A Comparison of Byzantine and Armenian Church Music in Terms of Musical Parameters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting contribution. My only suggestion would be to keep your audience in mind. Given the multidisciplinary readership of the journal, I would expect that some would not understand some of the more jargon related terms used throughout the text. This does not mean the piece cannot be published. It is merely a suggestion.
For example, if you are willing to provide an explanation/historical background for the Byzantine empire in the following: "The Byzantine Empire was founded by Emperor Constantine in 330 AD" (3.1), why not also provide definitions and context for discipline-specific terminology? For example, it might be worthwhile to define words such as antiphonal and heterophonic (3.1). Additionally, other words and phrases such as "neumatic system," "Ecphonetic system," (3.3) or "microtonal interval analysis" (4.4).
The author does well to define other terms in the following:
"Sharakan (canonical hymn): Forms the foundation of the liturgy. • Avetis: Gospel hymns. • Tagh (liturgical/poetic song): Developed particularly during the 10th–15th centuries" (3.5) but fall short in other passages.
While the author attempts to define modes, the following passage could be difficult for readers who are not musicologists:
"In a mode-based comparison, the closest correspondence is observed in the Tritos/Çargâh pair: the Byzantine enharmonic mode at 200–200–100 cents and Çargâh at 203.8–203.8–90.6 cents, with differences of only 4–9 cents per step. In contrast, the Protos/Uşşak pair shows significant differences of 14–20 cents per step between the Byzantine diatonic tetrachord (166.7–133.3–200 cents) and the Uşşak tetrachord (181.1–113.2–203.8 cents). The greatest deviation is observed in the Plagios Deuteros/Hicaz comparison: between the Byzantine hard chromatic scale (100–333.3–66.7 cents) and the Hicaz tetrachord (113.2–271.7–113.2 cents), it reaches 61 cents in the augmented second (Zannos 1994; Delviniotis et al. 2008). Furthermore, the Byzantine soft chromatic mode of Deuteros (133.3– 233.3–133.3 cents) has no direct equivalent in Turkish, thus constituting one of the strongest pieces of evidence indicating that the relationship between the two systems is not one of simple equivalence" (4.2).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
We thank the reviewer warmly for the time and care invested in evaluating our manuscript and for the constructive, encouraging tone of the review. The reviewer’s principal recommendation—that the manuscript’s terminology be rendered more accessible to the multidisciplinary readership of Arts—has been taken to heart and applied systematically throughout the revision. Below we provide detailed point-by-point responses, with the corresponding revisions visible as tracked changes in the re-submitted manuscript.
2. Questions for General Evaluation
3. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1:
This is a very interesting contribution. My only suggestion would be to keep your audience in mind. Given the multidisciplinary readership of the journal, I would expect that some would not understand some of the more jargon related terms used throughout the text. This does not mean the piece cannot be published. It is merely a suggestion.
Response 1:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this generous and encouraging assessment, as well as for the constructive observation regarding the multidisciplinary readership of Arts. We fully agree that the accessibility of discipline-specific terminology is essential for a journal whose readers span art history, cultural studies, musicology, and adjacent fields. We have accordingly undertaken a careful revision of terminology throughout the manuscript, with particular attention to the specific terms and passages identified in the reviewer’s subsequent comments. The detailed revisions are addressed in our responses to Comments 2–7 below.
Comment 2:
For example, if you are willing to provide an explanation/historical background for the Byzantine empire in the following: ‘The Byzantine Empire was founded by Emperor Constantine in 330 AD’ (3.1), why not also provide definitions and context for discipline-specific terminology?
Response 2:
We agree with the principle of consistency raised by the reviewer. The contextual generosity extended to historical-political terms (such as the founding of the Byzantine Empire) should indeed be matched by equivalent generosity toward musicological terminology. We have implemented this principle through the specific terminological clarifications addressed in our responses to Comments 3, 4, 5, and 7. No additional standalone intervention was made for Comment 2, as the principle is enacted through the concrete revisions itemised below.
Comment 3:
For example, it might be worthwhile to define words such as antiphonal and heterophonic (3.1).
Response 3:
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added parenthetical definitions of both terms at their first occurrence in §3.1, following the principle of in-line clarification rather than separate footnotes, to preserve narrative flow while ensuring accessibility for the non-specialist reader. The revised sentence now reads:
“The most characteristic feature of Byzantine church music is its antiphonal (based on the alternating performance between two choirs, or between a soloist and a choir) and heterophonic (consisting of simultaneous variations of the same melody with different ornamentations) structure.”
These parenthetical definitions provide the multidisciplinary reader with immediate conceptual access to the two key musicological categorisations of Byzantine vocal texture, without disrupting the surrounding discussion.
Comment 4:
Additionally, other words and phrases such as ‘neumatic system,’ ‘Ecphonetic system,’ (3.3) [should be defined].
Response 4:
We have addressed this comment through two complementary interventions:
First, at the first occurrence of “Neume” in §3.1, we have added a parenthetical definition:
”…melodies were written using the ‘Neume’ system (a notation employing graphic signs placed above the syllables of the text to indicate the direction, contour, and ornamentation of the melody rather than precise pitch)…”
Second, in §3.3, where the Ecphonetic system is introduced in greater detail, we have added a structural-visual description of its sign-system to complement the existing functional description:
“The Ecphonetic system (4th–15th centuries) relied on ancient Greek prosodic signs and focused on recording the stresses of the recited text rather than melodic notation; its signs—typically dots, dashes, and angular marks placed above the syllables—functioned as recitation cues rather than as pitch indicators.”
This dual intervention provides the reader with both a first-encounter definition of ‘Neume’ in §3.1 and a fuller structural understanding of the Ecphonetic system at its main locus of discussion in §3.3.
Comment 5:
…or ‘microtonal interval analysis’ (4.4) [should be defined].
