Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

A Comparison of Byzantine and Armenian Church Music in Terms of Musical Parameters

Bibliographic Data

ID21974072
AuthorsKutup Ata Tuncer (0000-0002-8727-5255, Manisa Celal Bayar University), Seçil Soytok Nalçacı (0000-0002-1407-3759, Manisa Celal Bayar University)
Year2026
Volume15
Issue6
Pages117
Publication date2026-05-29
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueArts (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2076-0752 • E-ISSN: 2076-0752
PublisherMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/arts15060117
OpenAlexW7162814334
LanguageEN
References cited19

In this study, we compare Byzantine and Armenian church music, focusing on musical parameters such as notation systems, modal structure, rhythmic concepts, and liturgical practice. Both traditions, which took shape within the shared cultural heritage of Anatolia, share fundamental common characteristics such as the eight-mode (Octoechos/oot tzayn) system, a monophonic vocal-based structure, and a text-based rhythmic approach; however, they have developed distinct characteristics under the influence of historical, political, and cultural dynamics. Conducted using comparative historical research methods, this study involved a literature review based on primary and secondary sources. The findings reveal the following: while the Byzantine tradition followed an evolution from Ecphonetic to Neume to modern notation, the Armenian tradition developed the Khaz–Hampartsum notation system; the distinction between authentic and plagal modes exists in both traditions, yet the correspondences established with the Turkish makam system at the theoretical and microtonal (cent) levels are approximate; and regarding rhythmic structure, both traditions share a text-driven, free-flowing organization in which liturgical prosody takes precedence over fixed meter, with such variation as exists operating at the level of ornamentation and performance practice rather than underlying rhythmic principle. During the Ottoman period, both traditions experienced deep interaction with Turkish makam theory; the Chrysanthos reform in Byzantium and the Hampartsum notation in Armenian music is concrete evidence of this interaction

Armenian · Byzantine architecture · Musical notation · Notation · Rhythm · Turkish · Music and Audio Processing · Music Education and Analysis · Musicology and Musical Analysis

  • Introduction

    Open Access•Christopher Heath, Clemens Gantner et al.•Medieval Worlds•2021

  • Giriftzen Asım Bey’e ait Hicaz ve Ethem Bey’e ait Uşşak eserlerin, Callisto Guatelli tarafından yapılan armonizasyonlarının analizi; müzik tarihi ve müzik teorisi kapsamında değerlendirilmesi

    Open Access•Sadık Uğraş Durmuş•rast müzikoloji dergisi•2021

  • R omanness

    Open Access•Walter Pohl•Early Medieval Europe•2014

  • Did the Byzantines call themselves Byzantines? Elements of Eastern Roman identity in the imperial discourse of the seventh century

    Open Access•Panagiotis Theodoropoulos•Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies•2021

  • Byzantium, or Rather, East Rome

    Derek Krueger•Journal of Medieval History•2025

  • Comparative-Historical Methodology

    James Mahoney•Annual Review of Sociology•2004

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae