Oothukkadu Venkata kavi - a pre trinity composer?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 13 May 2011, 22:53

Anoop, I do not have a clue about any "resolution" of the 'disciple of bhaskara raya' issue and whether it is pertinent at all to the topic.

On the other two issues which are indeed pertinent to the issue at hand..

post #74 in this thread ( http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 42#p196942 ), Sri. Ravikiran sheds some light on the Sankeernam issue.

On the Jayanthasri class of issues, what you suggest is possible but my take is, if that is so Sri. Ravi Kiran would have stated it - that they have been re-tuned - it is a much simpler explanation. But the point made by Sri. Ravikiran is, if one does not bring in the mythology associated with Narada and Tyagaraja as the primary evidence, then it is entirely possible that the same information was available a hundred years earlier, either the same treatise or through another one or that those ragas were prevalent then whether one can trace it to a specific treatise or not. The idea is treatises typically do not contain 'inventions or discoveries' , only descriptions and codifications of what is prevalent at that time and by extension a century or so before that time. We can readily see that in the SSP and the great lengths the author goes to disclaim that he is simply writing down what had been passed on down to him over hundreds of years.

mannari · Post by **mannari** » 14 May 2011, 01:04

Dear sirs, we have two extra-ordinary prodigies, one sat on the lap of great Sri Shemmangudi identifying ragas at very young age, and other sat on the laps of two aasthana vidwans, at equally tender age and improvising what they sang ! . It is high time that more and more niceties of music are brought out on this blog, rather than arguing on only one aspect, sharing their expertise with us, so that empty pots may some what fill at some time !

Ponbhairavi · Post by **Ponbhairavi** » 14 May 2011, 12:56

reg post122.
Scratching History beyond a point/limit is akin to velai illatha ambattan poonai mudiyai sarachan What difference does it make if OVK lived in the 1st century or the 22nd century"
The popular saying quoted in post122 and promptly seconded in the next one is not pertinent to the present discussion. the saying is meant to discourage laymen from indulging in futile PHYSICAL activity in which the outcome is not going to be of any use to anybody.It does not apply to inquisitive INTELLECTUAL pursuits which are the basis of any research. Obviously it does not advocate throwing History, Archeology, Anthropology,Paleontology etc..( which are essentially concerned with dating )to the dustbin.
Neither the initiator of this thread nor the dozen contributors including the authors of the posts 122 and 123 neither the moderators nor the 2700 viewers can be called "Velayatha ----" Similarly the study of this genius tamil composer and one of the greatest of all times like the trinity cannot be compared to the job of shaving off a cat.

anoopnm007 · Post by **anoopnm007** » 14 May 2011, 13:06

Respected rasikas,

I feel the bhaskara raya issue is a real serious one coz if its false we should stop associating these names asap. Then the remaining questions still prevail with close association with the topic of interest as Vid. Ravikiran himself have said Bhaskaraya Raya is the only option considering OVK's period. Doesn't that question OVK's period?

Regarding sankirna, even in the post mentioned there are only back questions instead of an exact answer on the treatise or period. The question assumes significance when we note that none among trinity or their predecessors have mentioned this.

The motivation for my third point was the comment by Vid. Ravikiran in which he says that almost all the compositions are passed down thru oral tradition and for many compositions only the lyrics are available. Hence it is highly plausible that some of the compositions lost its actual tune, lyrics or even the talam. Dhoshas could've crept in, especially when handled by non musicians/performers (ref. vid. Ravikiran's post).

Regards
Anoop.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 14 May 2011, 13:55

Hi Anoop,

Vid. Ravikiran himself have said Bhaskaraya Raya is the only option considering OVK's period

Where? I merely said he is reputed to have had initiation from BR and shared the corraboration that I had regarding that. I also told that other experts could debate about this, as I was not one. Btw, BR lived for close to 100 years almost till mid 1770s, if I remember right. Does anyone have an exhaustive list of all the students he trained or did not? I spoke to experts and posted several counter-points to whatever had been claimed.

The brillaince of OVK's navavaranams are beyond question, irrespective of which school he came from.

Regarding sankirna, even in the post mentioned there are only back questions

No! Only conclusive answers with references.

almost all the compositions are passed down thru oral tradition and for many compositions only the lyrics are available.

Same for Trinity and almost any major composer of that period. Very few original notations are available for anyone of them. Please refer to the Value of OVK thread.

Hence it is highly plausible that some of the compositions lost its actual tune, lyrics or even the talam.

Again, same holds good for many pieces of T, SS etc. I'd say, much more since those who 'handled' the songs were themselves good composers or musicians with imagination. Sangatis have been added, modified, subtracted or mutilated over centuries. Well known songs with modified tunes include Vasudevayani (Kalyani), Padaliga teera (Reetigowla), Chetulara (now in Bhairavi) etc. Many of SS's Mishra Chapu krtis like Tarunam idamma (Gowlipantu) have now become Adi (1 kalai). We have about 250 krtis of MD which are not even in SSP. How come the same people who are talking about OVK are silent about the same issues with respect to others?!

Dhoshas could've crept in

Typos are a reality in any transcription. I have consulted scholars to get these clarified as and when necessary.

As for other types of 'dosha', I have proved with conclusive examples and counter-examples that similar characteristics are seen in MD, T etc. I have also established that it is absolutely wrong to even label them as doshas. If we start quoting authorities out of context from even the greatest treatise, most developments will be categorised as doshas. That is the surest way to take music backward.

Bottom line: 1. Reading books is commendable. But the interpretation of these must be based on a combo of immense practical knowledge and experience, deep analysis, objectivity and common sense.
2. Before offering opinions about great people, one must spend years in getting acquainted with their works. If one is also a musician, one must learn at least a few dozen works before one can even understand their brilliance.

To this end, I am absolutely open to offering any assistance or even inputs to anyone genuinely interested in conducting objective studies about OVK, including Mr Shastri.

mannari · Post by **mannari** » 15 May 2011, 01:37

Dear sirs, i feel both sri Anoop007 and sri RK are right in their own views. Its very hard to visualize the actual facts. Eg., Just because we are living in the same period with Dr Balamurali or say Sri MSG, one should not conclude that today's Vidhwan, by his own virtue, should not be analysed or concluded that he is influenced by the above cited greats. At best, in the absence of real proof, may be classified as " Possible" , which again is not conclusive. Anyway, analyst on this knows better than anyone . RK's offer is magnanimous and interesting. Only it is to be accepted.

nadhasudha · Post by **nadhasudha** » 15 May 2011, 03:56

I have been following this thread of discussion and I am an independent observer. I see that Shri Ravikiran has patiently answered all the questions raised by the initiator of this thread and conclusively proved that his assumptions about OVKs period are just that - his own assumptions with no scientific basis. I am yet to see any logical arguments by the initator of this thread for any of the replies given by Shri Ravikiran.

In any debate, if one of the sides is unable to provide any valid counter points raised by the other side, they have to graciously accept that they are wrong and have incorrectly arrived at their conclusions. At least that is the point of a healthy debate. Will the initiator of this thread oblige?

musicfan_4201 · Post by **musicfan_4201** » 15 May 2011, 14:03

Ponbhairavi wrote:reg post122.
Scratching History beyond a point/limit is akin to velai illatha ambattan poonai mudiyai sarachan What difference does it make if OVK lived in the 1st century or the 22nd century"
The popular saying quoted in post122 and promptly seconded in the next one is not pertinent to the present discussion. the saying is meant to discourage laymen from indulging in futile PHYSICAL activity in which the outcome is not going to be of any use to anybody.It does not apply to inquisitive INTELLECTUAL ........

Oh, come on. Cant you take things in a lighter vein and read with referenec to the context ??????
The very reason I attached a smiley in that statement !!

