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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Arts
Published
2026-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/arts15060117
Primary Topic
Music Education and Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

Seçil SOYTOK NALÇACI, Kutup Ata TUNCER
Arts
Music Education and Analysis
article

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

Seçil SOYTOK NALÇACI, Kutup Ata TUNCER
article en

Abstract

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.

ArtsVol. 15(6)
Manisa Celal Bayar University (TR)
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Music Education and Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.