The new Sheehan Divine Liturgy Book: a brief review

Most English-language church music in the Russian tradition is written in 4 parts and often doesn’t sound good without four parts. However, a common problem in Orthodox parishes is that there are not enough singers to fill all four parts. It’s one thing in a congregation of 200 to find the people, but in a congregation of, say, 20-50 regular attendees, things can get hairy. This volume attempts to fill that gap by providing two-part arrangements of some traditional Russian music (with instructions for how to create a third part where possible for those who can manage one) and usually trying to make the music sound good even with only one of the parts.

The prefatory materials, a foreword by Vlad Morosan discussing some historical aspects of the development of Russian chant and an instructional introduction by the author on how to use the book, are very useful. The first provides some context and understanding for how the music came about. The second not only tells the reader how to use the book, but also helps the reader understand better how music is arranged in general and particularly how 4-part Russian music is arranged as typically performed in a parish setting. This knowledge is helpful for singers even if not singing out of this book.

A lot of the musical content of the book should already be familiar to people who have sung a wide variety of Russian liturgical music, which is a good thing. Much of the melodic material is “standard”, so one does not have to learn dozens and dozens of new melodies. The pieces are also almost universally carried by the melody rather than relying on chordal movement (because how can you do that with two voices?). Some of the options presented can be rather demanding, but there are always feasible options presented.

The litanies, antiphons, troparia/kontakia, Trisagion, and prokeimena are about what one would expect. Several of the pieces are standards with two parts knocked out, so this material is not terribly essential if you already have that music and know how to do it, but it is useful and nice. The real value of the book, to my mind, at least, is the liturgy of the faithful.

The Cherubikon is often a place where it is hard to find an adequate setting for a small choir. The melody is often passed between parts or, if it stays in one part, the harmonization often doesn’t work without a full complement, or sometimes the piece relies on harmonic movement rather than melody. However, the pieces are often working off of standard, memorable chant melodies (eg, Sophronievskaya, Staro-Simonovskaya). This volume takes a number of commonly used chant melodies, at least a couple of which are bound to be familiar, and provides reasonable bass lines for them. To my mind, this alone justifies the book, as it is very common to have a couple voices who know a number of traditional melodies, but the 4-part versions on hand don’t reduce well to melody + bass. This volume, with only a few minutes of practice, will add several Cherubika to our repertoire.

The same is true of the “It is truly meet”. For instance, there is the Bulgarian melody which should be familiar from Yaichkov’s arrangement – the melody is quite memorable, but pulling it out of the piece is nontrivial. The arrangement provided in the book is very singable and memorable.

There is some redundancy in the Anaphora section, since the first two pieces are apparently a one-voice and two-voice version of the same melody (a standard Znamenny melody that others have harmonized before) – one can surely recognize that the bass line can be left off the second one? But it is otherwise very good – there are some standard pieces and some are rather difficult, but one can find something that fits one’s level.

I would strongly recommend the book for any parish that is interested in performing Russian-style music but does not always have all four parts, especially if they only have two parts or even only one part. There are several pieces even choirs that usually have four parts may be interested in if they want some additional variety. A larger and more consistent choir, however, would probably be better off, eg, with the SVS Press Divine Liturgy book and not find much of use beyond a couple pieces that could be interesting for, say, a smaller ensemble to do. I believe the draft edition is sold out, but when the final edition comes out, you should be on the lookout for it.

Other things that disappoint me:

Let's talk about a few other things that disappoint me about religious discourse lately! While some of the things I have in mind here are clerical errors, I want to make clear that I don't intend to be disrespectful of clergy exercising their pastoral ministry.

• Argumentum ad hitlerum. I think it is in singularly poor taste to compare things to Nazis and it is a rather poor rhetorical move, as well, since it will only serve to annoy readers rather than illuminate your point. It also makes you sound weird. This is, of course, a standard internet trick.
  
• I don't have a short name for this, but have you ever noticed that when, say, there's a discussion of women's issues and somebody wants to have anything other than the "easy" "traditionalist" perspective, particularly if they are a woman, they have to very carefully distance themselves from the more "radical" positions, be extremely polite, and play up their "orthodox" bona fides? At least in some quarters. I noticed a recent conversation where people were discussing women's ordination and there was one woman in the conversation who wanted to know more about deaconesses, the opposition to the modern reinstitution of them, and anything else about the issue.
  
  She had to be extremely polite, unfailingly orthodox, and make great pains to clarify that she had no interest in ordaining women to further orders and probably no interest in agitating for the restoration of deaconesses. Meanwhile, people responded at times impolitely, "mansplained" at points, and often treated her discourse as if it were coming from some past life of theirs in the Episcopal Church or from some radical advocate of women's ordination (which she had previously had to indicate she was not). Their behavior, of course, was perfectly acceptable, since they were, after all, On The Right Side. This kind of behavior comes up regularly in discussions of sexual issues, but it also comes up occasionally in a few other contexts, but particularly when it is a woman in the conversation.
  
