
end of a verse, as part of a characteristic formulaic
figure, though they are not usually manifested elsewhere
in the mode. Examples arise in the IP variant mode (we
shall define what we mean by the variant of a mode in
the paragraph below), IPV (not shown above), the IIIA
(b and h) and the IVA (c and cis) modes. In addition,
most of the above modes have associated darstvadzkhs,
that is “turns” or variant modes, with which they
sometimes alternate. The variant modes are highly
contrasting to the parent mode, incorporating as they do
other notes not allowed in the parent mode, and/or a
26
ISBN: 978-960-474-061-1
Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on ACOUSTICS & MUSIC: THEORY & APPLICATIONS
may see examples of tonal ambiguity, and how it was
resolved, in the accompaniments he provided to the odes
I kouys vimen (where, incidentally, Komitas expressed
his strong disagreement with some of Yekmalean’s
choices in his review of Yekmalean’s Liturgy in the
contemporary press), Aysor merealks, and to the vesting
hymn, Khorhourt khorin (attributed to abbot Khachatur
of Taron, from the early thirteenth century). In the case
of the latter, Yekmalean’s organ accompaniment
furnishes much of the hymn (which is in mode IVA)
with a pedal g, thereby creating an impression of a
“major-like” tonality, and incidentally accentuating the
similarity of this hymn with St. Gregory of Narek’s
celebrated tenth-century ode, Havun-havun. In contrast,
Komitas uses a pedal on the note a, whereby a „minor“like tonality is expressed. In these effects, Yekmalean
and Komitas are assisted in their respective choice of
slightly different versions of the hymn – in that the
opening anacrusis of the hymn (to the very first syllable
Kho-) is itself a g in Yekmalean’s case, and an a in
Komitas’. Incidentally,Atayian’s own accompaniment to
the tenth-century ode Havun-havun, features an organ
part where too, the interplay between these very two
axes within a brief timespan, is well exploited.
higher or lower vocal register. Thus, the transition from
a mode to its variant can be highly dramatic, especially
when occurring within the same hymn.
Modes also govern much of the sung material within
the Divine Liturgy of the Armenian church (wherein
there are only brief and isolated interpolations from the
canonical hymnal, constituting variables that are
dependent on the church calendar). Thus, much of the
Divine Liturgy is in IIAV (the variant of the IIA mode),
whereof the scale may be given as:
IIAV: cis d e f gis a.
4 Issues of tonal ambiguity in the aural
perception of modes
Some items from the hymnal, and virtually the whole of
the Divine Liturgy, are now most often performed in
harmonised versions by choral forces, sometimes even
with organ accompaniment. However, should performance be monodic, and without a drone bass (relatively
uncommon in current Armenian practice, unlike the case
of the byzantine tradition), the listener is free to construe
a certain tonal basis (partly analogous to what Tovey
[10] called a “linear harmony” in Bach) emerging from
the modality itself. The tonal contours, formulaic
endings, and points of rest or stability serve to create a
sense of tonal axes (terminology used, interestingly
enough, inter alia in analysing late Bartok quartets –
music that is at the frontiers of tonality and is itself by no
means devoid of modal influence!). And it is sometimes
not unambiguously clear which tonal axis is principal (or
“tonic”). For instance, in considering mode IVA, we
notice that all the verses bar the last end on what might
seem to be a kind of subdominant (d in the above table,
with or without a preceding cis to afford an added sense
of convincing closure), although much of the time the
tonic axis would seem to be a. (Not dissimilar effects
can be found in, for example, Andrea Gabrieli!) In the
case of the IA mode, it is sometimes possible for the h in
the table above to be interpreted as the principal axis,
rather than the more obvious g. Comparable subjective
effects can be discerned in other modes also, and the
manner in which tonal axes as it were compete with each
other in the subconscious mental harmonisation that the
modern listener may construct, is salutary – considerably
enhancing the emotional effect of the music, and
forfending the danger of monotony. We believe this to
be a fundamental, built-in feature of Armenian church
music.
Such issues were faced by Makar Yekmalean (18571905) [11] and archimandrite (“vardapet”) Komitas
(1869-1935) [12], when they each set about to make
arrangements for chorus of the Armenian Divine
Liturgy. Yekmalean’s version is in widespread use. We
ISSN: 1790-5095
5 Komitas’ two versions of Marmin
Terunakan
We now turn to an example from the Divine Liturgy,
evincing the originality of Komitas’ genius – Marmin
terunakan. It is derived from that portion of the Liturgy
where the mode IIAV predominates. For ease of comparison with Komitas’ versions, we reproduce our entry in
the table above having transposed it down a tone, viz:
IIAV: h c d es fis g.
