Niethnos teero joyful

Does anyone have the source that abouna abraam el abnoby used for this hymn? I have abounas recording. I was interested in his source for it. Thanks in advance


  • I have asked a Cantor who teaches in HICS and he says there is no acceptable source in existence. The hymn is clearly a new(ish) composition considering it utilises hezaat from the arabic paralex 'Ya kol assufouf'.
  • @drewhalim  I don't think thats the case. Its definitely something rare, but abouna abraam usually has some sort of source before he just records things. People don't really just go make stuff up nowadays. A lot of hymns have hazzat from other things. Muallem Gad and Muallem Ibrahim both heard the hymn and expressed some interest in hearing the sources behind it. 
  • When I said newish I did not mean that he personally made it up but that it's existence was pretty much unheard of before Fr Abraam. I fully appreciate that coptic hymns share hezaat but 'Ya kol assufouf' is not a coptic hymn it is an arabic paralex (that never existed in coptic) which already tells you it cannot be that old. I personally have spoken about this to Muallem Gad and he does not accept it and the reason he shows interest in hearing the original source is simply because that is his polite way of saying there isn't one.
  • edited April 2015
    Cantor Gad only expresses his opinion...he or any one else can not states that a hymn_ which he does not know or heard of_ is (not exist).....cantor Gad was born about 1956 after all early cantors outside cairo were passed cantor Gad is too young to judge the credibility of an unknown hymn...
    although cantor Gad is my teacher and i learnt from him...but many of his opnions in this matter are strange!...for example he said that ElAlli el farayhee elkebeer by cantor Tawfiq is not a correct one and the one (which was fabricated and made up by cantor ibrahim) is the correct one !!!!!! altough the one by ibrahim has (NO SOURCE AT ALL ) and cantor ibrahim admits that..
  • regarding thr reason for not accepting the hymn....why we consider that ne ethnos is like ya kol elsofof and we do not consider ya kol elsofof is like ne ehnos ???!!!!
    it is possible that Fr Filothaws ibrahim( the one who made ya kol elsofof) was influnced by ne ehnos el farayhee...

    the reason was introduced by cantor Gad is not a solid or reasonable reason is not even a weak reason to refuse the hymn...

    i will conact Fr Abraam and will talk with him about that matter in detail
  • @minasafwat, the reason we are speculating is because we have recordings of ya kol elsofof that are older than this ne-ethnos teero el farayhi. In either ways, I personally don't mind it. I maybe a little against drewhalim on considering the age of hymns simply because our hymns are not set in stone as many may think because we don't have a recorded history of a lot of our hymns. 
  • I think the whole point is that a credible source is yet to materialise and if it does then I'm sure people's opinion may change.

    In response to the Ali farayhee it is correct that M.Ibrahim does not have a source and likewise M.Tawfiq is the only cantor to record the extended version and for this reason I know that M.Gad refused to let the official choir of HICS which appear on MESAT record it for either Christmas or Easter.
  • edited April 2015
    first...cantor Tawfiq is the only cantor to record it !!!!..this is just completely untrue...Fr Mattias nasr in higher institute of coptic studies said that he listend this hymn in old recordings (bakar) of Cantor Mikhail and thats why he recorded it in the instiute...i myself have a recording of it which dates back to the period between(1960;1965) by cantor tawfiq who recorded it for cantor Wissa atyia..

    there is an important question to be asked here...((( what is your definition about a credible source???????????? other words your point of view or point of cantor Gad(my teacher) or any other one...what are the criteria or standards of a credible source???????))))

    i hope that i will hear an academic answer...!
  • by the way....thers is some one went to cantor Gad and cantor gad taught him the one fabricated by cantor Ibrahim.....

