Janya-Janaka Association

srinivasrgvn · Post by **srinivasrgvn** » 08 Jul 2009, 16:59

Sorry if the above topic has been discussed already.
How are janya ragas associated with their parent ragas?

I mean, for shadava or sampoorna ragas, it is quite easy to relate. For example, kalyAna vasantham is undoubtedly a janya of kIravAni.
But, how were ragas like Mohanam and Hamsadhwani matched? Mohanam has chatushruthi rishabham, anthara gAndhAram and chatushruthi dhaivatham.
How can you guess if it is a janya of shankarabharanam, kalyani, or other parent ragas that possess these swaras?

Hamsadhwani is a janya of shankarabharanam. But to me, it has colours of Kalyani and I think it should be associated with kalyAni.

How were these correlations made for ragas like the above?

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 08 Jul 2009, 21:41

It has a lot of history/legacy to it (e.g. if swaras matched a well known mela, it is assigned to it, even though other mela could be a fit. For e.g. sarasvati is assigned to vAcaspati, although some like me may find hEmavati a better fit). Also the inclusion of dikshitar's melas to sampoorna melas.

Some are based on aesthetics - e.g. aTANA to harikAmbhOji, hamsadhwani to kalyANi, and of course this is inherently subjective and you will have different people making cases for different ragas.

Some follow logic as in "earliest non-vivadi mela that matches the swaras - for non-vivadi janyas".

Its a can of worms and ultimately may not be of that much value.

Arun

vs_manjunath · Post by **vs_manjunath** » 11 Jul 2009, 02:56

srinivasrgvn wrote:
Hamsadhwani is a janya of shankarabharanam. But to me, it has colours of Kalyani and I think it should be associated with kalyAni.

I too feel the same.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 20 Jul 2009, 05:39

Very appropriate topic. I think is the answer is simple: there is no requirement that a janya raga needs to be assigned to one and only one janaka raga. This is a misconception which has continued through the centuries. Furthermore, they can be classified under different systems - nobody said that only the mela system must be used. Janaka ragas need not be mela ragas at all. The assignment of janaka ragas indeed must also be based on the lakshanas of the ragas under consideration.

Such an assigment *is* of great value provided it is done correctly in the above manner. This will remove a great of confusion about raga lakshanas and elevate the knowledge of raga singing in CM to the same classical, highly-developed level as that in HM (where the janya-janaka assignments have been made after careful considerations).

Some examples taken from the ragas mention in this thread:

Mohanam: Lakshanas derive mainly from Kalyani, with substantial presence of Shankarabharam. So the "lakshanajanakas" of Mohanam are Kalyani and Shankarabharanam. As these also happen to be mela ragas, the "melajanakas" are also the same, i.e. 65 and 29. In Hindustani music, this raga is actually split into two: Bhupali (Kalyani ang) and Deshkar (Bilawal ang which has the same scale as Shankarabharanam).

Hamsadhwani: Lakshanas derive mainly from Kalyani, with substantial presence of Shankarabharam in the CM version of this raga. So the "lakshanajanakas" of Hamsadhwani are Kalyani and Shankarabharanam. As these also happen to be mela ragas, the "melajanakas" are also the same, i.e. 65 and 29. The Hindustani interpretation of Hamsadhwani is almost purely Kalyani-based, in fact it is informally called "ma-dha-varjit kalyan" (i.e. kalyani with ma and dha omitted) by many.

Athana: Lakshanas derive from Kanada. Lakshanajanaka is Kanada. Melajanaka is therefore Kharaharapriya, obviously...although the mela assignment here has little musical value.

Melajanaka assignments have most value if indeed the janya raga was constructed directly from the mela raga. Unfortunately the number of such ragas is small, so the mela janaka assignments are overall not very useful.

SR

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 20 Jul 2009, 06:55

We love to code and classify. Janya classification is one such example.

As others have pointed out, classification of janyas under a melakarta raga is filled with inconsistencies. Due to the gamakam in various ragas, even giving the frequencies (swaras) a name is merely an arbitrary one for our convenience. Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Dr N Ramanathan have discussed this previous in Sanjay's recent podcast when they mention the Dha in Kambhoji and the Ni in Dhanyasi are basically the same swara/gamaka combination!

PUNARVASU · Post by **PUNARVASU** » 20 Jul 2009, 09:34

MalayamArutham is classified as a janya of chakravAkam I think; but somehow whenver I hear it, I feel as if it is a derivative rAmapriya-wonder why.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 20 Jul 2009, 22:38

>Due to the gamakam in various ragas, even giving the frequencies (swaras) a name is merely an arbitrary one for our convenience.

Right on! This may be controversial but this is more so in CM than HM, right? In HM, the preponderence of gamakams are on the approach to the note (meend, glide ) but you do settle on a solid note. I am sure there are oscillations but not as predominantly as in CM.

For example, I read somewhere that there is an equivalent to Begada in HM and also further theorized that it actually came from an HM raga. That may be so, but they did not say if the gamakams on N and M are there in HM. To me ( and I am sure to a lot of you ) it is not Begada without those gamakas.