  A related problem is how abortion gets brought up by men every time a woman tries to discuss just about any issue of sex, gender, sexuality, etc.
  
• An undue preoccupation with the details of private lives of private individuals. At the merest, slimmest hint of scandal over the last few years, certain quarters of the church have called for (or released) an open discussion of the private lives of private individuals. To do what? Prove a point, or ruin a churchman, or silence a voice in whatever nonsensical ecclesiastical controversy is bubbling up. Mind you, the private lives of private individuals (with perhaps named names on public internet fora) were not churchmen, they're simply used to question the exercise of pastoral ministry by certain clerics. Or something. It's okay because they're protecting the Church.
  
• You can always go further right. Any step to the left is death. Essentially, anything up to explicit race realism, overt pick-up artist nonsense, or literal Nazi-ism (sorry about transgressing the first point) is given a free pass. However conservative one's theology, however, one cannot be a feminist or even say things that sound feminist. One cannot discuss "white privilege". Indeed, these will often be criticized using terminology and methods from the above three groups.
  

Rebukes I've received.

HUMBLE YOURSELF.

At various times and diverse places, I have been warned off the path of evil, generally because my views are seen as departing from the narrow way. Here is an incomplete catalog of things people have said to me. These are provided as a warning that, according to some, I may be a dangerous thinker. Caveat lector.

• [E]ver since you drank deep from the feminist well of delusion, interacting with you has become increasingly fruitless. ... You are in the wrong. Your church condemns feminism, and you should probably confess and repent.
  
  NB: I had just told him this was actually good news for Bitcoin
  
• Really, BECOME ORTHODOX BEFORE you presume to write or speak about ORTHODOXY. Your smugness only alludes to your hubris and your lack of Orthodox formation. Your attitude is precisely YOUR PROBLEM and WHY YOU ARE HETERODOX. HUMBLE YOURSELF AND BECOME ORTHODOX ON ORTHODOXY's TERMS.
  
  NB: this was after saying I trusted the Synod about the Met. Jonah affair.
  
• 3). In piety, outlook and discipline, rather than advancing fidelity to and observance of the Holy Fathers, the Holy Canons expressing the Mind of CHRIST, you smugly are content with an outlook in opposition to them, having the audacity to all such fidelity, outlook and discipline even "poisonous." That is most certainly heterodox, Protestant.
  
  Get an Orthodox formation before you write in smugness again.
  
  Same source
  
• Psalm 118:8.Satan is decieving you
  
  NB: This one was some unbalanced Protestant on why global warming was false
  
  
• If that's what you're doing, you should talk to your priest and connect more deeply with Orthodox IRL.
  
  NB: If I recall, this was in response to a comment that noted the Orthodox Church is a conservative institution, which should be uncontroversial
  
• Racism in America is just a marxist social assumption that our culture has adopted and now uses.
  
  Okay, this one isn't really a rebuke to me, but it's friggin' nuts
  
• This article seems to be a perfect example of how sin (Marxism, this is Marxist class theory applied to race) perverts what is good.
  
  A response to my posting this banal article
  
• You are looking far too much towards modern re-interpretations and into modern "scholarship" on the matter and you are not looking enough to the pure and holy church for guidance. Do not look to the sinful, fallen world that is guided by demonic influence. Look towards the church for she is guided by the Holy Spirit.
  
  lollerskates - I believe this one was for saying that homosexual attraction is not, in itself, a sin
  

That's all I have at my fingertips. I'm sure I've been called worse. Alas, some places are either hard to search and some have rules of civility meaning posts get deleted if they are insulting, otherwise I would have more of a list.

Is feminism a sin?

No, don't be silly. However, some unbalanced fellow made the following statement to me, perhaps thinking he was "speaking the truth in love":

I have to say, I used to listen to what you would post, but ever since you drank deep from the feminist well of delusion, interacting with you has become increasingly fruitless. So let me say it clearly:

You are in the wrong. Your church condemns feminism, and you should probably confess and repent - but I am not your priest.

First, it is blatantly false to claim that the Church condemns "feminism". Feminism is a rather broad movement, and while the Church disagrees with aspects of some strands of feminism, it cannot be said to condemn it as a whole. Show me the anathema!

Second, I would be surprised if he could find any public comment where I identify as a feminist. This is intentional for a couple reasons: one of them is to avoid having to deal with people like this.

Third, it is not possible to find any public statement where I dissent in any way from the revealed dogmas on sex, gender, etc. This is intentional for one reason: I do not.