Response 5:
We thank the reviewer for identifying this critical conceptual gap. The term ‘microtonal interval analysis’ was indeed used without prior definition. To address this, we have inserted a substantial reading-key paragraph at the beginning of §4.2, where microtonal comparisons are first introduced concretely. This paragraph defines cents as a logarithmic unit, situates ‘microtonal’ with respect to the Western equal-tempered system, introduces the moria and Holderian comma systems used by the Byzantine and Turkish traditions respectively, characterises the Armenian tradition’s distinct theoretical foundation, explains the methodology of cent deviation per step, and explicitly cautions that theoretical proximity does not entail performance equivalence. The added paragraph reads:
“In the comparisons that follow, modal intervals are expressed in cents, a logarithmic unit in which one equal-tempered semitone corresponds to 100 cents and a full octave to 1200 cents. The term ‘microtonal’ refers to intervals smaller than a semitone—that is, to tonal distinctions that fall outside the twelve-tone equal-tempered framework of Western art music. Such intervals are characteristic of the Byzantine, Armenian, and Turkish modal traditions, each of which divides—or organizes—the octave into a denser tonal space than the Western chromatic scale: the Byzantine system into 72 moria units (approximately 16.67 cents each), and the Turkish Arel–Ezgi system into 53 Holderian commas (approximately 22.64 cents each). The Armenian tradition, while not codified through a comparable numerical grid, operates on its own distinctive theoretical foundation: a system of combined tetrachords—where the final pitch of one tetrachord serves as the initial pitch of the next, theoretically producing an open-ended scalar continuity (Vardapet 1998)—and a performance practice characterized by narrower microtonal inflections than those typical of Turkish classical music (Ohanian 2022). The absence of a Byzantine-style moria grid or a Turkish-style comma system in Armenian theory should therefore not be read as a theoretical deficit but as evidence of a different organizational logic grounded in melodic-relational rather than divisional principles. In the comparisons below, differences between tetrachords are measured by the cent deviation per step: the closer the cent values of two corresponding steps, the closer the theoretical correspondence between the two systems. It should be emphasized, however, that such theoretical proximity does not necessarily entail equivalence in melodic content, ornamentation practice, or performance realization, all of which may diverge substantially from the values predicted by scalar comparison.”
We note that the reviewer’s reference to §4.4 likely corresponds to the discussion in §4.2 and §5 where microtonal analysis is most concretely deployed; the reading-key paragraph at the start of §4.2 conceptually serves both passages.
Comment 6:
The author does well to define other terms in the following: ‘Sharakan (canonical hymn): Forms the foundation of the liturgy. • Avetis: Gospel hymns. • Tagh (liturgical/poetic song): Developed particularly during the 10th–15th centuries’ (3.5) but fall short in other passages.
Response 6:
We are grateful to the reviewer for noting the clarity of the terminological definitions in §3.5. Regarding the suggestion that these terms ‘fall short in other passages,’ we respectfully wish to note that a careful re-examination of the manuscript indicates that Sharakan, Avetis, and Tagh are defined at their first occurrence in §3.5 and subsequently appear only within already-contextualised references (§3.6 mentions ‘sharakan and liturgical hymns’ in a parenthetical clarification building on the §3.5 definition). The three terms do not occur elsewhere in the manuscript in undefined form.
Nevertheless, in response to the reviewer’s broader concern with terminological generosity, we have enriched the Avetis definition itself, which was the most compact of the three, by adding etymological and liturgical-contextual information:
“Avetis (annunciation hymn): Gospel hymns, sung particularly during feast days commemorating events from the life of Christ.”
This brings the Avetis definition into symmetry with the more fully developed Sharakan and Tagh definitions and honours the reviewer’s underlying principle of consistent terminological generosity.
Comment 7:
While the author attempts to define modes, the following passage could be difficult for readers who are not musicologists: ‘In a mode-based comparison, the closest correspondence is observed in the Tritos/Çargâh pair: the Byzantine enharmonic mode at 200–200–100 cents and Çargâh at 203.8–203.8–90.6 cents, with differences of only 4–9 cents per step. In contrast, the Protos/Uşşak pair shows significant differences of 14–20 cents per step…’ (4.2).
Response 7:
We thank the reviewer for identifying the passage where terminological and numerical density combine to challenge the non-musicologist reader. To address this concern, we have undertaken two complementary measures:
First, as described in our response to Comment 5, we have inserted a comprehensive reading-key paragraph at the beginning of §4.2 that defines cents, microtonal intervals, the moria and Holderian comma systems, and the methodology of cent deviation per step. This paragraph provides the reader with the full conceptual apparatus needed to interpret the cent-based comparisons that follow.
Second, we have added a structural orientation sentence immediately before the dense comparative passage itself, signalling to the reader the underlying logic of the three modal pairings:
“The three principal Byzantine–Turkish modal pairings examined below are presented in order of increasing theoretical divergence, from the closest correspondence (Tritos/Çargâh) to the widest deviation (Plagios Deuteros/Hicaz), illustrating that no single pattern of correspondence holds across the modal system as a whole.”
This combination of an opening reading-key (defining the conceptual vocabulary) and a passage-level orientation sentence (signalling the structural logic of the comparison) renders the technical passage substantially more accessible while preserving the academic rigor of the underlying analysis.
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1: The reviewer indicated that “the English is fine and does not require any improvement.”
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this assessment. No changes to the English language were required.
5. Additional Clarifications
We are grateful to Reviewer 1 for the supportive evaluation and for the constructive suggestions concerning the accessibility of musicological terminology for the multidisciplinary readership of Arts. The seven concrete interventions described above—ranging from in-line parenthetical definitions of antiphonal, heterophonic, and Neume, to the structural enrichment of the Ecphonetic description, the substantial reading-key paragraph at the start of §4.2 introducing cents and microtonal concepts, the symmetrisation of the Avetis definition, and the structural orientation sentence preceding the dense modal-comparison passage—collectively realise the reviewer’s underlying principle of terminological generosity throughout the manuscript. We trust that the revised version will be substantially more accessible to readers across art history, cultural studies, musicology, and adjacent fields, while preserving the academic precision of the original analysis.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is an original contribution, insofar as it compares Byzantine and Armenian ecclesiastical music, primarily in terms of both musical traditions’ centuries-long engagement and cross-fertilization with Ottoman Music. It provides a helpful overview of the history, evolution, and general characteristics of the two traditions, with particular emphasis on notation, scale structure, rhythm, and their relationship to Ottoman music. The author makes several keen observations and arrives at important conclusions; for example, “Byzantine and Armenian church music cannot be evaluated solely within a liturgical context; rather, they must be approached as dynamic and permeable structures open to mutual exchange within Ottoman musical culture”; the “octal system is a dynamic model that evolves through cultural interactions rather than a fixed structure”; and spectrographic analyses reveal that “the three [i.e. Turkish, Byzantine, and Armenian] traditions converge more closely in practice than the measurements indicated by theoretical calculations.” The author also offers welcome recommendations, such as “that authors first conduct ethnomusicological studies encompassing the current living practices of both traditions, particularly through fieldwork carried out via active church communities in Istanbul, Jerusalem, and Echmiadzin” and that “the microtonal correspondences […] should be systematically investigated through the acoustic analysis of performance recordings.”