But the overall point is well taken. The Janya - Janaka relationship is a nice first order grouping for knowing which swaras are involved. As long as we do not take it more seriously than that, it will serve its purpose very well. But the second order aesthetics based grouping is what HM is good at and that is something done sporadically in CM.

rajesh_rs · Post by **rajesh_rs** » 20 Jul 2009, 23:00

In my mind a lot of this association is subject to questioning. It is possible to arrive at a janya by multiple methods. Kalyanavasantham is undoubtedly a janya of Keeravani, because the missing panchamam can help us nail it down. I for one have always considered Mohanam, Khamas and Hamsadhwani closer to Shankarabharanam than Harikambhoji, although in Khamas, you tend to find shades of Harikambhoji (and indeed it is attested to be such in most publications/sources). I couldn't imagine Kalyani being the parent of Mohanam or Hamsadhwani because of the pratimadhyamam - the jarring pratimadhyamam that differentiates Kalyani from Shankarabharanam.

There are some who have called Hindolam and Revati janyas of Thodi. I find it difficult to reconcile the bhavas of Hindolam and Thodi, as also, for example, Valachi and Chakravakham.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 22 Jul 2009, 00:26

rajesh_rs wrote:I couldn't imagine Kalyani being the parent of Mohanam or Hamsadhwani because of the pratimadhyamam - the jarring pratimadhyamam that differentiates Kalyani from Shankarabharanam.

You entered a bit "late". Before looking at more dificult cases, I suggest you look at simpler and very instructive cases like Mohanam and Hamsadhvani. Much has been said on this subject, a little of it here:

http://rasikas.org/forums/post56253.html#p56253

Mohanam: The question of the pratimadhyama does not directly arise since it has no madhyama. To understand why it is "majority" Kalyani and "minority (though significant)" Shankarabharanam, look at the treatment of swaras (R, G, D) and even more importantly the lakshanas of the raga. Also think why ragas such as Mohanakalyani, Hamsakalyani and Bhup Kalyan exist and are so named.

I suggest also doing an analysis for hamsadhvani (it has not been done on this forum yet AFAIK) if you want to contribute something useful.

Good luck in the discovery.

SR

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 22 Jul 2009, 06:17

I think it is better to conceive Mohanam (or any other janya raga) in its own right with its own set of swaras, gamakas, rather than getting caught up in its association with a melakarta raga. There are so many ragas (eg Begada, Gowllpantu) that have their unique attributes that are not found in a melakarta raga.

At a very basic level where we are just describing the mere scale (without gamaka) then we can say a janya raga is derived from a certain melakarta raga. For mere convenience and consistency, I suggest we should just take the first melakarta (sorted numerically) that has the notes. So Mohanam will be classified under Harikambhoji (28) not Sankarabharanam (29) or Kalyani (65)! Hamsadhwani would be classified under Sarasangi (27).

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 22 Jul 2009, 06:33

mohan wrote:I think it is better to conceive Mohanam (or any other janya raga) in its own right with its own set of swaras, gamakas, rather than getting caught up in its association with a melakarta raga.

Absolutely correct. Mohanam is a very old raga and has been around much before Kalyani or Shankarabharanam. Janya does not necessarily mean that it has explicitly been derived from the janaka. Melakartha assignments are often not very useful. But some ragas, like Kalyani and Shankarabharanam, which appeared fairly recently in history, get the status of janakas because their scope and compass is so vast that they subsume the lakshanas of much older ragas within their lakshanas. They are "lakshanajanakas" in that right.

But other melakartas such as Harikambhoji do not have that scope. Although they are mere "melajanakas" of ragas such as Kambhoji and Khamas, these latter ragas are the ones which can claim to be "lakshanajanakas" of many ragas.

In true raga-based music, the melakarta scheme is mostly a "numerical curiosity". Whatever dignity it has is provided by a handful of ragas such as Shankarabharanam, Todi, Kalyani, Mayamalavagaula, Kharaharapriya, and Kamavardhani.

SR

rajesh_rs · Post by **rajesh_rs** » 23 Jul 2009, 22:25

Sangeet Rasik wrote:
mohan wrote:I think it is better to conceive Mohanam (or any other janya raga) in its own right with its own set of swaras, gamakas, rather than getting caught up in its association with a melakarta raga.
Absolutely correct. Mohanam is a very old raga and has been around much before Kalyani or Shankarabharanam. Janya does not necessarily mean that it has explicitly been derived from the janaka. Melakartha assignments are often not very useful. But some ragas, like Kalyani and Shankarabharanam, which appeared fairly recently in history, get the status of janakas because their scope and compass is so vast that they subsume the lakshanas of much older ragas within their lakshanas. They are "lakshanajanakas" in that right.

But other melakartas such as Harikambhoji do not have that scope. Although they are mere "melajanakas" of ragas such as Kambhoji and Khamas, these latter ragas are the ones which can claim to be "lakshanajanakas" of many ragas.

In true raga-based music, the melakarta scheme is mostly a "numerical curiosity". Whatever dignity it has is provided by a handful of ragas such as Shankarabharanam, Todi, Kalyani, Mayamalavagaula, Kharaharapriya, and Kamavardhani.