    Cantor Gad himself said that ......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • In regards to cantor Ibrahim and the ally faraihy. It is not true that he made it up. 1) the Sherat faraihy in Cairo differs from that of upper Egypt. That is admitted by m Tawfik himself. 2) Muallem Ibrahim said several times he heard the hymn by a man named cantor emil from mar Girgis church in beba. 3) when he heard it he went to Muallem gad and told him right away. It was spoken of in the cantoribrahimayad YouTube channel
  • Keep in mind everyone these people care just as much and even more than us about the hymns. to say that people are just making things up is very harsh and isn't giving credit where it's due. I'm sure someone like Cantor Ibrahim is much smarter than to lose his credibility over something he's "making up".
  • Ekhrestos anesty
    cantor Ibrahim won't lose credibility making something up. The percentage of people who understand and debate is minute compared to the large majority who just follow blindly and copy whatever some cantors do. I totally agree with all what @drewhalim said here..
    oujai khan ebshois
  • Listen to this
    It's the Great Joyful Communion (Psalm 150) in the Egyptian Sherat (Bahary Way)
    It's not like the way of Cantor Ibrahim or Cantor Twafik
    It's my voice (not good i know) and it is Live on 19 April 2015 - Thomas day Liturgy
    from Saint George Church - Quweisna - Egypt
  • Ophadece has hit the nail on the head. The majority of people do follow blindly to the extent that they watch Cathedral liturgies or services to see 'What's new". We may all disagree with this but we know it happens. I have direct contact with the new committee formed of a number of Cantors and Bishops to discuss the rites and hymns of the church and what they are trying to do is research as much as possible (yes it may not always be perfect or sometimes may be limited) into the what was taught before and correct where applicable what is happening now. This is something that should have been setup years ago but I personally thank God that at least it is in existence now and I fully support their efforts. Now in regards to the Ali el farayhee for example this committee has found insufficient evidence for either M.Tawfiq or M.Ibrahim's versions and have therefore refused to acknowledge it as a hymn to be taught. In obedience I for one stopped chanting those hymns.
  • @drewhalim @ophadece  There has been no decision made regarding this whatsoever. Secondly, I do not mean credibility in terms of just being correct and people following him. Someone like M Ibrahim who has dedicated his life to the hymns of the church since he was less than 15, is not going to go and make stuff up just for the sake of change. Aside from that, M Tawfik and M Ibrahim are sources for the hymns of the church. Them saying that a joyful ally exists in itself is proof. Bishops are not cantors. Bishops are not professional in the hymns of the church. Muallem Tawfik himself used to listen and learn from muallem ibrahim especially when he knew that he knew something in a sa3eedy way that wasn't too accurate. I have that on video. @ophadece The amount of people who follow every single detail in the cathedral and give muallem ibrahim a difficult time, and the amount of people who speak of him negatively is extensive. The man serves with all his capacity and what he gets in return is people bashing whatever work he does. I was one of those people until i met and discussed with him. Turns out he knows very well what he's doing and there is a lot he has been handed down and taught that isn't always explained. Watching from a tv screen or a computer isn't the same as learning and understanding whats actually going on. 
  • @minasafwat Ive listened to Cantor Mikhails tapes and never heard any ally faraihy. IF you have that available please share. 

    M. Tawfik recorded the hymn and Abouna Mettias' recording is exactly the same as his. M. Ibrahim was told before by the cantors that taught him, that the tawzi3 for palm sunday and joyful times is according to the sherat. It makes sense that there would be a long one. Keep in mind all the things cantors used to do before weren't always seen and recorded. Now because everything is so visible we find that things we think are new just surprise us. That committee that is being spoken of was originally M Ibrahims idea and he asked for it the year before Pope Shenouda passed away. They only came together last year. And they are making good first efforts. The only official decisions that we have seen made are the ones for kiahk. Otherwise M. Ibrahim wouldn't have chanted them during this years festivities. 

  • I want to point something out as well guys, there are tons of hymns that were not known before for which recordings have been found and then they were revived. Examples: Teen Anastaseen, Enty geneesi, Shere theotoke (Short), Agios Extended. And the list can continue for hours. Many of these things were revived by M. Ibrahim and M.Zaher and M.Amir etc. There have been other hymns too like the theotokia kiahk tune for Midnight praises that doesn't have many recordings but was said that way in the Old Cathedral by M.Fahim and M. Assaad. There is more to the hymns than just what was recorded. There is an oral tradition as well that carries a lot of weight. Many things that M.Farag taught M.Ibrahim he told him by word of mouth that M.Ibrahim uses now and people say are made up. 
  • @dg920 when you say "There has been no decision made regarding this whatsoever" what exactly are you referring to. The committee was not just M.Ibrahim's idea and has existed in one form or an other for many decades. In all honesty M.Ibrahim does not even attend all the meetings and from many points discussed and agreed upon at the meetings he certainly does not act on them all. This is not an attack on M.Ibrahim but you talk about him being the official source of hymns when in fact the latest document about coptic language (whether right or wrong) was aimed towards certain things he and others were doing and the cover letter from Dr Roushdy Wassef who is the Archdeacon of the Cathedral clearly states that HICS is the only officially recognised source of hymns for the Church so read into that as you may.