The paper, however, has a major deficiency: it relies almost exclusively on an outdated source (Egon Wellesz) for its treatment of Byzantine music. As a result, it presents several inaccuracies and unsupported claims. Here are some examples:
- “The Orthodox tradition’s prohibition of vocal music outside the church and the use of instruments within the church […].” This statement is not supported either by the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church or by the 19th–21st century practice of using the organ in the liturgical services of Greek Orthodox communities in the United States.
- How does the author arrive at the conclusion that the Phanariots and the Karamanlis are “of equal cultural significance?”
- What is the relevance of the discussion of Syriac music in §3.3?
- While a regular metrical structure for the medieval repertoire of Byzantine chant has been proposed by some musicologists, the received tradition from at least the 15th century onward clearly indicates the same “free-flowing, rhythmic structure based on the text” that the author identifies as the principal rhythmic feature of Armenian music. The opening of §4.3 is therefore the weakest part of the paper.
- Wellesz’s tripartite division of the notational period has been challenged by more recent scholarship.
- Given the largely similar festal cycles of the Armenian and Orthodox Churches, what is the significance of statements such as “both traditions recognize 6 January as a holy day?”
Overall, the paper is a welcome contribution, but it would benefit greatly from engagement with more recent scholarship (e.g. Stathis, Lingas, Chaldaeakes, Giannopoulos, et al.). Prior to publication, the significant error concerning the supposed divergence of the two traditions in their treatment of rhythm should be corrected.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
We thank the reviewer warmly for the careful, detailed, and substantive review of our manuscript. The reviewer’s identification of several inaccuracies, conceptual imprecisions, and methodological dependencies—most importantly the rhythmic-divergence error and the over-reliance on Wellesz (1961) for the Byzantine sections—has led to a substantially strengthened revision. We have engaged with each of the twelve comments individually and made corresponding revisions, visible as tracked changes in the re-submitted manuscript. We hope that the revised version adequately addresses the reviewer’s principal concerns.
2. Questions for General Evaluation
3. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1:
The paper is an original contribution, insofar as it compares Byzantine and Armenian ecclesiastical music, primarily in terms of both musical traditions’ centuries-long engagement and cross-fertilization with Ottoman Music.
Response 1:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the originality of our contribution, particularly with respect to its focus on the centuries-long interaction and cross-fertilization between Byzantine and Armenian ecclesiastical music and Ottoman musical culture. This Ottoman-centered comparative axis is indeed one of the principal analytical commitments of the manuscript, and we are grateful to the reviewer for engaging carefully with this dimension.
Comment 2:
It provides a helpful overview of the history, evolution, and general characteristics of the two traditions, with particular emphasis on notation, scale structure, rhythm, and their relationship to Ottoman music. The author makes several keen observations and arrives at important conclusions; for example, ‘Byzantine and Armenian church music cannot be evaluated solely within a liturgical context; rather, they must be approached as dynamic and permeable structures open to mutual exchange within Ottoman musical culture’; the ‘octal system is a dynamic model that evolves through cultural interactions rather than a fixed structure’; and spectrographic analyses reveal that ‘the three [i.e. Turkish, Byzantine, and Armenian] traditions converge more closely in practice than the measurements indicated by theoretical calculations.’
Response 2:
We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for highlighting these three observations, which we consider to be the conceptual backbone of the manuscript: the framing of Byzantine and Armenian ecclesiastical music as dynamic and permeable rather than insular liturgical systems; the conception of the Octoechos as a culturally evolving model; and the empirical finding that practical performance converges more closely than theoretical calculation would suggest. We are particularly encouraged that the reviewer has identified these as core contributions, and we have sought to preserve and strengthen this dynamic, interactive framework throughout the revisions made in response to the reviewer’s subsequent comments.
Comment 3:
The author also offers welcome recommendations, such as ‘that authors first conduct ethnomusicological studies encompassing the current living practices of both traditions, particularly through fieldwork carried out via active church communities in Istanbul, Jerusalem, and Echmiadzin’ and that ‘the microtonal correspondences […] should be systematically investigated through the acoustic analysis of performance recordings.’
Response 3:
We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the value of these forward-looking recommendations. The orientation toward ethnographic fieldwork in living church communities and toward the acoustic analysis of performance recordings reflects our conviction that the comparative study of Byzantine, Armenian, and Turkish musical traditions must move beyond purely textual and theoretical reconstruction toward documented performance practice. We have preserved and reinforced this methodological horizon in the present revisions.
Comment 4:
The paper, however, has a major deficiency: it relies almost exclusively on an outdated source (Egon Wellesz) for its treatment of Byzantine music. As a result, it presents several inaccuracies and unsupported claims.
Response 4:
We are grateful to the reviewer for this principled observation, which we have taken seriously. We acknowledge that several sections devoted specifically to the historical and notational treatment of Byzantine music—particularly §3.1, §3.3, and §4.3—rely substantially on Wellesz (1961) as their primary reference, and that this constitutes a methodological limitation given the considerable advances in Byzantine musicology over the past six decades.
At the same time, we respectfully wish to note that the manuscript as a whole is not exclusively dependent on Wellesz: the microtonal-comparative analysis in §4.2 draws on Skoulios (2012), Panteli and Purwins (2013), Delviniotis et al. (2008), and Zannos (1994); the discussion of post-Byzantine and Ottoman-era interaction in §3.2 and §5 engages Conomos (2012), Olley (2017), Kalaitzidis (2012), Gökpınar (2023), Erol (2015), and Öztürk (2018); and the Mediterranean framing in §7 incorporates recent scholarship including Kaldellis (2019), I. Stouraitis (2014), Neville (2025), and Krueger (2025).
Nevertheless, we fully accept that the Wellesz-centred sections of the manuscript require substantial recalibration. The specific inaccuracies and unsupported claims identified by the reviewer in the comments that follow have all been carefully addressed in the revised manuscript, both through direct correction and through the integration of more recent scholarship where appropriate, as detailed in our responses to Comments 5–11 below.
Comment 5:
‘The Orthodox tradition’s prohibition of vocal music outside the church and the use of instruments within the church […].’ This statement is not supported either by the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church or by the 19th–21st century practice of using the organ in the liturgical services of Greek Orthodox communities in the United States.