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 15 May 2011, 15:33

Shri RK has given 'conclusive answers with references' to all the questions raised.
As CM rasikas, let us move ahead and continue enjoying the beautiful creations of OVK, post-OVK trinity and many others.

mannari · Post by **mannari** » 16 May 2011, 02:00

dear sirs, Pratyaksham bala is telling parokshamly confirming about the time of Sri OVK. Somewhere along the lines he forgot to tell us to enjoy the OVK's compositions created by 20th and 21st century vaggeyakaras !

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 16 May 2011, 07:06

Now that all the questions have been answered by Shri RK conclusively, let us move ahead.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 16 May 2011, 12:18

Absolutely no case for a "post-trinity" OVK

The following "analysis" is quite unnecessary given the more erudite and detailed internal evidence cited by Shri Chitravina Ravikiran in various books, lectures and online discussions including this one. Still, for what it is worth, this is a hasty and haphazard attempt to debunk the case for a "post-trinity" OVK purely based on common sense. All of the dates I cite below are from memory (dates are my mental placeholders to place people in historical context) and may have slight errors that are irrelevant to the points made.

Tyagaraja died in 1847, MD in 1835 and SS around the same time.

So let us say the great "post-trinity" musical genius OVK lived between 1820 and 1890. Or choose something similar, say 1830 to 1900. Keep in mind that the later the date, the weaker the case as will be shown hereinunder.

First, think how unlikely that somebody who lived in this highly scrutinized period of extensive intercity travel and communication would go unnoticed. This was the Victorian era when the British empire and civil administration was firmly established in the Madras presidency.

My late father in law's grandfather Shri Sulamangalam Vaidyanatha Bhagavathar lived between 1866 and 1943 and wrote extensively on the musicians and harikatha exponents of his time. Given that the Bhagavathar was a leading Harikatha exponent of his times who conducted an annual Radha-Kalyana Uthsavams, it is absolutely inconceivable that he would not have met or talked about a contemporary who was not only an extraordinary musical genius but also a great Krishna bhakta. That too from an adjoining village which was part of an exclusive group of villages (Melattur, Sulamangalam, Oothukadu, etc..) known for the Bhagavatha mela. In fact, OVK would have been the presiding "chief" guest in the Sulamangalam Radha Kalyanams and the stories would be part of the family folklore. Oh, how I wish it were so!

The fact is, Sulamangalam Vaidyanatha Bhagavathar never mentioned OVK anywhere in his writings. As he did not Annamacharya or Arunagirinathar. Because OVK was not a contemporary or connected in anyway with his contemporaries (as in Tyagaraja was connected by way of his numerous shishyas and shishya parampara who where the Bhagavathar's conemporaries).

The post trinity period is very very close to ours and many people born in that period come tantalizingly close to our own generation. Patnam Subramania Iyer lived between 1845 and 1902 while Maha Vaidyanatha Sivan between 1844 and 1893. All this overlaps with people who lived within a hair's breadth of our own times, such as Tiger Varadachari (1875-1950), Mysore Vasudevachar (1861-1960), Harikesanallur Muthiah Bhagavathar (1870-1945). All these people had close contact with the great generation of musicians born between 1890 (ARI) and say 1916 (Alathur Sivasubramania Iyer) in many cases as their gurus. And yet none of that great generation - ARI, Musiri, Maharajapuram, Alathur, SSI, MMI - ever talked about their "gurunathars" meeting thsi great composer OVK. And yet many of them sang OVK's more well-known compositions, certainly the Tamil ones. It is inconceivable that not one of them would have mentioned something about this extraordinary vaggeyakara in some context.

The history of late 19th century and early 20th century Carnatic music is well documented and analyzed. Veena Dhanammal's (1868-1939) musical collaborations with Dharmapuri Subbarayar (mid to late 1800's), Vina Kuppaiyar (mid to late 1800's), Tiruvottiyur Tyagaiyyar (died 1920 I think) and Kanchipuram Naina Pillai (1889*-1938) are well known. What the heck, I've had the privilege of meeting the venerable T Sankaran who served for a time as Tyagaiyyar's willing errand boy. Similarly, I have had the privilege of meeting Shri M D Ramanthan, the star disciple of Tiger Varadachariar (1875 born). Shri S R Janakiraman, the living legend of musicology, was another star disciple of Tiger. If anybody want's to touch the feet of a real person who has touched the feet of Tiger Varadachari who has touched the feet of Patnam Subramania Iyer, lose no time in contriving to seek Shri SRJ's blessings. Like the famed Erdos number, SRJ is the only person living with a "Patnam number" of 2. What a privilege, huh !

Those of us born and raised in Tamil Nadu who have read and followed Carnatic music and its recent history closely have a fairly good idea of the great names associated with it, who might have met who and when and so on. Interesting tidbit: Patnam Subramania Iyer met Swami Vivekananda in 1900 at the behest of Bhaskar Sethupathi in Ramnad.

Given all of this, it is inconceivable that OVK lived anytime in the early to late 19th century.

That leaves OVK either a contemporary of the trinity or more likely...gasp...PRE-TRINITY. Now the naysayers are free to issue a "fatwa" against me for this blasphemy

.

*: It is my opinion that the "official" year of birth ascribed to Naina Pillai, 1889, is wrong. He must have been born at least a decade earlier earlier. I cannot believe that he was only 23 years older than Brindamma and that he was only about 30 years old when Brindamma started her lessons with him. In those days, nobody kept any birth records.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 16 May 2011, 16:57

Just thought up a few more illustrious contemporaries of a potential post-trinity OVK who somehow completely and magically missed him although they lived in the same region. Again dates are approximate: Ramad (Poochi) Srinivasa Iyengar (1860-1920), Konerirajpuram (Marathurai) Vaidyanatha Iyer (1878-1922), Tirukodikavil Krishna Iyer (1853-1915).

Again, may the curse of the "trinity" be upon me (cbum) to suggest that there was a comparaby great vaggeyakara prior to them. I am sure they are jointly very jealous

.

Ponbhairavi · Post by **Ponbhairavi** » 16 May 2011, 18:57

From the posting 131, and the examples cited ,it is not clear to me whether he means that OVK was a contemporary of the trinity or whether he was "influenced " by the trinity or whether Thyagaraja 's pancharatna kritis were inspired by OVK's saptaratna krithis.He has stated that "analyst-( singular)
on this knows better than anyone". This means that he is not an analyst or else he would have simply said that"I know better than anyone " To accept RK's offer ,"one must learn at least a few dozen works before one can even understand (first the meaning in tamil and) its brilliance" vide - Rk,s post no 130) Let us hope for the best.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 16 May 2011, 20:37

I think I have a handle on the sankirna issue though partly speculation.
Arunagirinathar has extensively used different tala structure which includes the SUlaDi talas as a subset.
CM has not recognized many of the talas used by AN since the Trinity who adopted the SulaDi paradigm dominated the field and also they were not aware of AN's contributions due to the language barrier. They primarily followed and extended the musical structure expounded in Sanskrit/Telugu granthas and laid the foundation of CM as we know today.

On the other hand OVK as a pre trinity was well-versed in both the sanskrit/tamil works on music of the day. He was quite familiar with AN's thiruppugazh chandas which is replete with 'sankirna' prayogams which he handled with felicity. However as a great sanskrit scholar OVK restricted himself to the evolving grammar of CM based on the Venkatamahi system which accounts for his compositions sticking to Carnatic ragas whereas AN never attributed any ragas to his compositions.

Recently Guruji Raghavan who is a renowned laya expert has set scintillating CM ragas to many of the Thiruppugazh compositions preserving the tala structure of AN. This is a brilliant extension of CM which is yet to be popularised and adopted by CM performers in concerts. Most of them still stick to the handful of Thiruppugazh tuned by veterans Alathur/MMI/MS/... Guruji Raghavan has categorized the Thiruppugazh chandas as 'Anga talas'. All of the SUlaDi talas can be found included therein with several examples of the use of sankirna jaati in a variety of complicated structures and the count of nine is obviously present. OVK being bilingual (Tamil/Sanskrit) was able to capture the beauty of the AN structures was quick to incorporate them into his scheme. it is probable that he even coined the term 'sankiirna' himself. Etymologically 'mishra' meaning seven is a mixture of catusra and tisra whence 'sankiirna' meaning comingle/confuse/mix up is a combination of catusra and khaNDa. There is no equivalent term in Tamil!