    I would have never said that M.Ibrahim has fabricated a hymn from scratch but he has certainly added/amended hezaat to numerous hymns minor and major that are unique to him and this is what the committee are working on fixing. Although when I was in Cairo just last weekend a clear example of fabrication put forward to me by a member of the committe is the second part of Eparthenos that he says, this was taught to him by a student of the Clerical College at the time (I will not say his name) who simply put the words on the same tune so there is no original source for this at all. Also pick up on your last sentence above there are things that M.Ibrahim claims he was taught by older cantors verbally and yet with todays media recordings have become available which contradict this outright.

    The committee is currently going through every single annual response of the liturgy and the HICS choir are about to record the hymns of the Apostles fast now that the sources have been agreed.
  • edited April 2015
    That is not the purpose of the committee my friend. It is not to fix M.Ibrahims work. The committee was formed because all the cantors need to unite and research a lot of the hymns. M. Ibrahim taught all of those cantors in the committee including M.Gad, M.Zaher etc. The committees focus is to unite. M. Ibrahim cannot attend every meeting as we all have jobs and responsibilities outside of our services as well. M.Zaher didn't make the first meeting with the decisions for kiahk, doesn't make him any less of a source and doesn't make him against the meetings.

    The paper does not document that HICS is the only source for hymns but rather for pronunciation. And if they were to say the HICS is the only source for hymns then they know nothing about the hymns of the church or the work that HICS has done. Most of HICS productions are incomplete. 

    That, sorry, STUPID piece of paper about Coptic Language is completely fallible and you can read why in the other thread discussing it. The premises are ridiculous, and it is not only a response to Bishop Raphael and M. Ibrahim but an attack at Fr. Shenouda and Original Bohairic Coptic. Using HICS music department to say what pronunciation should be used is absurd. On top of that they did not mention that there are going to be meetings with HGB Demetrious to sit down and follow whatever they agree on with the pronunciation. FYI M. Ibrahim was told by Dr. Michel, who is also on that committee, to fix the pronunciation. He didn't do it of his own accord. And when he did fix, that same guy, disowned the whole idea and went and complained. Bishop Raphael also sees the fallacies in todays pronunciation of Coptic and adjusted many many things.

    The second verse of eparthenos is not actually a second verse but rather a different hymn. It is the second Greek part for the Nativity, Egeneesis. Instead of it being disregarded, they wanted to keep the hymn around so that the existence wouldn't just be left alone but fixated the tune on Eparthenos. ALL THE CANTORS DID THAT. M.Fahim did that, M.Farag did that. Tarkeeb is something that all Cantors did and i can prove that with hundreds of recordings. M. Farag did the same with O Nim Nai and Almaseeho qam. M.Fahim literally made up his own tarkeeb for everything from shere theotoke to aspazmoses to molakhas to hundreds of other hymns. another good example, The theotokia kiahky for Sunday midnight praises is something rather rare and everyone thinks that M.Ibrahim made it up because no one has recordings of it. Turns out theres a bunch of recordings for it and The entire old Cathedral used to say it that way. 

    Many cantors learned things more than one way. So when you find a recording of someone saying it one way, doesn't mean they didn't teach another. Examples: M. Fahim psalm 151, M. Farag Tenen, M. Farag Basilian Liturgy Long Amen Intro to fraction, M. Tawfik Tishori, M. Mikhail taught several hymns in several different ways. ETC ETC ETC. 

    I did not say it was only M. Ibrahims idea nor did I claim that he was the only source for hymns, but i do not appreciate the uneducated remarks that are being made. Neither you nor I will ever care as much about the hymns of the church as He does. To think that you or anyone else knows better on what should be done is absolutely ridiculous. None of us spent 30 years learning not only the hymns but the spirit of the hymns from M. Fahim, M. Tawfik, M.Farag, M.Sadek, M. Assaad, Ragheb Moftah, Dr. Yousef Mansour. The limited recordings and resources you have are not going to come close to those years of wealth and knowledge. 
  • If you have a question about things, you ask and find out from the person you think is doing something wrong. Making assumptions based on what other people tell you is a bad approach. I did the same for years with M. Ibrahim and I personally went and apologized to him for it. And when i got responses for my questions in the humble manner that he conducts himself in i was embarrassed of myself. So please before you assert that someone is doing something wrong, ask. 