SR

Totally agree with this point of view. We should take each raga on its own account and then try to classify it into the closest janya. As others have mentioned, the Melakarta (or asampoorna Dikshitar) scheme is only a guideline to understanding ragas and their structures, not a definitive guide to anything to do with the ragas.

A case in point is Shri, which becomes a melakarta ragam in the asampoornam mela scheme of Dikshitar, and Kharaharapriya which replaces it in the Venkatamakhi paddhathi.

rajesh_rs · Post by **rajesh_rs** » 23 Jul 2009, 22:40

Sangeet Rasik wrote:
rajesh_rs wrote:I couldn't imagine Kalyani being the parent of Mohanam or Hamsadhwani because of the pratimadhyamam - the jarring pratimadhyamam that differentiates Kalyani from Shankarabharanam.
You entered a bit "late". Before looking at more dificult cases, I suggest you look at simpler and very instructive cases like Mohanam and Hamsadhvani. Much has been said on this subject, a little of it here:

http://rasikas.org/forums/post56253.html#p56253

Mohanam: The question of the pratimadhyama does not directly arise since it has no madhyama. To understand why it is "majority" Kalyani and "minority (though significant)" Shankarabharanam, look at the treatment of swaras (R, G, D) and even more importantly the lakshanas of the raga. Also think why ragas such as Mohanakalyani, Hamsakalyani and Bhup Kalyan exist and are so named.

I suggest also doing an analysis for hamsadhvani (it has not been done on this forum yet AFAIK) if you want to contribute something useful.

Good luck in the discovery.

SR

Sounds interesting. Will update the thread on any findings I make in due course.

saphilablue · Post by **saphilablue** » 04 Jun 2010, 11:17

you are probably not going to see this reply, but here goes anyway. janya ragas are derived not only on the basis of swaras, but also o the gamakas used. for example, mohana could be a janya raga of shankarabarana or kalyani as well based solely on the swaras. however the gamaka for the daivatham comes from N2 and not N3. hence it is a janya of harikamboji.

Radhika-Rajnarayan · Post by **Radhika-Rajnarayan** » 04 Jun 2010, 18:02

rajesh_rs says:"I for one have always considered Mohanam, Khamas and Hamsadhwani closer to Shankarabharanam than Harikambhoji, although in Khamas, you tend to find shades of Harikambhoji (and indeed it is attested to be such in most publications/sources)."

Just a clarification: Khamas actually takes the kaisiki nishadam and is very close to Harikambodhi. The later version primarily popularised by Mysore Vasudevachar, uses the Kakali Nishadam as an occasional note.

Sangeet Rasik says:"But other melakartas such as Harikambhoji do not have that scope. Although they are mere "melajanakas" of ragas such as Kambhoji and Khamas, these latter ragas are the ones which can claim to be "lakshanajanakas" of many ragas. "

Harikambodhi, although not performed frequently today, can, and does have the scope for very elaborate treatment. It was treated very elaborately a few decades ago, and indeed, is capable of multiple shades of expression.

hanquill · Post by **hanquill** » 06 Jul 2010, 20:30

To my knowledge goes-we have to find out whether it is a Upanga or Bhashanga raaga-only Upanag ragas has relation with Mela kartha Ragas and then we can find out from which melam the janya raga comes out.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 31 Jul 2010, 09:38

Radhika-Rajnarayan wrote:Just a clarification: Khamas actually takes the kaisiki nishadam and is very close to Harikambodhi. The later version primarily popularised by Mysore Vasudevachar, uses the Kakali Nishadam as an occasional note.

Khamas (Khamaj) has come from Hindustani music where it has been well known for a long time. It takes the kakali and kaishiki nishada (although the main core of Khamaj is essentially the 28th melakarta scale according to the Hindustani shastrakaras). The kakali nishada version is not the "later one".

Different south Indian composers from the 1700s have adopted one or the other versions as imported from the North. Older south Indian authors (Somanatha, Ramamatya, and Venkatamakhin) do not mention Khamaj to the best of my knowledge.

The melakarta Harikambodhi is little more than the theoretical scale of the Khamaj raga.

Harikambodhi, although not performed frequently today, can, and does have the scope for very elaborate treatment. It was treated very elaborately a few decades ago, and indeed, is capable of multiple shades of expression.

Treatment can be elaborate as one desires. One can twirl the swaras and phrases indefinitely. But the key question is:

"What is/are the signature musical phrase(s), or in other words the "kernel", of Harikambhoji that establishes an identity distinct from Khamaj and Kamboji ? "

The lakshanas do not differ substantially from Khamaj and Kamboji, which are the old parent ragas. It is very hard to see any strong separate identity for it. A perfect example here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwcTz3F_4Sw

A very elaborate treatment which is essentially put together with Khamaj and Kambhoji lakshanas.