Perhaps this brief discussion will clarify and stimulate further investigations (from RK and others) and incidentally establish the credentials of OVK as a pre trinity composer....

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 16 May 2011, 21:53

Interesting perspective, Uday.

Again, may the curse of the "trinity" be upon me to suggest that there was a comparaby great vaggeyakara prior to them.

I am sure you mean this as humorously. But in a serious vein, none of the true greats got into composing like an Olympic race to be #1 or #2 etc or get approbations from others... It was just a way of life for them to share their divine equations through their works. The exemplary attitude exhibited by the Trinity and OVK to the architects of our music before their times were echoed best by Einstein - "I am no giant but appear tall because I am standing on the shoulders of the giants before me". The reverence that these great composers felt for the contributors before their times is clearly seen in compositions such as Endaro mahanubhavulu, Vidulaku mrokkeda and Guruleka (of Tyagaraja) and Bhajanamrta, Padmavati ramanam, Alavadennalo, Vande valmiki kokilam etc (by OVK). We as musicians and music lovers gain immeasurably when approaching their works with a similar attitude.

sankirna issue

CML: You are very correct about AN's incomparable brilliance and his definite influence on OVK. As I mentioned elsewhere, OVK has himself composed a couple of tiruppugazh-style compositions on Lord Krishna. He also cites him in his piece: singAra vElanukku ennaDi bhAram - darishanam tara illaiyO nEram as below:

iha para sukham tarum tiruppugazh onRinai
eDuttEnaDi manam koDuttEnaDi

But as I wrote earlier, Sankeerna as a jati of 9 units was already mentioned by Shri Govinda Kavi - many decades before OVK. And I also referred to the composition in Sankeerna triputa in that period in a publication by the Saraswati Mahal Library.

mannari · Post by **mannari** » 17 May 2011, 01:29

Sirs , more interesting analyses ! . But if anyone is logical ( or at least let common sense prevail ) it is not difficult to deduce that Sri Thagaraja Swamy , amidst all his compositions and Sri Rama Nama inscriptions (which ran into Crores) would not have time or inclination to study what other composers were doing, except what he was taught by his father or gurus at the his early age. I have visited the residences of trinities and less than a kilometer separates each one of those houses. It is said they hardly met each other although they existed in the same area and era. So it is highly improbable that saptaratna of Sri OVK had any influence on him during the creation of his gana pancharatnas, which , in however, clubbed togather after his demise. Each one of them was spontaneously composed and hence no room for any influence of other greats. The different style of trinities are there for everyone to judge.

anoopnm007 · Post by **anoopnm007** » 17 May 2011, 11:32

Dear Rasikas,

I'm quoting Vid. Ravikiran here...

The next is reference to Bhaskara Raya. This was based on my discussions (in San Antonio) with Mr Venkat Subramanian, a descendant of a Minister in the Royal Court of King Serfoji.

"Based on the accounts of my Grand father Late Needamangalam Pattabhirama Iyer, His Grannd father's Grand father Ramaswamy Iyer was the minister with Serfoji Maharaja and big patron of music in the Needamangalam area. Ramaswamy Iyer was very close to OVK and his extenses family. According to my grand father OVK got diksha from the Shaktha tantric swamiji. The only swamiji that lived during that period was Bhaskara Raya. I therefore strongly believe the link between Bhaskara Raya and OVK."

Nevertheless, in all my articles, I have given this information only after qualifying it as OVK 'is believed to have' got his deeksha from Bhaskara Raya. This clearly means that the subject can be pursued further before definite statements are made. What is perhaps more significant is that the above mail proves that there were people of fairly impeccable credentials who were close to OVK during his times.

As it is clear from previous posts, the whole parampara of Bhaskara Raya is well documented and it has no reference to OVK anywhere. Then who is his guru if he was srividya upasaka at all (that surely has got something to do with his period)? Also, there is a system innate to srividya upasaka in which they pay their tribute to their 3 to 5 predecessors (svaguru, paramaguru, parameshtiguru, paratparaguru, paraparaguru) through which we can obtain a clear hierarchical chain of sishya parampara. My doubt is, has OVK anywhere in any of his compositions mentioned any of his gurus or his deeksha namam?

If OVK was not a srividya upasaka, then i feel that his navavaranams are just another set of kritis. Here, I'm not commenting about its musical brilliance. I'm saying it is just like any other kriti of his...

About the oral tradition, for trinities and even for many pre-trinities we have notated copies of their kritis. For eg, the walajpet notations available at madurai saurashtra sabha for tyagaraja kritis. Similarly, the kritis of talappakam composers were preserved in copper plates. Also, the shisyas of trinities and other great vaggeyakaras were also great musicians who popularised their gurus' compositions. But in case of OVK, the only available source is the oral tradition and even that is passed down through relatively less musical people. And what about the kritis for which only sahityam is available? Who has written those down? How are they tuned?

Another point which has been bothering me is regarding sangita sampradaya pradarshini. In SSP's vaggeyakara charitram, the author mentions all great composers or their lineages except OVK. Here, I would like to add that the lineage of annamacharya is also mentioned under the title talappakkam composers. Why is OVK not mentioned in SSP?

Regarding Polur Govindakavi's work, he gives a mathematical possibility of number nine along with many other values for sankirna. But as OVK was not known to any of the vaggeyakaras or musicians of that period, it is safe to assume that he has not come across the work of Polur Govindakavi (coz any acquaintance with any vidwan of that period would've easily made a person like OVK popular). Then how did he fix upon the value of sankirna as nine?

Ravikiran sir, regarding the composition in sankirna triputa, I'm keen to know which is that composition and who is the composer. It may shed some light on this issue in particular and about the music of that period in general.

Regards
Anoop Krishnan

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 17 May 2011, 15:19

Dear brother-member, cmlover, Somewhere I have read that Arunagirinathar (he was also called ‘Dindimabhattu’ as he was playing ‘Damaru’ while competing others to confuse with its sound and defeat them but Shrinatha Mahakavi broke his ‘Dindima’ and defeated him as per the history I know) used the prosody of Sankrit in Tamil and composed some songs. That is why they all should not be called as ‘Talas’ or even ‘Anga-talas’ but Chando-roopas. Moreover, they are our musicians who fixed the names of ragas or talas of their own fancy like all other 35 or 108 or 120 or 300 or 500 or 1000 Talas and used them in their concerts.

Why they should not be called either as ‘Talas’ or ‘Anga-talas’? Tala is the name of a musical-metre which, in turn, has ten-kinds of disciplines called ‘Tala-dasha-pranas’. Any musical-metre which fits in the terms and conditions of these ten-disciplines can only be called ‘Tala’. In which way the Sharabhanandana-tala of Shyama Shastry also does not fit in these ten-disciplines even the Chando-roopas of Arunagirinathar also do not fit in and thus, they should not be called ‘Talas’ at all. In the same manner, while ‘Anga’ is also part and parcel of these ten-disciplines and any Anga, irrespective of the number of times it occurs in a Tala-cycle, must carry the same units without any change. But, here, in these Chando-roopas of Arunagirinathar, many of the Angas carry different units at different places. In such case how can they be called ‘Anga-talas’? They should not be. In the absence of the proper knowledge of the Ten-elements and the 10th element, Prastara in particular, people are used to do things as they like and this is our great tradition started by the Great Sharngadeva himself right from 12th century and successfully followed by one and all till now except ‘Tacchoor Singaracharya Bros’ (refer my book, Systematisation of Prastara details of Deshi-talas available in Carnatic Music Book Centre, Chennai).

One must know that the rhythm having mathematical base is one and the same for any person of the universe irrespective of his language.

