Talk:Octoechos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually "Octoechos" is a book in use in Orthodox Christian churches that contains chants with Ressurrection content in all the 8 Byzantine Music Modes... I will collect more information.

This is wrong, and not just because this book is more commonly known by another name in the Greek churches which I cannot now recall. You might be familiar with the Sunday Octoechos only, which is the most commonly available in English, but there are Octoechos chants for every day of the week. This is also available in English from at least two sources, but since it's more expensive and not used as often in parishes it's not seen as often.

It's only the Sunday chants that are called "Resurrectional tones" due to the Resurrectional character of the Sunday services, but this is inaccurate in modern usage -- at least Slavic usage; I'm not so familiar with Greek chant. The tones -- which is to say, the musical modes (in modern use the actual melodies) -- don't change, only the words do.

The 8-tone system predates the organization of liturgical chant around it by St. John of Damascus. In origin it therefore meant not the words of the chants themselves, but the musical modes in which they are to be sung. With regard to this modal system, the article is not inaccurate to the best of my knowledge. I'm therefore removing the {{accuracy}} tag, which I can only imagine was added in good faith with regard to the above comment. (The editor who added it didn't actually say why on this page as he should have, so if there's a good reason for it I hope its removal will spark some discussion.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins Disputed

Actually it is the origins section that it is disputed. It is without sources and ignorant of other theories. No mention of Ancient Greek modes etc. I am sorry to say, that very few Western scholars comprehend the modes of the Greek Orthodox Church and their relationship to the Hellenistic world. --Kupirijo 06:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I may have had a different version of the article in mind. I didn't read this one closely, but I could have sworn there was once a description of the ancient modes. Or perhaps I was thinking of a different reference. Anyway, given that explanation I'm not going to argue about replacement of the tag. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Putting {{disputed}} seems like overkill for on that basis. Shouldn't there be at least one specific factual assertion in the article that is in dispute? There are unsourced statements, true: so tag it with {{sources}}. There are other points of view that ought to be added - fine, add them. But I don't see a basis here for saying that the factual accuracy of the article is disputed. Mrhsj 22:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)