SR

hariniraghavan · Post by **hariniraghavan** » 31 Jul 2010, 12:56

khamas a shadava-sampoorna raga derived from 28th mela Harikamboji is an old raga. It was originally a upanga raga. There are compositions in this uapanga by Thyagaraja, M.Dikshitar, Swathi Tirunal,Chinna Krishnadasa and Bhadrachala Ramdas. They all have employed only kaishiki Nishada. Later on due to the influence of the North Indian musicians (particularly those samrats who were asthana vidwans at the royal court of Tanjore, Travancore and Mysore), while composing Javalis, padams and suh compositions, Kakali nishada is employed and Mysore Vasudevachar himself has used kakali nishada also in his 'Brochevarevarura'. Since in later compositions, composers started using both the nishadas (kakali nishada as a rare usage), khamas came to be termed as 'bhashanga raga'. Yet it is a derivative of Harikamboji only.

Harini.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 31 Jul 2010, 14:58

hariniraghavan wrote:khamas a shadava-sampoorna raga derived from 28th mela Harikamboji is an old raga. ...khamas came to be termed as 'bhashanga raga'. Yet it is a derivative of Harikamboji only.

I suggest we should be careful with the term "derivative". Khamas is most certainly not derived from harikambhoji, aesthetically speaking. It is an old raga, existing for centuries before Harikambhoji was formalized as the 28th melakarta scale. The latter has no more than a very weak independent existence, being dependent on the lakshanas of Khamaj and Kambhoji which are the true ragangas or janaka ragas. I notice these days a trend towards declaring ragas to be "originated or derived from X or Y melakarta". This is true in a few cases involving minor ragas of recent vintage, but not in the majority.

It was originally a upanga raga.

Khamas (more properly "khamaaj" or "khammaaj" as found in the medieval North Indian music texts) is a "deshya" raga from North India which possibly has origins in folk music. The raganga Khamaj (later embodied in the formation of the Khamas thaat by Bhatkhande in the early 20th century) theoretically has only kaishiki nishada and corresponds to the harikambhoji mela. But the traditional raga Khamaj in actual practice has the kakali nishada in two ways: (1) as a gamaka around the S, and (2) in arohana phrases (e.g,. P D N S). Note that the raga embodies the specific whole musical entity applied in compositions, whereas the raganga embodies the core concept which can manifest in many ragas (these may take on additional swaras and lakshanas).

As I mentioned earlier, Khamaj has been adopted in South Indian music, initially without the kakali nishada and later including it. Saying that Tyagaraja, Dikshitar, Ramadasa, et al were not influenced by the North Indian music is inaccurate, since the entire raganga and raga (whether upanga or bhashanga form) is an import from the North. The introduction of the kakali nishada completed the assimilation of this raga in Carnatic music. The raga is richer on account of it. Just like kambhoji - another old raga with "deshya" origins (possibly in Northwest India) - in which the use of the kakali nishada enhances its impact.

SR

hariniraghavan · Post by **hariniraghavan** » 31 Jul 2010, 22:07

Once the 72 melakarta scheme came into being and we started following the Janya-Janaka scheme, many of the ragas which had their own identity, were brought under some sampoorna ,raganga raga as its janya based on the swaras that they took. Perhaps that's how khamas was to be called a janya of Harikambhoji. Similar was the situation with Kambhoji. Kambhoji existed even before Harikambhoji. But once this melakarta paddati was accepted any raga that had lesser number of swaras and charecteristics lnot that of one defined as a melakarta had to be a janya. Many of our ancient books have quoted that khamas has come to the south from north indian music. It must be true also. However the fact that Thyagaraja et al have used only kaishiki nishada in their khamas compositions (for whatever reason) is true and also that doesn't imply that they were not influenced by the hindustani music. That they were influenced/impressed by the hindustani ragas is evident by their compositions.

Harini.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 31 Jul 2010, 22:29

hariniraghavan wrote:Once the 72 melakarta scheme came into being and we started following the Janya-Janaka scheme, many of the ragas which had their own identity, were brought under some sampoorna ,raganga raga as its janya based on the swaras that they took.

Yes, I know, and appreciate your understanding of the same. I believe that the 72-melakarta classification at this point of time serves only a very limited purpose. As mentioned by Bhatkhande himself, the aesthetic and musical foundation of CM will become so much more interesting if ragas are analyzed and classified according to the ragangas and lakshanas. This is not practised currently in CM education and theory.

The case of aThANA/aDAnA which was discussed earlier is such an example - wherein discussions of melakarta classification inevitably produce arguments - but when analyzed in terms of lakshanas it becomes clear as one of the kANaDa prakars. This creates much enjoyment and insight in singing and composing, taking care to distinguish from other kanada prakars.

SR

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 31 Jul 2010, 23:06

Yes. While we admire, appreciate and relate to the brilliance of the classification scheme that the 72 melakartha scheme is, we also understand it for what it is. It is a scholarly work at the level of syntax and not at the level of semantics or pragmatics.

SR, at one level of thinking, the ragas of CM can trace its lineage to the before-bifurcation Indian Classical Music and so we do not even need to characterize that CM ragas came from "North" Indian classical music. The current system of the 2 sub-families have their own individual beauties that they have acquired through the natural process of evolution and absorption of regional elements and external influences. To me it is a bit pointless to talk about which one is closer to the pre-bifurcation raga.