    And on another note regarding him adding or changing specific hazzat, M. Ibrahim is the most talented cantor vocally to this day. M.Tawfik himself said if M.Ibrahim has a note or a hazza that is better and more musically accurate that he himself would change and fix it. M. Ibrahim went back to Mikhail for a lot of things and got notes that most of the older cantors couldn't hit. Do extensive research on your own instead of just listening to what people tell you.
  • Oh and one more thing, any of the pronunciation corrections that M.Ibrahim uses you can hear in M.Wissa Attia's recordings, including sarx, afchi and tons of others. Pronunciation was never ever ever standard in the church because people from all over Egypt speak differently. That and the fact that most cantors were partially or fully blind and couldn't see the words. with a little common sense and study you can see that we aren't pronouncing correctly, and with a little more common sense and study you'll see that many things in our dialect now don't make much sense. Hence, Fr. Shenoudas Phd and things actually making sense. 
  • edited April 2015
    @dg920 you clearly will believe what you want to and that is not only fine with me but is your right. I also know facts, some of which I will not share here as they can be deemed a personal attack on certain individuals and not just M.Ibrahim. Believe one thing that I will say which is with the HICS choir that record for MEsat you will start to notice differences both minor and major as they return to older sources. The aim of the committee is to unite the cantors and the hymns of the church in general and that is already happening. There is also an external group of approximately 40 cantors in Cairo who meet and revise hymns together which Ibrahim does not attend anymore as he was often publicly challenged by other cantors over sources and ways of chanting hymns which he had no response to. I do not need to prove my love or respect for M.Ibrahim as it is there and like thousands of others I do know him personally. However, it is no good saying I learned from Cantor X years ago and then not having an answer when an audio recording of Cantor X is now available and evidently different.

    A final note from me (and I mean final as this thread is no longer about the original question) you mention 'uneducated remarks' which I will not take personally. However, if you think that M.Ibrahim is the Coptic Church saviour of hymns and rites you are very much mistaken and to even suggest that nobody else knows better is also a very grave mistake.
  • edited April 2015
    @drewhalim I didn't suggest that he is the savior and didn't suggest that no one knows better. What i am saying is discussing things without clear examples and sources and with incorrect information is a problem by itself. 

    Before you say he doesn't attend because of x y z go and ask. Make sure your information is correct. 

    Do you think recording was an easy task back then? In order for someone to record something it took time, and trememdous amounts of work. They weren't recording everything in every different way. And many recordings, the cantors completely screwed up.

    Many things were recorded one way and said ten other ways. To say this recording is the only source is not a good way to go. Again the theotokia kiahky is an example. M.Fahims recording of it in his tasbeha tapes is different than his live recordings that he says with the entire chorus. If you don't have those recordings though, you would never know.

    Having some recordings made for a tv channel is great but that doesn't work either. These things need to be placed on a site and proclaimed as the official source of hymns. And they are not doing that.

     I do not believe what i want to, but rather the balanced side of things. Not just this is what we heard from this old cantor so he's right. Even the old cantors themselves said that that way doesn't work. Recordings are not everything. It goes the same way with the fathers of the church and their writing, or Christ, the bible and our rites. The bible doesn't mention many of our rites, but they were handed down to us. They weren't recorded or documented, and some have been documented differently but we do them a specific way now. That doesn't make our rites now incorrect.  
  • I am going to have to agree with dg920 for most of what he said. I wish to add some science to the discussion. 

    There are only 3 PhD studies (that I know of) that deal with Coptic sacred music. One of them is Magdelena Kuhn's 2007 German thesis "Die Struktur der Koptischen liturgyschen Melodien" (The Structure of Coptic Liturgical Melodies). She compared many Coptic hymns from the Psalmody from both muallameen and average laity and clergy. She also interviewed all of the famous cantors. 

    Basically, she concluded the following:
    1. Comparing the same hymn from all cantors, there is a basic fundamental core to each hymn that is found in all cantors. 
    2. Every melody has a short version (syllabic melody), a medium sized-version (melismatic melody) and a long version (vocalises). Musicologist are very specific in these terms. Syllabic melody is one note to each syllable. Most closely related to what we understand as "damg". We Copts consider any hymn that has repetition on a vowel is melismatic. A musicologist defines melismatic as a "more than five or six notes on a single syllable" Grove Music Online. Some of our large Coptic hymns are melismatic but most are vocalises. What is a vocalises? "A textless vocal exercise or concert piece sung to one or more vowels" Grove Music Online. So when a certain hymn has a group of notes sung on one syllable that is independent of the text, it is a vocalise. A good example is the "omonogenis" group of notes found within Ontos, the Great Hoos, etc. 
    3. "Vocalises are composed from formulae. The first formula of a melody serves as a kind of recognition melody....In different melodies with different characters, one finds similar combinations of formulae."  Just like I described above in the "omonogenis" example.
    4. All melodies have different interpretations. Each performance is one interpretation of a hymn. Kuhn says "Here we can clearly see that a traditional basic melody has been preserved over the years, with every singer can interpret and vary in his own way. He does this by making rhythmic changes in the melodies and by embellishing them each time with other ornaments."

