Nofri! Pax!
This is a question you may never been asked before: I am one of those (musical) westerners who are interested in the Coptic tradition. When I study music (both older and modern) I can easily see how much of the music people listen to is related to  the Latin Liturg gical music. I don't think it's that much to Coiptic Liturgical music. What do you think about this?


  • Is it because of popularity? e.g. people may recognise Greek/Russian orthodox but not coptic.

    Instruments used?

    Vocals in the coptic church (ie.e male) are not very appealing (to me, just my opinion. i am coptic) and many deacons are ordained without them having suitable voices necessarily.

    The pronunciation of the coptic language and the tune of the music (i feel) are altered because of the nature of the arabic language (most coptic people's first language). Even if the language still survives, I doubt that's the accent the early copts used before egypt was invaded by arabs. Imagine people with different accents.

    When I think of a 'choir' I don't think of my church.

    I don't have much musical knowledge so I don't know how to explain (sorry) but the only thing that makes me feel 'good' about the coptic music is because this is what I grew up listening to and it IS spiritual, even if it sin't the best music.

    People will argue with me, i know, but I understand that the coptic heritage is something to protect and value. But If I want to sing (I love singing) I can't sing most stuff in the coptic 'style'  because they are (mostly) based on low tones and my voice is soprano (frustrating).

    I feel that the 'spirit' in coptic music is very sad 'weepy' 'humbling'. composed by people who were suffering and supplicating. while in other churches some of the music is more 'calming', 'awe-inspiring' 'harmonious'. Can you understand what i'm trying to say?

Sign In or Register to comment.