My own personal aesthetic preference is to have heterogeneity with strong interconnectedness rather than a pan-indian homogeneous system. Such homogeneous things tend to be artificial, always tending to be torn apart, and against natural progressions. It is my own personal belief that such strongly interconnected heterogeneous social and cultural systems are far superior to homogeneous systems. And I am glad our musical systems have gone in that direction. I full understand that there are others hold the opposite point of view. That is fine.

As to the current example of Harikambhoji, CM songs in that raga that are a bit more folkish tint seem to have its own identity like the song 'vandadum cholai'. So, harikambhoji raga ( as opposed to the 28th melakartha ) can have its distinct identity when taken in such folk direction. ( along the lines of what SR says about the origins of kamaaj itself in the north with its own Northish folk influences )

Having said that, are there CM ragas that are in practice today that can not be traced to the HM ragas currently in vogue?

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 01 Aug 2010, 00:22

VK,

vasanthakokilam wrote:SR, at one level of thinking, the ragas of CM can trace its lineage to the before-bifurcation Indian Classical Music and so we do not even need to characterize that CM ragas came from "North" Indian classical music.

Some ragas should be characterized as such, some should not. One has to be careful to present facts accurately - and I chose my words accordingly. Khamaj indeed dates from the pre-bifurcation era, but I am saying very exactly that it was a deshya raga prevalent in the North of India and not in the South. I am also precisely saying that in the 1600s or so it became adopted in the South, first in upanga form and then the bhashanga form. We need to characterize that clearly for Khamaj (the discussion is specific here).

To me it is a bit pointless to talk about which one is closer to the pre-bifurcation raga.

That is not the subject of this discussion anyway. The question was of janya-janaka and the origin of the kakali nishada. The fact of this raga coming South from the North is important to resolve any doubts.

My own personal aesthetic preference is to have heterogeneity with strong interconnectedness rather than a pan-indian homogeneous system. Such homogeneous things tend to be artificial, always tending to be torn apart, and against natural progressions.

It is not clear what is meant by "homogeneous". It sounds perhaps more like a straw man than anything else. Is Hindustani music itself "homogeneous" ? I think not. It seems rather obvious that heterogeneity will exist within a system of music prevalent in such a vast nation and culture as India. Nobody has a coordinated plan to somehow "erase" CM or any other music system.

As far as "natural progression" goes, currently HM has spread in a "natural" way to the northern and central parts of Karnataka and also Andhra. So for practical purposes it would seem as though we are moving in the direction of "homogeneity" (for lack of a better term). The core of HM can no longer be traced to any specific "pradesh" of India. Important contributions have been made across the length and breadth of the country. It is truly a pan-Indian and "interconnected" system and the practitioners affiliated with different regions/gharanas preserve their "own colors" thus bringing heterogeneity with a common and solid foundation.

It is my own personal belief that such strongly interconnected heterogeneous social and cultural systems are far superior to homogeneous systems.

There is nothing called a "homogeneous" system in India and there likely will not be. So the comparison itself is questionable. "Strongly connected heterogeneity" is clearly what is desirable and indeed obvious, and suggested already by others. Achieving it will require long-term thought and practice and open-mindedness, and cannot be only the subject of abstract arguments. In the end, this "unification" of the two systems will be more welcome for CM and allow some of its ragas to find wider usage and adaptation. Simply sitting back and saying, for e.g. "how can Bhairavi or Todi be possibly adapted in HM" will not do. One finds a way.

I full understand that there are others hold the opposite point of view. That is fine.

I am curious to know the detailed views of others who apparently hold the "opposite" point . Nevertheless, let me be precise in explaining my own view as well - in my mind the unification of HM and CM essentially means to connect them strongly enough that they hold a clear and coherent common foundation. That is not artificial by any stretch, and it will be a source of continued development and innovation in Indian music. To back away from it would be counterproductive.

That does not mean we will end up with one "homogeneous" system. The existing corpus can not/should not be "erased". That being said, I do believe that the aesthetic foundation underlying modern HM (and some of the core CM ragas as well) is truly what is characterized as "classical" music and the unique contribution of the Indians. We would do well to apply it more universally and more rigorously. The result will be naturally an "Indian Classical Music" but with all its variations and regional flavors (including CM) still existing.

Having said that, are there CM ragas that are in practice today that can not be traced to the HM ragas currently in vogue?

There are many "deshya" ragas which have evolved in the South just like in the North.

SR

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 01 Aug 2010, 00:26

VK,

Replying to this part of your post separately.

vasanthakokilam wrote:As to the current example of Harikambhoji, CM songs in that raga that are a bit more folkish tint seem to have its own identity like the song 'vandadum cholai'. So, harikambhoji raga ( as opposed to the 28th melakartha ) can have its distinct identity when taken in such folk direction. ( along the lines of what SR says about the origins of kamaaj itself in the north with its own Northish folk influences )

OK, so what phrases/movements of Harikambhoji would establish a distinct identity from Khamas and Kambhoji? I asked the same question in the previous post.