Anyway, so I asked for substantiation of his grave accusations. He brought out a couple of comments. The first quoted from an article that was being discussed, the quote basically asked people to consider how privilege makes a difference in their lives, the history of their communities, and how diverse their everyday life is. The second was telling somebody who is not one of those anti-feminists/anti-"SJW"s to avoid feeding into that negativity even if he doesn't identify as a feminist and opposes some things about feminism as well as explaining that feminism is not a dirty word. Therefore, even if he disagrees, he should be careful about playing along with those are, in essence, crapping on the term. The justification provided for how this dissented from church dogma was the following:

1. "Privilege" is a neo-Marxist concept and is a common tactic used by feminists. (therefore I am a feminist, or at least a Marxist, and therefore dissenting from the Church?)
   
2. Discussing racial and gender differences goes against the Apostle Paul who says there is neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek.
   
3. Discussing privilege is intrinsically, in the end, about envy, which is a sin.
   

The first point is simply laughable. The second is exactly the opposite of the intent: we are to be one in Christ, so our failure to be one is a sin. Noticing the ways in which we fail to eliminate these differences is then a mandatory exercise. This is also then the context of the third point. Also, I am a member of the privileged class trying to listen to other voices - I am not envying anybody in this exercise and the people I hear don't sound like they envy me. They are tired of being ground up in this system and tired of being ignored (among other things).

I am well aware of my many failings, but trying to treat women like human beings isn't one of my sins. My failures to do so are.

Babies, you've got to be kind

Or: on the need for humble love in discourse.

I have, of course, been guilty of this as well. I have noticed lately a certain rigidity in online discourse that is most troubling. Most recently, Frederica Mathewes-Green, who isn't really one of my favorites, mentioned that she did not think legalizing gay marriage was a big deal (“I was asked why I don’t oppose gay marriage, and I’ll try to make this brief. It’s because I don’t agree that gay marriage harms society, or harms marriage."). She got completely raked over the coals for it until she wrote a longer article explaining her position. I imagine some people are still raking her over the coals, but some people realized, oh, wait, there is some nuance here and a charitable way her position could be conceived as something other than abandonment of the Church's teaching. But, wait: shouldn't we be starting from that place of charity? Especially with a well-known somebody who is probably, like, not a panheretical liberalist ecumenist bent on redefining the entirety of church teaching?

I also have been in a number of conversations about things that completely turn people off when they visit parishes (esp Orthodox, since that's the circle I run in). One of the big ones is the polemic urge. eg badmouthing Protestantism, the West, the liberals, the gays, the Obama, the Catholics, the Ukraine (using the article because they believe it's just one of their regions), etc. Apart from the immediate effect of perhaps alienating the visitor who is coming in that is perhaps the very thing you are vilifying, I think this style displays a definite lack of necessary charity in discourse: they are not hearing the people they are excoriating.

Now, I admit, there are at times people attracted by polemics, sarcasm, joking, etc, but it's a very dangerous thing to pull out for the general public and must be used very carefully: you have to show that you're listening to the people you are talking to and have some basic respect for them. And it should be very different from, "I heard you say this, you have departed from the teaching of the Church, repent and sin no more." It also has to be done in a way that you're not plowing over the weak, vulnerable, downtrodden, etc - such as any of the usual "whipping boys" for the possessors of white male privilege.

People who are committed to a place already can be willing to endure it to make it better, because if all the good people flee, you're leaving behind a hellhole. But if there are people that aren't committed, it's a lot to ask of them to tell them they should join and fight against the flow to make this corner of the Church a better place. America is a big place - lots of wide open space - and we're used to self-segregating with the like-minded rather than confronting this kind of impolite and uncharitable behavior. So if pretty much everybody around you will nod in agreement that, sure, environmentalism is an anti-Christian religion, then you might say it as part of your performative Orthodox conservative shtick. You will get some brownie points and nobody will contradict you because it's not done. The people who would rightly call you out on that nonsense have little to gain by doing so because you wouldn't say it if you weren't supported. So, then what?

More music I will never use: a Georgian Polyeleos put into English

I found a nice Georgian Polyeleos and thought to myself, you know, this could be in English. So I did it. Some phrasing still needs work - particularly the last bit - and I haven't taken the time to pretty up the score itself yet (I'm sure there's a better way to mark refrains in Lilypond), but the notes should be accurate. The dissonances are supposed to be there, I swear. Please let me know if you have suggestions - note in the original there were a couple different variations of the melody and a couple different ways of dividing up the notes, so other solutions are possible without having to come up with "new" music (also, other translations, other word orders, etc can solve problems). I have picked the verses that match the original text, but, really, you can take whatever ones you want. In the original, it seemed that they did the rising "b c d" beginning for verses that were the beginnings of sentences and "d d d" for continuations of a sentence, so you may want to continue that if you change the text.

Here is the original video:



EDIT: if interested, I have transposed for SSA, SAT, and SA-Baritone arrangements. They are up an octave (could go higher - the alto is low), up an octave, and up a 7th. Note that the bottom staff intentionally has one of the accidentals flatted out, it's a feature of Georgian music. The problem with mixed arrangements is that the tessitura is all wrong.