All are aware that the trinity had strictly followed the Soolaadi-talas only. But, even in these Soolaadi-talas, even in the basic Alankaras which are taught to the aspirants in the primary lessons, one should not forget that ‘Sankeernam’ has never been used. Among the five basic Jaatis, Trisra (3), Chaturashra (4), Khanda (5), Mishra (7) and Sankeerna (9) the Chaturashra (4) is the only even and all the remaining four-jaatis are odds. Even among these four odds while Sankeerna (9) is the only divisible one (by ‘3’) all others, Trisra (3), Khanda (5) and Mishra (7) are indivisible. That is why this Sankeerna has been omitted even in the basic Alankaras and none in the Trinity did use it anywhere. But, some STALWARTS, having no deep knowledge either to exclude or include anything, very conveniently included this Sankeerna-jaati also even in the basic Alankaras just like the members of Board of Studies in the University included all the useless 35-talas in the sysllabus (as they are not going to write any of these examinations and they, actually, do not know which item should be included or excluded as all are performers but not teachers at all). Just like these STALWARTS, some others are also used to make a show by singing Nada-pallavis rendering different units to the Kriyas of the same cycle of a Tala just to bring out a novel thing and to get easy fame.

And, some others are telling that I must bear with the Sharabhanandana-tala as it has been created by one of the trinity, Great Shyama Shastry. In fact, 4 or 5 years back, in the same manner even Padma Vibhooshan, Sangitakalanidhi, Dr.Shreepaada Pinaakapaani showed me how to render the same Sharabhanandana-tala. When I told it is in-correct to render it he asked me ‘Who are you to find fault with it when I have learned it from Pallavi Chandrappa and this has even been created by the Great Shyama Shastry himself?’ Then, when I have proved its in-correctness, then and there, with solid evidences he was compelled to agree as this has mathematical base. In this manner, mistakes always remain as mistakes only irrespective of the person’s greatness in other areas. But, sometimes, when such people are not ready to agree with us, as, in general, in-efficients are more and efficients are less, we must agree with them just like in the political elections and disperse. amsharma

hamsaa · Post by **hamsaa** » 17 May 2011, 20:07

Looks like Shastry & Co are clutching at straws!!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 17 May 2011, 22:51

Sarmaji
Thanks for that illuminating post. Like ragas the number of possible talas is also infinite. There is a famous quote in Tamil

ThenRal vaDivu SivanAr thiruvaDivu
manRal vaDivu madan thiruvaDivu
kunRAtha vEyinisai vadivum
vEda vaDivum kANil Aya thALam kANalAm

Every prime number of beats can lay a claim. But then for practical purposes and human limitations there need be limitations. I agree sankirna as multiple of 3 is reduntant whereas it has come to stay through tradition. The 'anga taalams' do not belong there which is why they are termed different. Again tradition need not be stagnant. There is scope for extensions always from expert gurus like yourself.

My point in my post is only to clarify the currency of the term sankirna to establiish the time-line of OVK.
Ravikiran has clarified the issue so that the controversy may now be at rest..

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 18 May 2011, 04:31

The 8th charana of OVK's first Saptaratna Bhajanamrta (Nattai), gives a hint of the composer's intimacy with both raga and tala. The piece starts off by paying homage to all the great bhagavatas as follows:

P: bhajanAmrta paramAnanda bhAgavata santa caraNarEnum nirantaram vahAmyaham harinija

In the 8th charana, he says:

krSNa kathAkarNana vrta japa tapa stOtra kvaNitArcana yOga
rAsa mahOtsava vibhava bhAva paramAdbhuta nartana vara nrtya catura
agaNita rAga nava vidha tALa kramalaya gati svara tantri samanvita
AnandAtishaya sukha nimaghna ananta mahAnta caraNAravinda (bhajanamrta)

Initially I wondered which 9 (nava vidha) tala system he was talking about. I then realised that nava here refers to various kinds of talas (nava also means new/novel and here the poet probably pays tribute to all the great tala-kartas of Indian music, clear proof of his awareness of intricate tala and raga system.

In the 7th charanam, he salutes many historic personalities who were architechts of devotional as well as classical music:

shiva hari sharavaNa bhava guha bhajana nirantara mAlAlankrta shObha
vAgIsha shivapAdahrdaya suta manivAcaka sundara DiNDima kavirAja
madhurakavi rAja rAmAnuja kulashEkhara viSNucitta parakAla
purandara tuLasidAsa charaNAravinda dhULi hari shiva guha

He has referred to Arunagirinathar as Dindima kaviraja, aware of his reputation, which ties up with the inclusive but not-limited to reference to nava-vidha tala. Vageesha in this context is Tirunavukkarashar, not Brahma.

The song is a brilliant creation in Sanskrit that salutes both Shiva and Vishnu devotees, a peep into the composer's humility as well as his elevated state of mind devoid of any kind of divide.

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 18 May 2011, 07:06

Hello! Anonymous Hamsa dear, While Shastry & Co., is trying to know all the hurdles and to remove them in the process of bringing out the importance of our great composer OVK, it seems you, looking with a jaundiced eye, are viewing it of clutching at straws, as you are unable to forget straws. amsharma

hamsaa · Post by **hamsaa** » 18 May 2011, 09:07

Dear Shri Akella Sir

I never included you in Shastry & Co !! Since you have graciously added yourself in this list, I’m forced to reply to your post.

trying to know all the hurdles and to remove them in the process of bringing out the importance of our great composer OVK,

Where???

All of us are seeing that they are either imagining and/or creating hurdles for others to know the greatness of OVK.

you are unable to forget straws.

You are perfectly correct!!

The last 2 days I have been thinking of straws because
of OVk’s sublime composition ‘pullai piravi tara venum’ where he asks that he be granted a birth in Brndavanam even if it were as a straw!!

hamsaa · Post by **hamsaa** » 18 May 2011, 10:03

the whole parampara of Bhaskara Raya is well documented and it has no reference to OVK anywhere.

Anoop ji, could you please enlighten us by posting the entire list of Bhaskararaya's parampara spanning his lifetime of close to 100 years?

If OVK was not a srividya upasaka, then i feel that his navavaranams are just another set of kritis.

11 compositions of the navaravaranam set (including Shree Ganeshwara and the dhyana stuti) eloquently establish OVK as a practising Srividya Upasaka.
It is obvious that those have not been studied yet !!

In SSP's vaggeyakara charitram, the author mentions all great composers or their lineages except OVK. Here, I would like to add that the lineage of annamacharya is also mentioned under the title talappakkam composers.

Do you have the original Telugu version of this book? If so, please quote the exact contents in Telugu along with English translation with page number.

While on the subject I would also like to remind everyone here that Shastry is yet to provide the list of ragas mentioned in Svararnava that Tyagaraja is supposed to have followed.

punnagavrali1024 · Post by **punnagavrali1024** » 18 May 2011, 10:39

"The post trinity period is very very close to ours and many people born in that period come tantalizingly close to our own generation. Patnam Subramania Iyer lived between 1845 and 1902 while Maha Vaidyanatha Sivan between 1844 and 1893.

Uday sir provides impeccable evidence supporting OVK's pretrinity standing, through pointing out a series of very logical chronological progressions and eras of various musicians. I find it quite humorous that Shastry sir and Co as well as Anoop ji have conveniently ignored the points made by Uday sir. In debate this is known as selective arguing; we discount the points that make us unhappy (because they prove us wrong and we cannot offer a LOGICAL counter argument) or that we are ignorant about and vehemently hold onto one or two points (however illogical) till the bitter end...even after the discussion is overwelmingly done and people are ready to move on!

Regarding Polur Govindakavi's work, he gives a mathematical possibility of number nine along with many other values for sankirna. But as OVK was not known to any of the vaggeyakaras or musicians of that period, it is safe to assume that he has not come across the work of Polur Govindakavi (coz any acquaintance with any vidwan of that period would've easily made a person like OVK popular). Then how did he fix upon the value of sankirna as nine?