SR

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 01 Aug 2010, 01:04

SR: I am not skilled enough to answer that HK question but folkish songs like vandadum cholai seems to have an identity that is different from CM kamas and CM kambhoji. That is from what I hear and perceive. May be the swaras that are sung in that song by MS may give some info on that... Sorry, I could not go beyond that.

Regarding your other points, let me first state this. What follows may all be due to complete lack of understanding on my part as to what you are saying. So it is possible that we are in violent agreement on many of these points ( probably not all ).

I guess the word "unification" does not sit with me well and I am likening that to a move towards more homogeneity and to pan-indian type of musical system ( even if it is in theory ). I am strongly contrasting that with "strongly interconnected heterogeneity". But I understand you are also talking about interconnected heterogeneity. We will have to work out where we two are on that over time!! I know we are definitely not on the same page on "the aesthetic foundation underlying modern HM (and some of the core CM ragas as well) is truly what is characterized as "classical" music and the unique contribution of the Indians.". What does not sit with me well is the implied primacy of one over the other. The contribution of CM to the melody aspects of this pan-indian classical music is minimized. These centuries long evolution of CM on its own which has given to the current practice of ragas like Bhairavi, Thodi, Kambhoji etc are no less contribution to the Indian classical music system. So what if you can trace some of the current melodic prayogas to something else in HM? They have different melodic aesthetics and that is what matters to me. Why is that any less contribution by Indians? And why do contributions only by our distant ancestors matter more than the contributions of the past 400 years towards what we would like to consider as Indian Classical Music.

This kind of visceral reaction probably gives you an idea where I come from when I say I am opposed to any kind of attempt at unification and coming up something that can be called Indian Classical Music System. It is also based on general study and understanding of history that such attempts rarely succeed or even lead to any advancement of the arts. But I am sure it is all intermixed with my own personal preferences and tastes and so it is not a 100% scholarly statement.

My thinking on 'interconnected heterogeneity' is not in any kind of unification, but recognizing the different evolutions and promote efforts that helps the rasikas and artists have appreciation for each so they can incorporate it in any form they wish. And I would place your efforts at compositions using HM ragas using CM compositional styles in that basket. So efforts spent on promoting the melodic and rhythmic individuality of each system and their merits is more important to me rather than any unification, either conceptual or real. Having the background that these all come from some common system of music that existed quite a few centuries back is enough for people to have appreciation and respect for each system. This kind of interconnected heterogeneity provides over all stability of the system and at the same time allow for independent evolutions.. If you consider all this as abstract, I will have to grant you that.

But please do not misunderstand. I am not saying that CM can not learn from the aesthetic analysis of ragas like HM does. That is one of my pet-peeves that people take the syntax way too seriously in CM. And that is the context in which our previous discussions on aDaNa/aTTANa were and they were quite educational however heated the debate itself was at that time.

May be this is all for a different thread, and I take the blame for steering it inthis direction since this thread is about janaka/janya.

And on that topic,

Khamaj indeed dates from the pre-bifurcation era, but I am saying very exactly that it was a deshya raga prevalent in the North of India and not in the South. I am also precisely saying that in the 1600s or so it became adopted in the South, first in upanga form and then the bhashanga form

OK, in this nicely stated reconstruction, you also need to incorporate what happened to khamaj in the southern system after the bifurcation. Did it get completely left out only to "borrow" it back later. If so, why?. Is it because it is a desiya raga of the north and southern branch picked up only the 'marga' varieties and did not pick up any of the desiya part ( for whatever reason, cultural, political, prejudicial etc.. does not matter which ).

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 01 Aug 2010, 02:18

VK,

Regarding our points of divergence:

vasanthakokilam wrote:I know we are definitely not on the same page on "the aesthetic foundation underlying modern HM (and some of the core CM ragas as well) is truly what is characterized as "classical" music and the unique contribution of the Indians.". What does not sit with me well is the implied primacy of one over the other.

I am stating what I perceive after some amount of study. I am not implying any "primacy" although that is the modern reality for practical purposes. I do not deny the reality but neither do I spend every post asserting some superficial type of "primacy". As far as I am concerned, both are Indian systems of music and there is nothing to be lost in evaluating their strengths and moving forward to do something new with that knowledge.

The contribution of CM to the melody aspects of this pan-indian classical music is minimized. These centuries long evolution of CM on its own which has given to the current practise of ragas like Bhairavi, thodi, kambhoji etc are no less contribution to the Indian classical music system.

When did I deny the contribution of CM? When I say "core ragas of CM music also are great contributions", I am indeed talking of the above ragas. I do not have to continually restate the achievements of CM in order to reassure another person that I am not minimizing its contributions. Since my interest is in the combination of HM and CM, I mainly talk about that.

So what if you can trace some of the current melodic prayogas to something else in HM? They have different melodic aesthetics and that is what matters to me. Why is that any less contribution by Indians? And why do contributions only by our distant ancestors matter more than the contributions of the past 400 years towards what we would like to consider as Indian Classical Music.

It seems that this is more an emotional issue than a scholarly one. Again, I do not understand your belief that I consider CM contributions "less". For example, my recent composition in Purvikalyani blends CM and HM melodic aesthetics. I am only saying that "for what I want to do, the guidance provided by HM is very important and perhaps occupies more of my attention". I fail to understand what is the issue with that, exactly ?

