Raga Lakshana, Sampradaya & manodharma- Some Thoughts - Part

[vidya]

(Moderator Note: This topic is a continuation of the topic http://rasikas.org/forums/post105677.html#p105677 )

In sanskrit grammar there is a rule that is sometimes defined that is meant to supercede all other subsequent rules. So if a vidvan or vidushi believes in the following general rule: 1.Intoning a note in a vivadi phrase is detrimental to one's health 2.It was never a part of our tradition or custom to emphatically intone these swara combinations. All particular cases of raga lakshana are overridden and any logical or aesthetic reasoning dropped implicitly.

A few other points I wish to make w.r.to this raga lakshana issue:

1.In cases like Vijayavasantam the kRti is per se the raga lakshana. Here is a case where the lakshana lives through the lakshya. There is no grammatical definition elsewhere. In that case it has to be understood as represented by the kRti and kRti alone. (Of course it can be endlessly argued as to whether a musician singing Vijayavasantam with their own modus operandi can/cannot be considered to constitute to add on or improvement to the raga lakshana. I certainly agree with this stream of manodharma as long as one terms it as a 'Variation on a theme of Tyagaraja' and acknowledged explicitly or if there is a reason that warrants it and version control is maintained.

2.Another case where the stress of the note (the antara gandhara in manji falls under this category but that is for some other day) is essential to assert a difference in identity. I think Vamsavati tends to drift towards Mandhari and other areas when the intonation is weak.

3.Another subcase for the raga lakshana not etched in stone theory. What is interesting to me is that when Vamsavati arrived on the scene Vijayavasantham and mandhari did not exist per se as compositions and as ragas. By their arrival the dynamics and boundaries of Vamsavati might have shrunk and shifted a little. Perhaps this was one the reasons for the dynamism of the raga lakshanas and composers were forced to redefine boundaries and add certain phrases to ragas to realign these in light of changing raga templates.

[keerthi]

raviraj,

I didn't know there were others who lament the extinction of ragas. our common mourning makes us dayadis!

If we consider the background of karnatic music and how the practioners were initially innocent of, and later shunned the idea of written music; it mostly subsisted by oral/aural transmission.

Even when writing and notation became extant, the problems of representing fractional tones (anuswaras) and gamakas posed a major hurdle.

We have to reconcile to the fact that nobody today knows how any of the great vaggeyakAras sang originally, so a pinch of salt regarding pAthantaram and fidelity may be a healthy prescription!
Due to several reasons, the various paathantaras have suffered mutual osmosis, and there are no watertight shisya paramparas with stylistic differences or repertoire specialities. Lament this as we may, this trend has come to stay. Those of us who insist on sticking to pAthAntaras and specific repertoires wil belong to the group of archivists, chroniclers and pedants, and may not flourish in the mainstream of the prevalent music scenario.

[arunk]

Hi ravi,

Thanks for your insights. Now some unconnected points. I am not exactly sure if I have one point, or one direction - so these are like random ramblings.

I do agree that the composer's intent should be adhered too. Of course this gets murky in our tradition - where transmission/preservation of any material is "lossy". IMO it is also murky because of the nature of our genre (i.e. about raga - more below). The arm chair rule in legal arena - I was not familiar and it does make sense. Now, it may appear I am being argumentative for the sake argument, but, even here, what is the implication of the final verdict? It is that a particular interpretation "seems most fair" and "agreeable to most of us, especially those peers who have the respect of others". But it is still an interpretation, a "reverse engineering" if you will - and that again gets more and more suspect if the original data is lossy. And this is quite lossy in cm in most cases.

Yes if we had a system like WM, where original intent was better captured and passed on, there were better (informal) rules, regulation and practices to adhere to them, then the re-interpretations would be kept to a minimum. But can that stricter world be applicable to ragas - which are like templates? I doubt it. IMO, the concept of a raga itself allows for a lot of room for interpretation. So a concept of a strict lakshana is somewhat against the grain. However, concurring with your point, I do agree hat even within this sub-world of a raga, each composer had his own limitations, which he/she would not cross. And thus when presenting his/her composition, such rules could be adhered to. Actually they are being respected somewhat e.g. when presenting dikshitar's anandabhairavi krithi, most artists dont show G3 - but maybe not to the full extent that all of us like.

Regarding allowing free(r) interpretation of raga only in RTP vs. none in krithi: Couldnt this turn out to be a bit impractical? How free would be in his/her interpretation during a neraval or kalpanaswaras or alapana for a krithi? In fact, a composer could simply lay down the rule that "no neraval or kalpanaswaras for this krithi", or "neraval only here" or "use this as neraval"? So, as you can see, the more of today's (copyright) style of restrictions you bring, the less fun cm becomes. I am not saying free reinterpretation should be allowed - perhaps like almost everything in life, a balance is best.

I had posted in Vidya's blog about change and lament about change - long story short, change is continual. There is only so much humans retain and practice. They lose some of the old ways and develop new ones, they change old ways - sometimes for convenience, sometimes for the sake of change. This is unpreventable. This has happened even within Indian classical music (from Bharata's time onwards). I believe your post to vidya also reflects this story of continual change. So my point is that, if abheri lost its D1 (actually it has not ), it may be reason to lament - particularly if one likes it with D1, although I think most people lament it because we lost our tradition, i.e. they think something pure got poisoned. I think this has more to do with over-attachment to anything passed down. I find it humorously ironic, that we do this about tradition and religion, when the revered scriptures in that tradition tell us not to get attached to even more important things ! So that loss of D1 in abheri, or erasure of tarangini, is not a crime. It is just yet another aspect of life which seems unfair - just like people dying suddenly.

In fact, there are two things that is constant in CM: Change, and lament about how change is a reflection of poor values

"The crystallized Sampradaya of one age becomes the Lakshana of the succeeding age...."
(a) If lakshanas of all books agree to a tee on everything, this presumption of crystallization of sampradaya would be correct.
(b) I think we have not come up with an effective way of capturing raga subtleties in print - so books themselves allow for too much interpretation.
(c) IMO lakshanas simply capture what is in practice then, in the authors' neck of the woods.
(d) Given that the concept of raga itself allows for a lot of interpretation (as opposed one specific tune), I would doubt that many centuries ago, that all practioneers in South India were able to be in sync with each other w.r.t raga subtleties. Possible, but highly probable? I am skeptical.


Arun