This point is quite vague to me. WHY does OVK have to PERSONALLY meet Sri Govindakavi??? Why is it

safe to assume

anything??? AND how do we know OVK was not known to other musicians in THAT time?? Secondly it may be easier to show that two people did meet at a certain point in time but Anoop ji stresses that Govindakavi did NOT meet OVK (which is harder to prove) and even better, does not offer much evidence for the statement other than a fleeting and illogical statement. It is obvious that Sri Govindakavi wrote a BOOK and not a thesis. Thus he was not inventing/researching the concept of sankeerna. Thus, if sankeerna is being published in a book it can be said that it must have been a widely known concept even in that time and that Sri Govindakavi need not meet OVK to personally let him know that something called Sankeerna existed.

Regarding OVK's navavarnams, anyone who denounces such magnificent jewels as

any one of his other krithis

are seriously wounding their own ethos. There are times when I have teared up just looking at the beautiful words and passages in these navavarnam masterpieces, let alone listening to them being rendered. Learning atleast ONE of these navavarna krithis will surely change your perspective. They are by no means ordinary. For example look at Sakalaloka Nayike in the ragam Arabhi OVK states in the madhyama kalam passage in the charanam, "Bhuvana Prasiddha HreemkAra KAmeswara Bheeja Mantra Lole" No ordinary/"just another" krithi would have such stunning passages....

I find it hilarious that from the beginning of the discussion to almost 150 posts later, the same points have been clutched onto in desperation; Bhaskaraya's lineage and sankeerna. I encourage people who hold onto these points to let go and reassess their reasoning and logic and not post for the sake of posting

.

anoopnm007 · Post by **anoopnm007** » 19 May 2011, 01:05

Dear punnagavarali,

i never said about a meeting of ovk and govindakavi. Wat i said was tat the probability of ovk comin across gk's work is low as he is not documented to have known to ANY musicians of that time. Also considering the genius of ovk somebody would've documented had they knew him.
You should also note that the bhaskara raya's question is still left unanswered...

Dear hamsaa, with due respect to you and your knowledge, please don't shout out your ignorance or try to exploit it. Books like ssp are available online or hard copies are also available for purchase at karnatik music book centre or music academy. Please refer those yourself. Your questions are like challenging a person to write down all the words in an oxford dicrionary starting with 'a'. I'm really sorry i had to put it this way. But i can help u to get a copy of both swararnava and ssp if required.

Regards
Anoop Krishnan

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 19 May 2011, 02:54

Respected Akella garu,

My namaskarams to you. I still remember a vocal concert of mine when I was around 6/7 (was it in Khammam?) where you encouraged me by accompanying me. If I also remember right, you mesmerised me even before the concert by moving your ears!

This post is merely intended to respond to some of the points you have made with respect to tala, dasha pranas, sankeerna etc and not intended to change your views on the subject, which I am sure you have arrived at after years of study and contemplation. As you definitely know, me and my guru and father, Shri Chitravina Narasimhan, hold you in high esteem. However, I thought that rasikas here need to be made aware of different perspectives of such deep subjects and then evolve their own opinions in the process. Sir, I am also sure that what I say may sound elementary to you, but let me start off with some fundamental facts, in order to facilitate other followers.

Tala is the name of a musical-metre which, in turn, has ten-kinds of disciplines

Tala is fundamentally nothing but (a) clapping of hands or against one's arm or (b) musical time or measure. (Monier Williams Dictionary lists numerous other meanings which are not contextual to music).

‘Tala-dasha-pranas’

1. These are just attributes of a tala that have been classified for purposes of study and understanding. This is because, the architects of Indian music realized that the concept of tala can never be fully explained - it must be realized. However dasha pranas are an attempt to describe the manifestation of talas.

2. They are clearly latter-day developments than the concept of tala. Dasha prana classification and codification was based on a study of various talas and an assessment of common properties. In other words, tala can include but need not be limited by dasha pranas.

3. Therefore, anga talas, chanda talas or chapu talas will all very much come under the 'legal' definition of talas.

Among the five basic Jaatis, Trisra (3), Chaturashra (4), Khanda (5), Mishra (7) and Sankeerna (9) the Chaturashra (4) is the only even

Strictly speaking, there are only two basic jatis - chaturashra (4) and tishra (3). This is true for many other systems of world music too. In India, we took it further.

Mishra (mixture of the two fundamentals) = 4+3.
Khanda (split) = 4+3+3 / 2
Sankeerna (integration) = 4+5

Even among these four odds while Sankeerna (9) is the only divisible one (by ‘3’) all others, Trisra (3), Khanda (5) and Mishra (7) are indivisible.

This is only a feature - not a deficiency or ineligibility, even after one takes prastara into consideration.

That is why this Sankeerna has been omitted even in the basic Alankaras

No one can say why sankeerna has been omitted in Alankaras. It could have simply been considered too challenging for students in their initial stages.

none in the Trinity did use it anywhere

This again, is no reflection on Sankeerna!! It is more a reflection of a general trend from late 1700s, as recent studies reveal. We all now know that the composed music definitely became much simpler in terms of rhythm, form and variety of sections, speeds, gatis etc within it. Several features (gati-bhedams, complex talas, jatis, faster sections etc) were taken out or used sparingly by composers starting from the trinity. Saint Tyagaraja almost never used them, MD used them moderately while SS employed them more than these two and soon earned a reputation for laya-wizardry.

To summarise, not using sankeernam is neither a credit to the composers, nor a discredit to the jati. It could be as simple as a personal choice.

In the bigger picture, one must always remember that books written in a particular period merely observed, documented or commented upon trends upto that period, to the best knowledge of the author. To elevate them to the stature of 'rule layers for perpetuity' would not merely negate progress made by brilliant minds over subsequent centuries but also dangerously distort perspectives about these prime movers of our great system.

For eg: If one were to argue that "Bharata never mentioned ragas in Natya Shastra. Therefore Matanga 'diluted' music by proposing the raga concept a few centuries later", where would our great system be? All developments are not necessarily desirable but that does not mean that every development is a dilution either...

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 19 May 2011, 15:18

Chi. Ravikiran dear, Extremely glad to hear from you, dear. Very glad to know that you still remember our concert on 13-07-1975 in Kalaparishat Hall at Khammam along with me and Chi. Ella when Shri P.V.R.K.Prasad, a friend of your father and the District Collector arranged it there. Really I am surprised of your remembering capacity of moving even my ears, which is the quality of an animal (Janthulakshana), of course.

It is very true that your father and me are very affectionate to each other since many decades and, that is why I do not forget to speak to your father whenever I go over to Chennai. Moreover, being his very talented sons, I always wish you both Mahapaanditya in your respecative field and Sarvajanaadarana by the grace of the Almighty.

After having served for 35 long years as a teacher I, only after deep introspection after retirement, came to know that it is far easier to become a Top-grade Violinist but not an efficient teacher at all even though many are unable to believe me. Thus, at this old age, I have very strong convictions of my own which are very helpful to me amazingly but inconvenient to others naturally.

As you wrote, no doubt, the division of Tala-dasha-pranas, clearly, is a latter-day development than the concept of Tala. To tell the truth, even though the division of Talas-dasha-pranas has been made later all these ten-clements are funished in detail in many of our treatises. But, most unfortunately, the last 10th element, Prastara, which is the origin for all the rhythmical forms of the universe and which is 100 times more than all the remaining nine elements put together, has never been brought out by any author of any period or in any language within the reach of the aspirant mostly shutting many of the doors of this Tala-chapter. That is why, while there are around 400 Shlokas, in total, in the Taladhyaya of Sangita Ratnakara around 100 Shlokas are devoted for Prastara only. In this manner, I can bring out umpteen examples in bringing out the importance and greatness of Prastara. But, unfortunately, one cannot understand all these details unless he/she himself/herself goes deep into it. And many are also running away from learning this very highly complex topic which swallowed my precious life of four decades.