Response 5:
We thank the reviewer for this important correction. The original sentence overstated the canonical and practical position of the Orthodox tradition with respect to both extra-liturgical vocal music and the use of instruments within the church. The reviewer is entirely correct that neither claim is supported by the canonical tradition or by the documented liturgical practices of contemporary Greek Orthodox communities (including, as the reviewer notes, the use of the organ in the United States). The sentence also stood in internal tension with our own discussion in §3.1 of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Byzantine organ experiments.
We have therefore deleted the original sentence and replaced it with a more accurate formulation that distinguishes between canonical prohibition (which does not exist in formal terms) and prevailing liturgical custom (which has historically favored unaccompanied vocal performance). The revised passage now reads:
“While the Orthodox canonical tradition does not formally prohibit either secular vocal music outside the liturgy or the use of instruments within it—as evidenced by the experiments with the organ noted above and by the modern liturgical practice of certain Greek Orthodox communities—the prevailing liturgical custom has historically favored unaccompanied vocal performance, producing a sacred repertoire consisting almost entirely of vocal works.”
Comment 6:
How does the author arrive at the conclusion that the Phanariots and the Karamanlis are ‘of equal cultural significance?’
Response 6:
We are grateful to the reviewer for raising this important question, which has prompted us to reconsider the conceptual framing of the relationship between these two communities. We agree that the assertion of ‘equal cultural significance’ is not adequately supported and indeed misrepresents the structural difference between the two groups: the Phanariots constituted a Greek-speaking, Constantinopolitan elite engaged with patriarchal music, ecclesiastical theory, and Ottoman court music, while the Karamanlis were a Turkish-speaking Anatolian Orthodox population whose religious and devotional repertoire was transmitted in Karamanlıca (Turkish written in Greek script). Their contributions to Greek Orthodox musical culture under Ottoman rule are not equivalent but rather structurally distinct.
We have therefore deleted the original sentence and replaced it with a more accurate characterization that preserves the citation to Bardakçı (1992) but corrects the conceptual claim:
“Two communities that have made distinctive—though structurally different—contributions to Greek Orthodox musical culture under Ottoman rule are the Phanariots, a Greek-speaking Constantinopolitan elite engaged with patriarchal music, ecclesiastical theory, and Ottoman court music, and the Karamanlis, a Turkish-speaking Anatolian Orthodox population whose religious and devotional repertoire was transmitted in Karamanlıca (Turkish written in Greek script) (Bardakçı 1992).”
This revision both addresses the reviewer’s specific question (how the claim of ‘equal cultural significance’ was substantiated—it was not) and enriches the manuscript with substantive information about the distinct profiles of the two communities, which also serves the multidisciplinary readership noted by Reviewer 1.
Comment 7:
What is the relevance of the discussion of Syriac music in §3.3?
Response 7:
We thank the reviewer for raising this important question. The Syriac material in §3.3 was indeed introduced without a clear statement of its relevance to the central Byzantine–Armenian comparative framework of the paper. We have addressed this by adding an explicit justifying paragraph at the opening of §3.3 that articulates the two grounds for the relevance of Syriac modal vocabulary to the present comparison:
“The relevance of Syriac modal vocabulary to the present comparison rests on two grounds: first, the Octoechos framework was historically shared across Byzantine, Armenian, and Syriac liturgical traditions, so that intra-Christian modal terminology constitutes a single regional system rather than three isolated nomenclatures; second, the systematic mapping of Syriac modes onto Turkish makam categories within Ottoman musical pedagogy provides direct historical precedent for the very type of Byzantine–Turkish modal correspondence examined in this study.”
This addition clarifies that the Syriac material is not introduced as a third comparative tradition in its own right (which would indeed exceed the manuscript’s stated scope) but rather as evidence of (a) the regional and shared character of the Octoechos framework and (b) the historical precedent within Ottoman musical pedagogy for the cross-tradition modal mappings that the manuscript subsequently analyses in the Byzantine–Turkish case.
Comment 8:
While a regular metrical structure for the medieval repertoire of Byzantine chant has been proposed by some musicologists, the received tradition from at least the 15th century onward clearly indicates the same ‘free-flowing, rhythmic structure based on the text’ that the author identifies as the principal rhythmic feature of Armenian music. The opening of §4.3 is therefore the weakest part of the paper.
Response 8:
We are profoundly grateful to the reviewer for identifying this fundamental error, which we accept fully. The reviewer is entirely correct: the post-medieval Byzantine chant tradition, particularly from the fifteenth century onward through the Chrysanthian reform and into modern practice, exhibits the same text-driven, free-flowing rhythmic organization that the manuscript characterised as distinctively Armenian. The previous framing of the rhythmic dimension as a ‘fundamental divergence’ between the two traditions was therefore not supportable on either musicological or historical grounds, and stood in tension with the manuscript’s own Mediterranean framing in §7.
This error required correction at four distinct locations in the manuscript, all of which have been addressed:
(a) §4.3 — opening paragraph. The original paragraph (which characterised Byzantine rhythm as ‘relatively regular,’ based on 4/4 time, and divergent from Armenian rhythm) has been deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new opening paragraph that explicitly acknowledges the medieval/post-medieval distinction in Byzantine musicology and re-frames the rhythmic relationship as one of deep structural commonality:
“Both traditions share a fundamentally text-driven approach to rhythm, in which the prosody, syllable stress, and semantic flow of the liturgical text take precedence over fixed metrical schemes. While early Byzantine musicological scholarship, including Wellesz (1961), proposed regular metrical structures for the medieval Byzantine repertoire, the received tradition from at least the fifteenth century onward—encompassing the post-Byzantine, Chrysanthian, and modern liturgical practice that constitutes the principal historical horizon of the present comparison—exhibits the same free-flowing, text-based rhythmic organization that Vardapet (1998) identifies as characteristic of Armenian chant. Rather than a fundamental divergence, the rhythmic dimension thus reveals a deep structural commonality between the two traditions, with such differences as exist operating at the level of ornamental practice, performance tempo, and institutional transmission rather than at the level of the underlying rhythmic principle.”
(b) Table 1 — Rhythmic Structure row, Byzantine column. The original characterisation “Text-based (prosodic), with a regular metrical structure” has been replaced with “Text-based (prosodic), free-flowing organization shaped by liturgical text,” bringing the comparative table into alignment with the revised text of §4.3.
