That is not a valid claim to make. There is a Sruti aspect which we seem to ignore. At best you can call it “a rendition” or “a version”. Without the benefit of the tradition of listening and learning, even these renditions are not possible.
@Sachi_R I suppose you heard this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y622OMK3Pc8
I see it has a kApinArAyaNi like touch of “pd2n2” in dAnavakula and in refrain back to angArakam. Also it goes berserk into kEdAragauLa in kaTAkshAnugrahapAtram. MMI handles that with a unique kArvai , but not quite this way of reaching R2! Reason enough for SrI tyAgarAja parampara to shun this as their Sruti did not include this. If this is there in notation, that is only smRti , a fractional projection of what was once sung, not Sruti. I don’t subscribe to the notion of a composer and an original composed version. SmRti cannot exist without Sruti. Also holding a book like that is almost “light music” as Sri HarikESanallur Venkataraman , a critic pointed out in his pre-speech to Ariyakudi foundation this year! It is not Carnatic music. So is the artiste going to say he is not singing Carnatic music? He already said he is not doing kutcheri anymore! If he wants to sing this version, let him do it without making any statement about it, his personal endeavor as a vidvAn. Why should he be afraid that somebody will think that is wrong! If someone has never learnt this kriti, and the book is the only recourse, yes they can refer to it and practice it. But then they must know what Surutti is otherwise - no?
On other dimension of Sruti – the name of artistes like Semmangudi refers to the place of hailing actually embodies their Sruti which itself is infinite. It is not some honorific or reputational appendage. It represents their outer and inner hearing and sAdhana!
Lets not use the word “wrong” to refer to what vidvans have rendered.