I have also said several times that the existing CM contributions are excellent and in many ways exhaustive within its current framework. What do we do beyond that ? Even in raga Purvikalyani, the post-Trinity compositions over 200 years essentially restate it with the same phrases and the same relationships with the tala and lyrics. The composition posted recently is intended to take a fresh look at the raga and how it is developed (i.e., exploring the uccharana of the main lakshanas and its flow with the lyrics). That is thought to be a significant activity.

This kind of visceral reaction probably gives you an idea where I come from when I say I am opposed to any kind of attempt at unification. It is also based on general study and understanding of history that such attempts rarely succeed or even lead to any advancement of the arts. But I am sure it is all intermixed with my own personal preferences and tastes and so it is not a scholarly statement.

On the contrary, most of the "unification" attempts have been highly successful - precisely because they are done in a scholarly and sensitive manner and with creation of new art as the only goal, and the so-called "unification" of Indian classical music should be done similarly. In fact, the modern prevalence of HM almost over all of India - while incorporating regional music forms - is already testimony to that. I am not suggesting that CM needs to be "replaced" by HM. I would suggest that we abandon this rather "emotional" line of argument.

Ultimately, music is created by people and I think you are pushing against the tide there too. Due to the increasing mobility and intermixing among Indians, art forms which are focused on a particular "pradesh" or identified with a particular "regional background" will find it harder to hold their own. For example, the appearance of many South Indian musicians in HM is well known. The opposite is not clear. I am not anti-CM (such a suggestion would be entirely absurd).

So efforts spent on promoting the individuality of each system and its merits is more important to me rather than any unification.

Both are equally important and interesting. It seems that you feel that demonstration of the unification will somehow erase the individuality of CM. I don't believe that. Neither do I oppose any promotion CM - that is now a large enterprise. But one has to look forward and find new things, as well as preserve the past.

I personally don't think people should stop appreciating the CM that has developed over the last 300 or so years, but at the same time they can also appreciate a newer, more unified system. That will surely be an advancement in art. No less an expert than Bhatkhande has stated and supported it, after spending time in south India engaging with CM experts. I see no reason to dismiss it.

Having the background that these all come from some common system of music that exists is enough for people to have appreciation and respect for each system.

That is great, but that need not be the only goal. Preserving what exists is great, and should be done, and so should new developments. I am afraid there is no way to back off that without risking obsoletion.

OK, in this nicely stated reconstruction, you also need to incorporate what happened to khamaj in the southern system after the bifurcation. Did it get completely left out only to "borrow" it back later. If so, why?. Is it because it is a desiya raga of the north and southern branch picked up only the 'marga' varieties and did not pick up any of the desiya part ( for whatever reason, cultural, political, prejudicial etc.. does not matter which ).

Not sure I understand what you are asking. As I said, the pre-bifurcation music system was a "single" one (e.g., the "prabandha" was a main type of composition performed through India), but it always had regional variations in the ragas employed and how far they had spread. Khamaj was a raga prevalent in the northern areas and is not found in the older southern texts to the best of my knowledge. It was never "left out and then borrowed back" (??) in the southern system. Over passage of time, the raga was increasingly picked up in the south, both in upanga (initially) and then bhashanga forms.

SR

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 01 Aug 2010, 06:22

SR, thanks for the detailed reply. After reading that, I am not sure if there is much disagreement in substance. Though what I wrote before in response to your "the aesthetic foundation underlying modern HM (and some of the core CM ragas as well) is truly what is characterized as "classical" music and the unique contribution of the Indians." still stands, it is not material given what you wrote in the last email.

For the record, let me state these. Your excellent efforts with your compositions do fall into what I call "heterogeneous interconnectedness". We may disagree on what we call them, but on the substance of it, I do fully understand, support, encourage and appreciate what you do. That is not even debatable. Along the same lines, I agree that calling you anti-cm will be absurd ( may be you are anti CM establishment, the current scene and the so called intelligentsia if such a thing exists !!..ha..ha.. that is perfectly fine either way. ).

What I would also like to see is a HM musician with their great voice culture and sruthi suddham sing CM bhairavi, thodi, kambhoji, begada, sahana and even shankarabharanam etc. using the CM idioms. They can cast it in the HM context. That would be wonderful to hear and it will be a treat. (Beyond what we normally hear with hamsadhwani, kalyani, hindolam etc. ). That will still fall in the category of heterogenous interconnectedness, for me. If such things are done, over time, a new form can develop. That is even better. So I am not opposed to evolutions of that kind and definitely I do not fear such things will cause the death of the existing forms as we know it now.

I do look forward to your further efforts and compositions. I may not comment on those too much since I am not at that level but even if I am silent, you can be assured I will listen to them and enjoy them.

On the other topics, please do state those desiya ragas that are indigenous to south.