The person who goes deep into Prastara only can understand the limits of it like the ‘legal or illegal’ definitions but not others at all. At this old age, I cannot discuss such things at length in this thread.

I cannot totally agree with your opinion that books written in a particular period are merely observed, documented or commented upon trends up to that period, to the best knowledge of the author.

Creating or bringing out novel things should not always be taken as brilliance while many people, nowadays, are doing so for easy money and fame. There are so many facets even in respect of either development or dilution which could only be discussed at length in the presence of knowledgeable people. amsharma

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 19 May 2011, 16:48

anoopnm007 wrote: Then how did he fix upon the value of sankirna as nine?...
Wat i said was tat the probability of ovk comin across gk's work is low as he is not documented to have known to ANY musicians of that time.

This doesn't make sense. I repeat the point made by punnagavarali - it is not necessary to be aware of a documented source of an idea or term for somebody to have been aware of it. Even in the rigorous and jealously guarded world of scientific authorship often the first publication of an idea is not necessarily the origination of it. Example, the "Darwin-Wallace" theory of evolution and the "Maxwell-Hertz-Heaviside" Equations of Electromagnetism

. These things are infinitely more casual and fuzzy in the world of Carnatic "history" - Did Bharata specify musical intervals one fine day and then everybody started using them ??!! Did Maatanga originate the idea of a rAga one fine day and then everybody started using the idea ??!!

Again, we know of very few musicians of any era, so it is equally possible that OVK met some obscure musician of his era and got hold of the gk's work and both this fact and OVK's existence itself drowned in historical obscurity. In fact OVK needn't have know ANY musician to have found a source for the work ! This line of reasoning, i.e., "somebody would have known something or somebody and written about it somewhere" gets more difficult in orders of magnitude the further back in history you recede. This is why it is much easier to investigate, as I was trying to imply with my earlier post, the possibilty of a much more recent date for OVK - specifically the post-trinity era - and then decide if it is plausible or not. The trail of innumerable sources from that era hasn't yet grown cold in the present times - there are still people living today who have met and talked to people who lived in that era (i.e., early to late 19th century). For example, my father-in-law (1931-2010) has talked to his grandfather (1866-1943). Incidentally, I would think the very fact that OVK is NOT mentioned in SSP as indicative of the fact that he was NOT contemporaneous with either Subbarama Dikshitar (1839-1910) or the generation before him, i.e., the trinity generation.

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 19 May 2011, 17:35

Uday, well said. Your analogy to the diffusion of scientific ideas/paradigms is very apt.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 19 May 2011, 19:14

A decade ago when the OVK controversy was raging in Sangeetham site there were claims that 'OVK' was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by NKB who was fobbing off his own compositions under a mythical legendary figure. The book of poems uncovered by RK was claimed to be a forgery by NKB. It goes to the credit of RK that he fought off these slurs and duly established and restored OVK to his place of honour in CM history. I am just mentioninng this just for historical completeness!

hamsaa · Post by **hamsaa** » 19 May 2011, 20:16

Anoop,

Thanks for your gratuitous advice! I appreciate it!!
Most of us following this thread know that Sri Ravikiran has answered all issues raised in this thread - some of them more than once. He has done so with indisputable examples, counter-examples, references as well as logic and sense. I am sure even you have found Uday's reasoning and logic beyond dispute about how OVK could never have been modern too, but quite conveniently ignored it.

BR has not been answered...

Check again the sequence of events. The answering has not been from Shastri/your end!!

(a) RK has always quoted the BR-OVK with a rider of ‘believed to have’ as against a definite statement.

(b) Sri RK shared his source of information - a descendant of a minister in Tanjore who was well known to OVK. (Whether it 'proves' BR-OVK or not, it shoots out of the park the 'modern and recent' theories proposed in the first post.)

(c) But Shastri brought other points of reference to question this.

(d) But these are not conclusive since anyone who is into Srividya knows that schools merge/change practices over years.

(e) Despite all that, if X says, I am the sole authority on BR’s disciple list, X must prove it.

(f) Can anyone prove that he has the entire disciples list for BR’s 100?

(g) BR or not, OVK's navavaranams are great, period

SSP issue:
SSP mentions Chinnayya in all the copies I have seen. So, I wondered if you had another special copy of it!! It does not refer to Arunagirinathar either. It also does not mention Swathi Tirunal – it only says Kulashekara Perumal. As Sri Ravikiran says, SSP is great but it is not bible.

Swararnava-Thyagaraja connection:

Why should I get copies? If X is caught selling a myth like that to support his anti-OVK theory, the onus is on X to accept that he was wrong or prove he was right. Or at least he knows what he is talking about.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 20 May 2011, 06:42

hamsaa wrote:reasoning and logic beyond dispute

That's not true Hamsaa. There is always room for dispute in any speculative reasoning. But that's not the point. I quote from Shri Ravikiran's earlier post:

Each of the points I made above may by itself not be sufficient 'proof'. However, taken in tandem, they present a strong case that support his family's records, which is very vital here indeed. It has to be noted that records by family/disciples are the main sources in the case of numerous people and even sketchy and incomplete ones have been accepted at face value in the case of most composers/other personalities by us - until conclusive proof is found to alter our perception. So far no proof to the contrary has been found by anyone with regard to Venkata Kavi, despite speculations from a distance in select quarters. When such proof is presented beyond all doubts, I am sure that everyone will be willing to stand corrected. That said, I re-iterate that to me, the period (even plus minus a few decades) is absolutely only a statistic in the context of actual works of a person - be it OVK, Tyagaraja, Edison or Einstein.

Most people posting here, me included, are just armchair theorists. Chitravina Ravikiran, in the midst of all his other activities, has actually done the practical fieldwork of meeting the descendants/family of OVK, poring over the manuscripts, etc.. Why is it so hard for people to believe the family's account? Particularly since it has been vetted by Shri Ravikiran. Nobody has any vested interest in perpetrating a hoax. Perhaps it is an unfortunate fact, that some people with a lot of time and a dark brooding mindset are susceptible to conspiracy theories. Remember, nothing is holier than the Truth, and the Truth can never hurt us. Get over the darkness and look at everything in the light of pure reason and logic. AND TRUST PEOPLE, FOR GOD'S SAKE. There is neither a character nor a competence problem.

Knowing Chitravina Ravikiran as I do, he of all people has the least vested interest in affixing any date to OVK. His sole concern in this matter is propagating this musical phenomenon called OVK to the general public. I remember very well having a conversation with him during his heady early days of the OVK discovery when he was poring over the manuscripts awestruck and stunned. I likened him to G H Hardy circa 1913 examining a manuscript that arrived in the mail from India, containing strange squiggles and formulas he had never seen in his life. I could imagine Ravikiran the musical genius remarking to himself about those OVK manuscripts as Hardy remarked about the Ramanujan manuscripts "they must be true, because, if they were not true, no one would have the imagination to invent them" ! Sometimes it takes a genius to recognize another.

Ponbhairavi · Post by **Ponbhairavi** » 20 May 2011, 12:10

An interesting observation:
Those who claim that OVK lived after the Trinity also proclaim that his compositions have no real merit(Full of mistakes befitting a "modern" composer) though they may not know enough tamil to understand even the meaning of OVK's compositions let alone Arunagirinathar's.Therefore it is clear that they have strong prejudiced opinion that good music is only telegu and it came to tamil nadu only with Thyagaraja. Prejudiced people can hardly be convinced: you can take a horse to water but not make it drink-- You can wake up a sleeping person but not one who does not want to get up-- The rabbit i caught has only 3 legs. But one good result is that the thousands of viewers who have been following these notes would have come to know where truth is thanks to RK's patient, unshakable logical authoritative arguments. I would quote 2 lines of an ovk's composition which appears in another thread about its value

innAr innapaDi enrE terinda pin eDuttu sholvadenrO nIti
ennAlE sholvadalla indap-pazhamozhi ettanaiyO pEr shonna shEdi

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 20 May 2011, 20:31

uday_shankar wrote: .....
I could imagine Ravikiran the musical genius remarking to himself about those OVK manuscripts as Hardy remarked about the Ramanujan manuscripts "they must be true, because, if they were not true, no one would have the imagination to invent them" ! Sometimes it takes a genius to recognize another.