    Therefore, every cantor and every average layperson who sings a particular hymn, sings it differently every time based on his interpretation. That is why we see one cantor sing a hymn really slow (interpretation of tempo), another adds an embellishment, another specifically avoids embellishments (Mlm Mikhail Guirgis al-Batanoony), another changes a part of the formula but ends up in the same place as another (Arihoo from M. Tawfik vs Cairo), etc. The structure of Coptic sacred music allows for variability. Thus, expecting everyone to conform to one recording is intrinsically anti-Coptic. 

  • I appreciate the addition of the research Rem. Thank you. 

  • Let's take a step back for a moment. 
    "Music, generally speaking, lends itself to preservation of all the fine arts, and compositions with and performance from notation is still a peculiarly Western tradition that distinguishes it from other musics of the world, sacred or secular. Many religious traditions have positively discouraged any writing of music, preferring to hand it on by rote from elder to novice in oral tradition. Thus, singers of Coptic chant spend 20 years or more learning their repertory...Strictly speaking, music known only through oral tradition has no history because we can only know its present form." The A to Z of Sacred Music by Joseph P Swain.

    Notice here the author specifically mentioned Coptic sacred music that discourages any writing of music (auditory transcription to recordings is included). The author is wrong about spending 20 years learning their repertory since most Copts do not know the entire repertory of Coptic music. I assume he is speaking of specialized cantors or muallameen. What is important to note here is that without some form of written music, Coptic music has no traceable history. It becomes all hearsay without evidence. Thus, it seems that all this arguing over Niethnos tero and Ya kool al sefoof is vain since we have no history before the audio recordings, as Minasawfat alluded to. 

    Now if we are going to argue which recording is more authentic or more logical than another, we face the same vanity. All recordings are merely one snapshot of one particular oral transmission of a hymn. We may like to find a "scientific" reason and research to justify one recording over the other, but it is not likely such evidence exists. Thus, just because the majority of authoritative sources record something one way and one less authoritative source records something else, it does not mean anything more than both are snapshots of different (regional?) traditions. 

    Take for example, the Synod's insistence on using HICS as the primary source. Well if you read Ragheb Moftah's 1975 Keraza article (and other correspondences with Ernest Newlandsmith), you will see that the only reason Moftah and Newlandsmith chose Muallem Mikhail is because they considered all the other cantors corrupted by "the filth of Arabic music" (i.e., Moftah and Newlandsmith did not want cantors who embellish, since they perceived embellishment as a sign of Arabic corruption). Thus there was nothing scientific about the choice of Muallem Mikhail and HICS to begin with.

    I will grant that HICS was the first to attempt a scientific approach to Coptic music. But over time, their interpretation of "scientific" evidence in Coptic music became as arbitrary as any other group. Now it is merely a political game.

  • Ekhrestos anesty
    Please note that I don't object to what you said but cantor Ibrahim among others is blamed for constantly embellishing the so-called educational tapes and cd's. Cantors should be more meticulous and have some integrity, let alone consistency, shouldn't they?
    oujai khan ebshois
  • @ophadece

    Sorry to barge in. Please use examples for claims of inconsistency and integrity. Cantor Ibrahim is very meticulous and knows very well exactly what he's saying.
  • Ekhrestos anesty
    You are asking specifically about cantor Ibrahim, please listen to his recordings of the seven tunes for nativity and Easter. Also allelujah bai ba old and recent. The latter being more of a dialect thing. Also please listen to w nem nai live and recorded, and same for arebresbawin for virgin Mary. Let me not talk about joyous Pauline, or bright Saturday. In any case @minatasgeel said that he keeps saying he is not a machine..
    oujai khan ebshois
  • I have an opinion towards what consistency mean in hymns and I am much more tolerable with hazzat (which are called ornaments btw) and their tarkeep on syllables. Ophadece and a couple others do not agree with my opinion, so I'll leave it at that.  
Sign In or Register to comment.