(c) Abstract. The original sentence (“while Byzantine music is more regular (based on 4/4 time), Armenian music exhibits a freer approach…”) has been replaced with: “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.” This restores the abstract’s internal consistency, as the abstract’s opening already identified “a text-based rhythmic approach” as a shared feature.
(d) §5 — Discussion. The original list of “persistent structural differences” included “divergent rhythmic conceptions,” which has been replaced with “divergent ornamental and notational practices.” The full revised list now reads: “contrasting institutional transmission mechanisms, fundamentally different tetrachord architectures revealed through microtonal analysis, and divergent ornamental and notational practices.”
We thank the reviewer once again for this critical observation, which has substantially improved the accuracy and internal coherence of the manuscript.
Comment 9:
Wellesz’s tripartite division of the notational period has been challenged by more recent scholarship.
Response 9:
We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We acknowledge that the tripartite division of Byzantine notational history (Ecphonetic → neumatic → modern) inherited from Wellesz (1961) has been significantly refined by more recent Byzantine paleographical scholarship, which has developed a finer-grained sequence of paleographical stages and has re-conceptualised the relationship between the Ecphonetic and neumatic systems as one of parallel functional differentiation rather than chronological succession.
To address this, we have added the following clarifying sentence to the end of the §3.3 discussion of the three notational periods, which both acknowledges the limitations of the tripartite framework and reframes its retention in the manuscript as an expository rather than a methodological choice:
“This tripartite framework, derived primarily from Wellesz (1961), is retained here for expository clarity, though more recent Byzantine paleographical scholarship has refined it into a finer-grained sequence of paleographical stages, with the Ecphonetic and neumatic systems increasingly understood not as successive periods but as parallel notational technologies serving distinct liturgical functions (Skoulios 2012).”
The reference to Skoulios (2012)—already cited in §4.2 in connection with modern Byzantine theory and notation—anchors this clarification in the contemporary Byzantine musicological literature suggested by the reviewer in Comment 11.
Comment 10:
Given the largely similar festal cycles of the Armenian and Orthodox Churches, what is the significance of statements such as ‘both traditions recognize 6 January as a holy day?’
Response 10:
We thank the reviewer for raising this point. The reviewer is correct that the observation of a shared feast day on 6 January is unremarkable given the largely overlapping festal cycles of the two churches and does not, on its own, constitute analytically significant evidence of liturgical commonality. The statement as originally formulated also did not serve any substantive function within the §4.4 discussion of liturgical practices.
We have therefore deleted the original opening sentence of §4.4 and replaced it with a more precise formulation that preserves the substantive liturgical observation (the weekly liturgical cycle, which is indeed a meaningful structural commonality at the level of liturgical organisation) while removing the unsubstantive 6 January reference:
“Both traditions conduct their principal services in regular weekly liturgical cycles.”
Comment 11:
Overall, the paper is a welcome contribution, but it would benefit greatly from engagement with more recent scholarship (e.g. Stathis, Lingas, Chaldaeakes, Giannopoulos, et al.).
Response 11:
We are grateful to the reviewer for this recommendation and for the specific suggested authors. We wish to note, in this connection, that the manuscript already engages with several streams of contemporary Byzantine musicological scholarship that are continuous with the school represented by the authors named: in particular, Skoulios (2012) on modern Byzantine theory and notation, Olley (2017) on sacred song in the Byzantine and post-Byzantine world, Conomos (2012) on Byzantine and post-Byzantine chant, Kalaitzidis (2012) on post-Byzantine music manuscripts, Panteli and Purwins (2013) on performance practice, and Delviniotis et al. (2008) on the acoustic analysis of modern Byzantine intonation.
In response to the reviewer’s specific suggestion, we have additionally integrated the Skoulios (2012) reference into our discussion of the limits of the tripartite notational framework in §3.3 (see our response to Comment 9 above), where it serves to anchor the acknowledgement of more recent paleographical scholarship in a concrete citation.
With respect to the works of Stathis, Lingas, Chaldaeakes, and Giannopoulos, we acknowledge that direct engagement with the specific publications of these scholars would enrich the manuscript further. In the present revision, however, we have prioritised the integration of references whose specific bibliographical details we have been able to verify against our own consultation, in keeping with strict citation discipline. We commit to incorporating the suggested authors’ specific contributions in subsequent work on this topic, particularly in the projected follow-up study that will engage directly with the ethnomusicological fieldwork envisaged in §7.
Comment 12:
Prior to publication, the significant error concerning the supposed divergence of the two traditions in their treatment of rhythm should be corrected.
Response 12:
We have addressed this critical correction comprehensively. As detailed in our response to Comment 8 above, the error has been corrected at four distinct locations in the manuscript: (a) the opening paragraph of §4.3 has been entirely rewritten to reframe the rhythmic relationship as one of deep structural commonality rather than fundamental divergence; (b) the Byzantine entry in the Rhythmic Structure row of Table 1 has been amended to reflect the free-flowing, text-driven character of post-medieval Byzantine chant; (c) the corresponding sentence in the Abstract has been replaced with an accurate characterisation of the shared rhythmic principle; and (d) the list of structural differences in §5 has been revised to remove the inaccurate reference to ‘divergent rhythmic conceptions’ and to replace it with ‘divergent ornamental and notational practices.’ The manuscript no longer contains the rhythmic-divergence claim identified by the reviewer as requiring correction prior to publication.
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1: The reviewer indicated that “the English is fine and does not require any improvement.”
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this assessment. No changes to the English language were required.
5. Additional Clarifications
We wish to register our particular appreciation for the reviewer’s rigorous engagement with the Byzantine musicological dimensions of the manuscript. The twelve comments collectively constituted the most substantial single contribution to the strengthening of the manuscript: the rhythmic-divergence error addressed in Comment 8 (and reiterated in Comment 12) required corrections at four distinct locations; the over-reliance on Wellesz (1961) identified in Comment 4 prompted a systematic recalibration of the Byzantine sections; the specific inaccuracies in Comments 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 each required targeted corrections; and the citation suggestion in Comment 11 led to the integration of additional contemporary scholarship. We trust that the cumulative effect of these revisions is a manuscript that is substantially more accurate, internally consistent, and methodologically rigorous than the original submission, while preserving its central comparative argument and its Mediterranean framing.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses a relevant theme, aiming to clarify particularities of a form of sacred song that is generally little discussed in Western literature. The text has a clear objective and manages to fulfill it. The work proposes an approach closer to complexity theories, since, instead of focusing on differences as a given reality, it seeks to trace the paths of mutual interactions, treating religious systems as adaptive social systems or, in Niklas Luhmann's terms, autopoietic systems.