Very picturesque Uday and aptly stated.
As Ponbhairavi states the 'proof of the pudding is in its taste'... OVK should be assessed on his own merits.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 21 May 2011, 03:39

Dear Akella garu,

our concert on 13-07-1975 in Kalaparishat Hall at Khammam along with me and Chi. Ella

Your memory for details is phenomenal! I had no idea about the exact date and was also vague if it was Ella Venkateshwara Rao garu who was on the mrdangam then. I do remember that I was not in great form that day and it was surely not musically memorable for me!!

the last 10th element, Prastara, which is the origin for all the rhythmical forms of the universe

I agree with you completely, prastara (permutation) is a very important part of rhythm. As you rightly say, not many people know about this or use it extensively. Even seasoned vidwans tend to focus more on vistara. Luckily my father, being a consummate musician and guru, had given me an introduction to the fascinating subject of dasha pranas even before he had put me on the stage as a vocalist. So, at least I have a working knowledge of it, even though it may take decades to go very deep into it, like you have done. Prastara is definitely a very interesting aspect which must be showcased in concerts even in small measures by every artiste.

At this old age, I cannot discuss such things at length in this thread.

I will sure get a copy of your book upon my return to Chennai and go through it.

Creating or bringing out novel things should not always be taken as brilliance while many people, nowadays, are doing so for easy money and fame.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also feel that novelty must not be used as an avenue by escapists who wish to shy away from the rigours of traditional and the classical. We all see hundreds of sub-standard compositions by composers who are devoid of even basic rules of tense, verb and grammar, leave alone yati, prasa, chanda, alankara or raga-tala lakshana (which reminds one of Tyagaraja's Vararagalayagnulu in Chenchukambodhi). (I have sometimes felt that workshops/seminars could be conducted on the basic approaches to composing, like they do in the West.)

My only difference with you is: we must not club composers of divinely inspired genius like OVK, Tyagaraja, Shyama Shastri etc in the other league. The scholarship, intellect and skills of these people was exponentially higher than average musicians/composers and they would have had sound reasons for extending the boundaries of our music... As my guru Sangita Kalanidhi Brinda garu used to remark, "I know my grammar as well as anybody. But yet, I do not change certain things because I believe that the great composers/musicians would have had a valid reason for a particular usage" (periyavA anda prayOgam vechurinda, adukku edO kAraNam irukkaNum). In other words, I feel that classification under dilution or development is a based on the quality of a person, his reasons and context.

I have only two doubts and if possible, please help readers understand those better:

1. Isn't it true that when we talk of prastara, we talk of the prastara of the number and this has nothing to do with a laghu count? Am I right in stating that prastara is not on a jati/laghu but more in the rhythmic sub-divisions within the laghu (or on any given number of units?) We count the fingers only one way in Carnatic music whether the laghu is 4, 3, 7, 5 or 9.

2. Even though 9 is divisible by 3, aren't there numerous options to do prastara using 9, without bringing 3 into the picture at all? Therefore, prastara should be possible irrespective of a number being odd/even, prime or not?

Thank you and regards...

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 21 May 2011, 12:19

Chi Ravikiran dear,

Extremely happy to go through your post. There is nothing great in just referring my ‘Diary of concerts’ and give the details of our concert (Rs.180/- inclusive of travel expenses - just forgot to mention in my last post).

You may not remember your concert in that younger age but you did it extremely well (if you take it jovially and don’t laugh at me - you did everything just like a monkey-kid trained by her master in doing acrobatics of his own).

(I have sometimes felt that workshops/seminars could be conducted on the basic approaches to composing, like they do in the West.)

If you feel only sometimes I always feel that periodical workshops and seminars only could minimise the indicipline of our musicians and music-teachers (if you don’t laugh at me - magic-teachers or music-cheaters).

My only difference with you is: we must not club composers of divinely inspired genius like OVK, Tyagaraja, Shyama Shastri etc in the other league. The scholarship, intellect and skills of these people was exponentially higher than average musicians/composers and they would have had sound reasons for extending the boundaries of our music

Up to some extent only I can agree with you but not fully. Unfortunately, my past experience of spending four decades of my precious life on the extensive research of Prastara, even sacrificing much of my artist career, will not at all allow me to agree with you in this particular aspect. Many of our elders were telling me not to abuse our ancestors for the hardship we are facing now. In one way, it may be true if it is applied to many other general problems. But mine is entirely different with all others and I can’t even speak of my toil leave alone writing it in lengthy sentences. Even though I can’t write it, now, in lengthy sentences I shall give you only one example. If I tell 3 X 3 = 9 and either OVK or Thyagaraja or Shyamashastry or even Lord Venkateshwara tells 3 X 3 = 8 what do you say? Please answer ( I shall explain my plight in person when we next meet).

Had you gone deep into Prastara you would not have asked me these two questions. However, I shall certainly answer these two questions.

1.You are absolutely in-correct. Prastara has everything to do with the laghu count. Prastara is absolutely mathematics being full of precision and the basic element of the system of the Tala. But, please make a very important note, one can understand this only after arriving at the opposite shore of the sea.

2.Yes, even though 9 is divisible by 3, we will get only one prastara using 9 and many more prastaras even without bringing 3 into picture. One must mind that Prastara is inclusive of all numbers and, at the same time, also devoid of all numbers while making the process of permutation.

But, in respect of Sankeernam, I have a point. You are telling that the scholarship, intellect and skills of the composers of divinely inspired genius were exponentially higher than average musicians/composers and they would have had sound reasons for extending the boundaries of our music. Yes, me too agree with you in this respect. But, in respect of Sankeernam, according to our Indian tradition, which are named after Sankaram or Sankeernam must be avoided in our religion. I guess, that is why, while ‘7’ was named after Mishram only ‘9’ was named after Sankeernam and was also avoided not only right from the primary Alankaras to be fed to our kids but also even by Muthuswamy Dikshitar who had composed in all the seven Soolaadi-talas. Thus, does utilising Sankeernam not come under going beyond the traditional boundaries established by the great Trinity of our music? Even if you treat OVK as a pre-trinity composer we all must thank the Trinity for having not followed OVK in this respect but wantonly avoided Sankeernam maintaining our tradition. amsharma

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 21 May 2011, 21:25

Quoting from
Sangita Darpanam of Catura Damodara..

brAhmaNashcaturasraH syAt tisraH kShatriya Eva ca
khaNDOvaishyastathAshUdraH mishrOgnEyO vicakShaNaiH |
sankIrNajAtissamkIrNaH kathitAstALavEdibhiH || (701)

'jAti', caste-wise catusram is brahmin, tisram is kShatriya, khaNDam is vaishya, mishram is shUdra and
sankIrNam is mixed-caste (?fifth caste or caNDALa).
Hence it is only natural for the caste-conscious Trinty to avoid sankIrNam whereas OVK, himself almost an outcaste had no hesitation using it freely..

musicfan_4201 · Post by **musicfan_4201** » 22 May 2011, 12:43

cmlover wrote:Quoting from
Sangita Darpanam of Catura Damodara..

brAhmaNashcaturasraH syAt tisraH kShatriya Eva ca
khaNDOvaishyastathAshUdraH mishrOgnEyO vicakShaNaiH |
sankIrNajAtissamkIrNaH kathitAstALavEdibhiH || (701)

'jAti', caste-wise catusram is brahmin, tisram is kShatriya, khaNDam is vaishya, mishram is shUdra and
sankIrNam is mixed-caste (?fifth caste or caNDALa).
Hence it is only natural for the caste-conscious Trinty to avoid sankIrNam whereas OVK, himself almost an outcaste had no hesitation using it freely..