In one version (Fig. 1) Komitas treats the piece as if it
were in a sort of G minor but with a sharpened third, or,
equally, a kind of G major but with a flattened sixth. A
broadly similar harmonisation was provided by
Yekmalean. However, in another version (Fig. 2),
Komitas has provided a realisation where the
characteristics of the mode are strikingly exploited, to
produce a mysteriously beautiful effect, where one has
the feeling that the tonic axis has been displaced from g
to h! The resulting harmonies are eerily beatiful, and
anticipate chromaticism of a sort to be found in the
opening and ending of Schoenberg’s Chamber
Symphony No. 2, in Frank Martin’s Petite Symphonie
Concertante, and in Britten’s Rejoice in the Lamb (to
which we shall return below). A full discussion as to
why selected chord progressions from these works are so
very similar in effect to those of Komitas is well outside
the scope of the present paper. It is remarkable that, even
though the Western masters arrived at their results
27
ISBN: 978-960-474-061-1
Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on ACOUSTICS & MUSIC: THEORY & APPLICATIONS
To the best of our knowledge, the bulk of our work
(except the basic introduction to the modes) appears
herewith for the very first time in the literature. It is
hoped that it may stimulate further progress in the field.
through very different procedures, were creating original
works as opposed to devising harmonisations of given
modal melodies, and were working in very different
milieux, nonetheless the similarities to the Komitas are
striking. Consider the Britten passage, from “For I am
under the same accusation with my Saviour” up to and
including “For Silly fellow! Is against me and belongeth
neither to me nor to my family” – a passage of great
power and poignancy. Remarkably, no transposition is
even necessary to enable a comparison with Komitas’
Marmin terunakan – “he is be-” [sides] and “variance
with me” strongly suggest G minor, whilst [be]“-sides
himself”and “For the officers of the peace” (Fig. 3)
imply a tonal axis of h (B natural), with the chord
practically identical to the h-fis-h chord on “Ma-” of
Marmin terunakan.
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Eugene Kindler
for many illuminating and inspiring discussions and for
valuable encouragement; and to the Rev. Dr Vrej
Nersessian of the British Museum, who generously gave
of his time and kindly made available his translation of
Atayian’s important and otherwise inaccessible volume.
References:
1. Achb. Zareh Aznavorian, Hay yekeghetsakan yergin
dzagoumn ou zargatsoum‘ [The origin and development of Armenian church song], in Hay yekeghetsin
khsanerort daroun [The Armenian church in the
twentieth century], Nicosia 2005.
2. St. Gregory of Tathev, Girkh hartsmants [Book of
Questions], Constantinople, 1729.
3. Y. Tntesean, Nkaragir yergots Hayastaneaytss sourb
yekeghetswoy [The nature of the chants of the Holy
Armenian Church], Constantinople, 1874.
4. Bishop Norayr Bogharean (“Dzovakan”), Foreword
to Dzaghkakhagh sharakanats, yergots yev aghothits
[Anthology of hymns, songs and prayers], Antelias
1952.
5. R. Atayian (transl. V. N. Nersessian), The Armenian
Neume System of Notation, Curzon, 1999.
6. N. K. Tahmizean, Arthi khazabanoutiwn [Modern
neumology], Pasadena, 2003.
7. Fr. Aristakes Hisarlean, Patmouthiwn hay
dzaynagrouthean yev kensagrouthiwnkh yerazhisht
azgaynots, 1768-1909 [History of Armenian musical
notation and biographies of musician nationals,
1768-1909], Constantinople, 1914.
8. S. Khanjean, Preface to Tonakarg, Constantinople,
1898.
9. M. Bzhshkean, Yerazhshtouthiuwn, vor e hamarot
teghekouthiwn yerazhshtakan [Music, that is a brief
musical manual], Venice 1815 (unpublished study,
cited in [5]).
10. Sir Donald F. Tovey, Essays in Musical Analysis,
London, 1944.
6 Conclusions
We have provided a brief introduction to modality in the
music of the Armenian Church, duly stressing the fact
that the concept implies much more than a set of scales –
a fact which allowed neumatic systems of notation to
function for centuries, and, later on, enabled more recent
versions of the hymns to be devised long after the
original melodies might have fallen into oblivion. Herein
lies the crucial but little-understood inter-relationship
between
modality,
neumatic
notation,
quasiimprovisatory performance and semi-aural transmission.
We have discussed efforts to decipher neumes in the
light of modality, indicated possible reasons why they
have met with little success, and suggested potentially
fruitful avenues. Finally, we have demonstrated elements
of tonal ambiguity accruing from particular modes. We
have pointed out the modal similarity between a 10thcentury ode by St. Gregory of Narek and that of a 13thcentury hymn attributed to Khatchatur of Taron, and
cited the contrasting harmonisations by Atayian,
Yekmalean and Komitas, evincing different tonic axes
associated with the same mode. Our final example
concerned an excerpt from the Armenian Divine Liturgy,
where we have pointed out remarkable similarities
between the imaginative, modally-inspired solutions by
Komitas and the modal ambiguities accruing from very
similar interplays of chords in passages from Britten’s
Rejoice in the Lamb. Komitas exploited modal
ambiguity, creating novel harmonic resources preempting the emergence of comparable chordal
progressions in Western music. Indeed, throughout, we
have sought pertinent analogies with Western music,
adducing, with good cause, Andrea Gabrieli, Monteverdi
and Bach, as well as Britten, Martin and Schoenberg –
consistent with our belief in the unity underlying all
music at a fundamental level.
ISSN: 1790-5095
Primary sources (selection):
1. Komitas Vardapet [Archimandrite], Dashnaworeal Sourb Patarag [Harmonised Divine Liturgy], Paris, 1933.
2. M. Yekmalean, Yergetsoghouthiwnkh Srboy Pataragi [Chants of the Divine Liturgy], Leipzig,
1896.
28
ISBN: 978-960-474-061-1
Proceedings of the 10th WSEAS International Conference on ACOUSTICS & MUSIC: THEORY & APPLICATIONS
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
ISSN: 1790-5095
29
ISBN: 978-960-474-061-1