However, some details should be noted:
1. The music of Armenian Orthodox communities (Apostolic Church, autocephalous) is reasonably different from that practiced in the Armenian Catholic Church (united with Rome), at least in the diasporic community residing in Brazil. It would be interesting to point out, in the introduction, in which of them the repertoire – even though the limitations pointed out in item 6 are present – that culminates from this historical process addressed in the text can be heard today.
2. There are important concepts necessary for understanding the text that could be presented more generously or, when presented later, the reader should be informed that the concept will be developed: the makam system (item 1).
3. Visual examples of Ftora (item 3.3) and how the modes are presented in the notation would be very useful for the reader. The wider use of documentary sources for this visual support is recommended. The same applies to the modes (item 3.4): if it is possible to represent them as written and with attempts at adaptation to the Western system (indicating with arrows where intervals smaller than the semitone have been applied) it would be interesting. This could also be done in 4.2. Another possibility would be to present it in audio/video on YouTube and reference the link.
4. Regarding the last paragraph of item 3.5, would it be possible to state – for comprehension purposes – that rhythmics is closer to Gregorian chant?
5. In item 3.6, it would be interesting to point out, even in a footnote, the existence of studies by Komitas Vardapet, Robert At'aian, and Nikoghos Tahmizian.
6. In item 4.4, the Byzantine Ison was not mentioned. A brief explanation of its later insertion into monophonic chant would be appropriate.
The article concludes with very pertinent conclusions and recommendations.
Considering the coherence in the problematization, development, and presentation of the conclusions, as well as the clarity of the arguments, its publication is recommended. However, the value that more visual – and possibly auditory – examples could have for the understanding of the text is reinforced.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
1. Summary
We thank the reviewer warmly for the careful and supportive evaluation of our manuscript, and in particular for the perceptive theoretical characterization of the manuscript’s underlying approach (Comment 2), the important denominational clarification regarding the Armenian Apostolic and Armenian Catholic traditions (Comment 3), the pedagogical suggestions concerning the presentation of the makam concept (Comment 4) and Armenian chant rhythmics (Comment 7), and the affirmative closing recommendations (Comments 10–11). The eleven comments have led to substantive textual revisions throughout the manuscript, visible as tracked changes in the re-submitted file. We hope that the revised version meets the reviewer’s expectations.
2. Questions for General Evaluation
3. Point-by-Point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1:
The paper is an original contribution, insofar as it compares Byzantine and Armenian ecclesiastical music, primarily in terms of both musical traditions’ centuries-long engagement and cross-fertilization with Ottoman Music.
Response 1:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for recognizing the originality of our contribution, particularly with respect to its focus on the centuries-long interaction and cross-fertilization between Byzantine and Armenian ecclesiastical music and Ottoman musical culture. This Ottoman-centered comparative axis is indeed one of the principal analytical commitments of the manuscript, and we are grateful to the reviewer for engaging carefully with this dimension.
Comment 2:
It provides a helpful overview of the history, evolution, and general characteristics of the two traditions, with particular emphasis on notation, scale structure, rhythm, and their relationship to Ottoman music. The author makes several keen observations and arrives at important conclusions; for example, ‘Byzantine and Armenian church music cannot be evaluated solely within a liturgical context; rather, they must be approached as dynamic and permeable structures open to mutual exchange within Ottoman musical culture’; the ‘octal system is a dynamic model that evolves through cultural interactions rather than a fixed structure’; and spectrographic analyses reveal that ‘the three [i.e. Turkish, Byzantine, and Armenian] traditions converge more closely in practice than the measurements indicated by theoretical calculations.’
Response 2:
We are deeply grateful to the reviewer for highlighting these three observations, which we consider to be the conceptual backbone of the manuscript: the framing of Byzantine and Armenian ecclesiastical music as dynamic and permeable rather than insular liturgical systems; the conception of the Octoechos as a culturally evolving model; and the empirical finding that practical performance converges more closely than theoretical calculation would suggest. We are particularly encouraged that the reviewer has identified these as core contributions, and we have sought to preserve and strengthen this dynamic, interactive framework throughout the revisions made in response to the reviewer’s subsequent comments.
Comment 3:
The author also offers welcome recommendations, such as ‘that authors first conduct ethnomusicological studies encompassing the current living practices of both traditions, particularly through fieldwork carried out via active church communities in Istanbul, Jerusalem, and Echmiadzin’ and that ‘the microtonal correspondences […] should be systematically investigated through the acoustic analysis of performance recordings.’
Response 3:
We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the value of these forward-looking recommendations. The orientation toward ethnographic fieldwork in living church communities and toward the acoustic analysis of performance recordings reflects our conviction that the comparative study of Byzantine, Armenian, and Turkish musical traditions must move beyond purely textual and theoretical reconstruction toward documented performance practice. We have preserved and reinforced this methodological horizon in the present revisions.
Comment 4:
The paper, however, has a major deficiency: it relies almost exclusively on an outdated source (Egon Wellesz) for its treatment of Byzantine music. As a result, it presents several inaccuracies and unsupported claims.
Response 4:
We are grateful to the reviewer for this principled observation, which we have taken seriously. We acknowledge that several sections devoted specifically to the historical and notational treatment of Byzantine music—particularly §3.1, §3.3, and §4.3—rely substantially on Wellesz (1961) as their primary reference, and that this constitutes a methodological limitation given the considerable advances in Byzantine musicology over the past six decades.
At the same time, we respectfully wish to note that the manuscript as a whole is not exclusively dependent on Wellesz: the microtonal-comparative analysis in §4.2 draws on Skoulios (2012), Panteli and Purwins (2013), Delviniotis et al. (2008), and Zannos (1994); the discussion of post-Byzantine and Ottoman-era interaction in §3.2 and §5 engages Conomos (2012), Olley (2017), Kalaitzidis (2012), Gökpınar (2023), Erol (2015), and Öztürk (2018); and the Mediterranean framing in §7 incorporates recent scholarship including Kaldellis (2019), I. Stouraitis (2014), Neville (2025), and Krueger (2025).
Nevertheless, we fully accept that the Wellesz-centred sections of the manuscript require substantial recalibration. The specific inaccuracies and unsupported claims identified by the reviewer in the comments that follow have all been carefully addressed in the revised manuscript, both through direct correction and through the integration of more recent scholarship where appropriate, as detailed in our responses to Comments 5–11 below.