There goes CML with his anti-Trinity crusade !!!

hamsaa · Post by **hamsaa** » 22 May 2011, 16:42

The person who goes deep into Prastara only can understand the limits of it like the ‘legal or illegal’ definitions

1. Prastara may appear like a big subject to many musicians but to de-mystify it for those with a math background, it is nothing but permutation.

2. Any number can be permuted as well as the others .

3. Therefore to say that sankeerna is a disadvantage/illegal in prastara does not seem consistent with logic.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 22 May 2011, 17:44

uday_shankar wrote:OVK manuscripts

It has been pointed out to me that the term "manuscript" has a specific meaning in the context of Indic/Indological research, typically writings (on palm leaf or other media) attributable to original sources or something close, etc... In this instance, I meant to say "notebooks and papers" in the possession of the descendants/family of OVK.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 23 May 2011, 09:57

Does OVK refer to AruNAcala Kavi?
He belonged to the same time period...but his songs were tuned much later.

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 23 May 2011, 14:59

1. Prastara may appear like a big subject to many musicians but to de-mystify it for those with a math background, it is nothing but permutation.

To de-mystify Prastara for those with a math background if it is nothing but permutation why none had solved this element and brought out all the latent secrets of it within the reach of our aspirants since 12th century? Most of my extensive research on Prastara, started from 1963, was made even without the computer or even calculator which were not available in those days.. Even now, I can answer any questions pertaining to Nashta or Uddishta or Kalita with the help of the figures and tables of my book, Indian Genius in Talaprastara only but without utilising either the computer or even the calculator. Can you do the same in this manner now?

2. Any number can be permuted as well as the others .

Of course, yes. I didn’t say anything against about this in my post.

3. Therefore to say that sankeerna is a disadvantage/illegal in prastara does not seem consistent with logic.

Even in respect of Sankeerna also I didn’t say anything, dear. Would you be kind enough to verify them again, dear. amsharma

ShrutiLaya · Post by **ShrutiLaya** » 23 May 2011, 20:21

cmlover wrote:A decade ago when the OVK controversy was raging in Sangeetham site there were claims that 'OVK' was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by NKB who was fobbing off his own compositions under a mythical legendary figure. The book of poems uncovered by RK was claimed to be a forgery by NKB. It goes to the credit of RK that he fought off these slurs and duly established and restored OVK to his place of honour in CM history. I am just mentioninng this just for historical completeness!

This is brilliant! I'm not saying I believe this is real, and the wealth of other evidence clearly suggests otherwise, but looked at narrowly as part of the armchair debate, this demolishes Sri.Uday's posts 137/138; In essence, Sri.Uday argues that if OVK was not pre-trinity, he must have lived in well documented times, and should have been known to a number of people. This novel claim says OVK was neither pre nor post trinity, he never existed!

- Sreenadh

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 24 May 2011, 19:12

ShrutiLaya wrote:and the wealth of other evidence clearly suggests otherwise

Just curious, what exactly is this "wealth" of other evidence ? As far as I am concerned, I rely on two things a) the assessment of infinitely better minds than mine b) that such minds are acting with integrity and good faith. So my so-called "arguments" are nothing more than a little armchair side show. But once you question the integrity and good faith of the primary participants in this drama, all bets are off. For example, there's no further discussion with folks who suggest the 9/11 is an Israeli conspiracy to designed bring a bad name to Islam. Again, I would be curious to know what exactly is the "wealth of other evidence", even from an armchiar perspective. Or is it a sop after my so-called arguments have been "demolished", not unlike the twin towers by those damned Israeli bombers:) ?

ShrutiLaya · Post by **ShrutiLaya** » 24 May 2011, 19:52

I'm referring to the wealth of evidence in the multiple posts of RK (which, I too rely on for much the same reasons as you) ..

- Sreenadh

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 25 May 2011, 05:23

Dear Akella garu,

I wanted to contemplate on the subject a bit and hence the delay in my reply.

But, in respect of Sankeernam, according to our Indian tradition, which are named after Sankaram or Sankeernam must be avoided in our religion.

1. I think we are confusing two distinct things here. (a) Traditional/cultural meaning and context of the word (b) Musical development over centuries where the word has been used to represent a specific concept (eventually to do with the number 9).

2. If we were to apply (a) as our yardstick, things will get dangerously misleading. For eg, in our culture it is also true that:

Mishra = adulterating
Khanda = deficient, defective, crippled etc...

3. In this case, all composers including PD and Trinity would be critiqued for using such 'polluted' jatis! I am not saying they did - am just pointing out the dangers of selective or narrow interpretations of any concept to judge great people.

4. A counter point could be brought about saying that 9 - being such a sacred and important number in our religion - nava rasa, nava vidha bhakti, nava graha, nava -avarana and so forth. And someone who used 9 can be extra-glorified! Again, I am not saying they should be...

5. In the context of OVK, it would be misleading to suggest or even speculate that some composers avoided sankeernam because of cultural or religious reasons. Sankeernam has indisputably enriched our great music and its beauty - as a laghu or a gati. Its aesthetic beauty is undeniable. It just needs skill, scholarship to handle larger talas.

6. In another thread on Tala prastara you have yourself hit the nail on the head on post # 17.

http://rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1879

In the good olden days the Talas are very lengthier and as they all are very difficult to remember all the Talangas of them and also to execute them properly. Smaller Talas are introduced to make the matters easier to a common man. Even in these Talas, all the composers preferred to compose their compositions in much smaller Talas only. That is why we will find all the compositions of Saint Thyagaraja are composed either in Adi or Rupaka or Triputa

7. This is the correct reason and I agree with you 100%. The complex talas of the 'good old days' were gradually avoided in the latter parts of 1700s to make music accessible.

8. One cannot turn around in this thread and say that complex things were avoided because they were negative! And thank people who avoided them as well!!

9. As I said, it could have been just a personal choice or a gradual collective feeling that things had to be made simpler. Definitely the earlier decades/centuries had a few artistes who had no problems executing tougher talas and even relished using them. Otherwise, why would we find brilliant compositions by people like Arunagirinathar or OVK or others in such talas? Only Shyama Shastri - being the oldest among the trinity - carried more warmth for at least some of the 'tougher' talas and handled them with elan.

10. A composition like OVK's Sadanandamayi in Sankeerna Mathya is absolutely stunning without compromising on rakti, bhakti or bhava. That is almost an impossible balance to achieve, as we all know. The composer has chosen Hindolam for this weighty masterpiece shows his melodic vision of that raga as well. I am positive that being a vidwan of high calibre yourself, you will declare that OVK must be celebrated if you heard such pieces of his.

With sincere regards...

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 25 May 2011, 05:31

Simply beautiful powerful arguments RK!
I have no words to commend you!
I hope sarmaji has arguments to substantiate his stance other than based on religion or metaphysics!

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 25 May 2011, 11:39

Chi. Ravikiran,

Sankeernam-9: All are aware that even numbers are always divisible and odd numbers are, in general, indivisible. Irrespective of the greatness of the number ‘9’ like navarasas or navagrahas etc., etc., in particular, in our music, it is not that convenient and easy to bear with or relish with ‘9’ like other odds 3 or 5 or even 7 pertaining to single-digit-figures. That is why all most all the composers have preferred to leave it alone may be except one or two. Even in respect of performers of music or dance, just one or two may be able to perform in music only to prove their efficiency but not to make the audience relish and I have seen none using this Sankeernam in any dance performance.

Even Arunagirinathar (Dindimabhattu), as per the history, used the prosody of Sanskrit in Tamil and composed some lyrics even without mentioning either the Raga or the Tala and they are our musicians who gave the names of Ragas and Talas and used them in their concerts that too in the absence of the knowledge of Prastara. Even in respect of Shyama Shastry, he did use only one tougher-tala, Sharabhanandana that too in the absernce of the knowledge of Prastara, but not Sankeernam at all. Accordingly, I also feel, it is useless to discuss about this particular point at length when this has already been avoided even by our ancestors even right from the primary lessons to be fed to our kids. amsharma