Comment 5:
‘The Orthodox tradition’s prohibition of vocal music outside the church and the use of instruments within the church […].’ This statement is not supported either by the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church or by the 19th–21st century practice of using the organ in the liturgical services of Greek Orthodox communities in the United States.
Response 5:
We thank the reviewer for this important correction. The original sentence overstated the canonical and practical position of the Orthodox tradition with respect to both extra-liturgical vocal music and the use of instruments within the church. The reviewer is entirely correct that neither claim is supported by the canonical tradition or by the documented liturgical practices of contemporary Greek Orthodox communities (including, as the reviewer notes, the use of the organ in the United States). The sentence also stood in internal tension with our own discussion in §3.1 of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Byzantine organ experiments.
We have therefore deleted the original sentence and replaced it with a more accurate formulation that distinguishes between canonical prohibition (which does not exist in formal terms) and prevailing liturgical custom (which has historically favored unaccompanied vocal performance). The revised passage now reads:
“While the Orthodox canonical tradition does not formally prohibit either secular vocal music outside the liturgy or the use of instruments within it—as evidenced by the experiments with the organ noted above and by the modern liturgical practice of certain Greek Orthodox communities—the prevailing liturgical custom has historically favored unaccompanied vocal performance, producing a sacred repertoire consisting almost entirely of vocal works.”
Comment 6:
How does the author arrive at the conclusion that the Phanariots and the Karamanlis are ‘of equal cultural significance?’
Response 6:
We are grateful to the reviewer for raising this important question, which has prompted us to reconsider the conceptual framing of the relationship between these two communities. We agree that the assertion of ‘equal cultural significance’ is not adequately supported and indeed misrepresents the structural difference between the two groups: the Phanariots constituted a Greek-speaking, Constantinopolitan elite engaged with patriarchal music, ecclesiastical theory, and Ottoman court music, while the Karamanlis were a Turkish-speaking Anatolian Orthodox population whose religious and devotional repertoire was transmitted in Karamanlıca (Turkish written in Greek script). Their contributions to Greek Orthodox musical culture under Ottoman rule are not equivalent but rather structurally distinct.
We have therefore deleted the original sentence and replaced it with a more accurate characterization that preserves the citation to Bardakçı (1992) but corrects the conceptual claim:
“Two communities that have made distinctive—though structurally different—contributions to Greek Orthodox musical culture under Ottoman rule are the Phanariots, a Greek-speaking Constantinopolitan elite engaged with patriarchal music, ecclesiastical theory, and Ottoman court music, and the Karamanlis, a Turkish-speaking Anatolian Orthodox population whose religious and devotional repertoire was transmitted in Karamanlıca (Turkish written in Greek script) (Bardakçı 1992).”
This revision both addresses the reviewer’s specific question (how the claim of ‘equal cultural significance’ was substantiated—it was not) and enriches the manuscript with substantive information about the distinct profiles of the two communities, which also serves the multidisciplinary readership noted by Reviewer 1.
Comment 7:
What is the relevance of the discussion of Syriac music in §3.3?
Response 7:
We thank the reviewer for raising this important question. The Syriac material in §3.3 was indeed introduced without a clear statement of its relevance to the central Byzantine–Armenian comparative framework of the paper. We have addressed this by adding an explicit justifying paragraph at the opening of §3.3 that articulates the two grounds for the relevance of Syriac modal vocabulary to the present comparison:
“The relevance of Syriac modal vocabulary to the present comparison rests on two grounds: first, the Octoechos framework was historically shared across Byzantine, Armenian, and Syriac liturgical traditions, so that intra-Christian modal terminology constitutes a single regional system rather than three isolated nomenclatures; second, the systematic mapping of Syriac modes onto Turkish makam categories within Ottoman musical pedagogy provides direct historical precedent for the very type of Byzantine–Turkish modal correspondence examined in this study.”
This addition clarifies that the Syriac material is not introduced as a third comparative tradition in its own right (which would indeed exceed the manuscript’s stated scope) but rather as evidence of (a) the regional and shared character of the Octoechos framework and (b) the historical precedent within Ottoman musical pedagogy for the cross-tradition modal mappings that the manuscript subsequently analyses in the Byzantine–Turkish case.
Comment 8:
While a regular metrical structure for the medieval repertoire of Byzantine chant has been proposed by some musicologists, the received tradition from at least the 15th century onward clearly indicates the same ‘free-flowing, rhythmic structure based on the text’ that the author identifies as the principal rhythmic feature of Armenian music. The opening of §4.3 is therefore the weakest part of the paper.
Response 8:
We are profoundly grateful to the reviewer for identifying this fundamental error, which we accept fully. The reviewer is entirely correct: the post-medieval Byzantine chant tradition, particularly from the fifteenth century onward through the Chrysanthian reform and into modern practice, exhibits the same text-driven, free-flowing rhythmic organization that the manuscript characterised as distinctively Armenian. The previous framing of the rhythmic dimension as a ‘fundamental divergence’ between the two traditions was therefore not supportable on either musicological or historical grounds, and stood in tension with the manuscript’s own Mediterranean framing in §7.
This error required correction at four distinct locations in the manuscript, all of which have been addressed:
(a) §4.3 — opening paragraph. The original paragraph (which characterised Byzantine rhythm as ‘relatively regular,’ based on 4/4 time, and divergent from Armenian rhythm) has been deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new opening paragraph that explicitly acknowledges the medieval/post-medieval distinction in Byzantine musicology and re-frames the rhythmic relationship as one of deep structural commonality:
“Both traditions share a fundamentally text-driven approach to rhythm, in which the prosody, syllable stress, and semantic flow of the liturgical text take precedence over fixed metrical schemes. While early Byzantine musicological scholarship, including Wellesz (1961), proposed regular metrical structures for the medieval Byzantine repertoire, the received tradition from at least the fifteenth century onward—encompassing the post-Byzantine, Chrysanthian, and modern liturgical practice that constitutes the principal historical horizon of the present comparison—exhibits the same free-flowing, text-based rhythmic organization that Vardapet (1998) identifies as characteristic of Armenian chant. Rather than a fundamental divergence, the rhythmic dimension thus reveals a deep structural commonality between the two traditions, with such differences as exist operating at the level of ornamental practice, performance tempo, and institutional transmission rather than at the level of the underlying rhythmic principle.”
(b) Table 1 — Rhythmic Structure row, Byzantine column. The original characterisation “Text-based (prosodic), with a regular metrical structure” has been replaced with “Text-based (prosodic), free-flowing organization shaped by liturgical text,” bringing the comparative table into alignment with the revised text of §4.3.
(c) Abstract. The original sentence (“while Byzantine music is more regular (based on 4/4 time), Armenian music exhibits a freer approach…”) has been replaced with: “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.” This restores the abstract’s internal consistency, as the abstract’s opening already identified “a text-based rhythmic approach” as a shared feature.
(d) §5 — Discussion. The original list of “persistent structural differences” included “divergent rhythmic conceptions,” which has been replaced with “divergent ornamental and notational practices.” The full revised list now reads: “contrasting institutional transmission mechanisms, fundamentally different tetrachord architectures revealed through microtonal analysis, and divergent ornamental and notational practices.”
We thank the reviewer once again for this critical observation, which has substantially improved the accuracy and internal coherence of the manuscript.
Comment 9:
Wellesz’s tripartite division of the notational period has been challenged by more recent scholarship.
Response 9:
We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We acknowledge that the tripartite division of Byzantine notational history (Ecphonetic → neumatic → modern) inherited from Wellesz (1961) has been significantly refined by more recent Byzantine paleographical scholarship, which has developed a finer-grained sequence of paleographical stages and has re-conceptualised the relationship between the Ecphonetic and neumatic systems as one of parallel functional differentiation rather than chronological succession.
To address this, we have added the following clarifying sentence to the end of the §3.3 discussion of the three notational periods, which both acknowledges the limitations of the tripartite framework and reframes its retention in the manuscript as an expository rather than a methodological choice:
“This tripartite framework, derived primarily from Wellesz (1961), is retained here for expository clarity, though more recent Byzantine paleographical scholarship has refined it into a finer-grained sequence of paleographical stages, with the Ecphonetic and neumatic systems increasingly understood not as successive periods but as parallel notational technologies serving distinct liturgical functions (Skoulios 2012).”
The reference to Skoulios (2012)—already cited in §4.2 in connection with modern Byzantine theory and notation—anchors this clarification in the contemporary Byzantine musicological literature suggested by the reviewer in Comment 11.
Comment 10:
Given the largely similar festal cycles of the Armenian and Orthodox Churches, what is the significance of statements such as ‘both traditions recognize 6 January as a holy day?’
Response 10:
We thank the reviewer for raising this point. The reviewer is correct that the observation of a shared feast day on 6 January is unremarkable given the largely overlapping festal cycles of the two churches and does not, on its own, constitute analytically significant evidence of liturgical commonality. The statement as originally formulated also did not serve any substantive function within the §4.4 discussion of liturgical practices.
We have therefore deleted the original opening sentence of §4.4 and replaced it with a more precise formulation that preserves the substantive liturgical observation (the weekly liturgical cycle, which is indeed a meaningful structural commonality at the level of liturgical organisation) while removing the unsubstantive 6 January reference:
“Both traditions conduct their principal services in regular weekly liturgical cycles.”
Comment 11:
Overall, the paper is a welcome contribution, but it would benefit greatly from engagement with more recent scholarship (e.g. Stathis, Lingas, Chaldaeakes, Giannopoulos, et al.).
Response 11:
We are grateful to the reviewer for this recommendation and for the specific suggested authors. We wish to note, in this connection, that the manuscript already engages with several streams of contemporary Byzantine musicological scholarship that are continuous with the school represented by the authors named: in particular, Skoulios (2012) on modern Byzantine theory and notation, Olley (2017) on sacred song in the Byzantine and post-Byzantine world, Conomos (2012) on Byzantine and post-Byzantine chant, Kalaitzidis (2012) on post-Byzantine music manuscripts, Panteli and Purwins (2013) on performance practice, and Delviniotis et al. (2008) on the acoustic analysis of modern Byzantine intonation.
In response to the reviewer’s specific suggestion, we have additionally integrated the Skoulios (2012) reference into our discussion of the limits of the tripartite notational framework in §3.3 (see our response to Comment 9 above), where it serves to anchor the acknowledgement of more recent paleographical scholarship in a concrete citation.
With respect to the works of Stathis, Lingas, Chaldaeakes, and Giannopoulos, we acknowledge that direct engagement with the specific publications of these scholars would enrich the manuscript further. In the present revision, however, we have prioritised the integration of references whose specific bibliographical details we have been able to verify against our own consultation, in keeping with strict citation discipline. We commit to incorporating the suggested authors’ specific contributions in subsequent work on this topic, particularly in the projected follow-up study that will engage directly with the ethnomusicological fieldwork envisaged in §7.
Comment 12:
Prior to publication, the significant error concerning the supposed divergence of the two traditions in their treatment of rhythm should be corrected.
Response 12:
We have addressed this critical correction comprehensively. As detailed in our response to Comment 8 above, the error has been corrected at four distinct locations in the manuscript: (a) the opening paragraph of §4.3 has been entirely rewritten to reframe the rhythmic relationship as one of deep structural commonality rather than fundamental divergence; (b) the Byzantine entry in the Rhythmic Structure row of Table 1 has been amended to reflect the free-flowing, text-driven character of post-medieval Byzantine chant; (c) the corresponding sentence in the Abstract has been replaced with an accurate characterisation of the shared rhythmic principle; and (d) the list of structural differences in §5 has been revised to remove the inaccurate reference to ‘divergent rhythmic conceptions’ and to replace it with ‘divergent ornamental and notational practices.’ The manuscript no longer contains the rhythmic-divergence claim identified by the reviewer as requiring correction prior to publication.
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Point 1: The reviewer indicated that “the English is fine and does not require any improvement.”
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this assessment. No changes to the English language were required.
5. Additional Clarifications
We wish to register our particular appreciation for the reviewer’s rigorous engagement with the Byzantine musicological dimensions of the manuscript. The twelve comments collectively constituted the most substantial single contribution to the strengthening of the manuscript: the rhythmic-divergence error addressed in Comment 8 (and reiterated in Comment 12) required corrections at four distinct locations; the over-reliance on Wellesz (1961) identified in Comment 4 prompted a systematic recalibration of the Byzantine sections; the specific inaccuracies in Comments 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 each required targeted corrections; and the citation suggestion in Comment 11 led to the integration of additional contemporary scholarship. We trust that the cumulative effect of these revisions is a manuscript that is substantially more accurate, internally consistent, and methodologically rigorous than the original submission, while preserving its central comparative argument and its Mediterranean framing.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