On the HK, kamaaj related matter, I understand what you are saying. My follow up question is, there are regional folk equivalents of HK in the south ( atleast in the tamil paNN context ) similar to what you state about kamaaj. I am just curious if that influenced the kamas and HK that we hear in CM today ( more of the latter than the former ). I would also like to learn from you how these gamakas and prayogams of CM kamas are different from HM kamas and how that might have come into being. ( if you consider it worthwhile speculating on )

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 01 Aug 2010, 11:18

Several observations -

1. the notion of an upanga KhamAj is probably firmly entrenched in all our minds, based on the authority of a singular, unreferenced source - prof. sambamoorthy's writings.

There are no means to substantiate the claim, and I have evidence in favour of the alternate i.e, bhASAnga khamaj, with not one but two bhASAnga-s.

Subbarama dikshitar in his gospel - the SSP gives his own varNa, and a sing of 'Kulasekara mahArAja' - sArasa-sama-mukha; and in his gloss on the rAga mentions that the kAkali niSAda AND the sAdhAraNa gAndhAra are occasional bhASAnga notes.

SD, who is fairly conscientious in mentioning different versions of a rAga, and differences in how 'the navina-s' and the 'people who know the sampradAya' in his commentaries, is silent here, about any differences in the treatment of khamAj.

There is a wonderful paper(in KannaDa) by Dr. R.SatyanArAyana tracing the evolution of khamAj-khammAichi-khambAvati and the genealogical relationship between these..

I fervently wish it is translated,and published in English.

It is almost impossible to sing phrases like sns and snsrs in khamAj without using the kakali note, and the use of kaisiki Ni seems contrived, and is only possible by using the nokku or janta-pratyahata combinations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other interesting lead I noticed, as a late entrant in this discussion, is something I have been thinking about for a while.

what happens to the phrase/ sancAra corpus of a rAga, when a new/ different rAga with shared notes comes about..?

example 1 - After I learnt navrOz, several phrases i thought were natural to sankarabharaNaM had to be dropped.. the g/r\G.. g^m^R and other such motifs, now it was clear, belonged in navrOz territory.

There are of course identical sancharas in several pairs of ragas, that gain legitimacy from the fact that one creates the ambience of a raga, by singing/ playing the singular motifs, and then having established the identity, can venture into such strings that may be shared.

example 2 - there are cases where a rAga, in light of other rAga-s, like sage dadIchi, who gave up his flesh to the animals, and his bones to Indra to make a weapon; gifts away parts of its identity to other, more visible rAga-s.

Hence, if someone sang today karnAtAka kApi, the listeners will perceive bits of kApI and kAnaDA and darbAr, but not the older karnAtaka kApi, (who is the 'rightful owner' of those phrases)

Similarly, saindhavi has donated so many organs to mukhArI, srIranjani and kharaharapriya; that it is now invisible.

There are certain sancAra-s to be seen in older kalyAni compositions, that are taboo now, being in the jurisdiction of yamuna kalyAni or mOhana kalyAni.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 01 Aug 2010, 21:15

Keerthi,
I was waiting for your to post. Though I did not follow most of what was discussed here, I was interested in following the thread all the same because admission is free in the debating halls of the forum.
You said it very well. In the course of time, subtle changes will take place and you may write volumes on the nature of a creative entity like a rAgam and the rules which bind it, in the best scholarly manner possible. Yet, changes will take place over time. If I return to my native village after half a century and exclaim: the river used to touch our backyard and it doesn't any more!--of course, the course of the river has changed. I don't mean to say that we need to make changes in a rAgam purposely to suit the times (!) or encourage anyone drifting into another rAgam by error.
Why don't you do the translation for Dr. Satyanarayana's book? If you asked me, for a young man, you are qualified in every way to take up the task.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 02 Aug 2010, 11:37

VK,

vasanthakokilam wrote:SR, thanks for the detailed reply. After reading that, I am not sure if there is much disagreement in substance.

Thanks for your comments and clarifications.

On the other topics, please do state those desiya ragas that are indigenous to south.

Among those, a few that come to mind immediately: Punnagavarali, Kuranji, Nilambari, Anandabhairavi....

On the HK, kamaaj related matter, I understand what you are saying. My follow up question is, there are regional folk equivalents of HK in the south ( atleast in the tamil paNN context ) similar to what you state about kamaaj. I am just curious if that influenced the kamas and HK that we hear in CM today ( more of the latter than the former ).

As far HK is concerned, it is more a scale and less a raga, so the issue becomes somewhat redundant in my opinion. Of course, HK is a well-known scale in world music (Greek, Middle Eastern etc). In Bharat it was the basic scale of the ancient Tamils. But none of these are raga-based systems. I think the influence of the folk traditions was minimal. But to be 100% sure, one has to find the oldest Harikambhoji composition. Are there any older than Tyagaraja's ? As for the identity of HK as a raga, I have considered this in the past and listened to several compositions. It is hard to see anything...occasional flashes like the phrase at the beginning of "rama nannu brova ra" (d p m g r s r g)...but seems nothing coherent that develops a separate identity. Some prayogas (not just the swaras) show shades of Sankarabharanam. Overall it is a haze to me.

As far as Khamaj is concerned, I think it was directly adopted from Hindustani classical music and then developed into the Carnatic classical version. I don't think that train stopped at the folk music station.

I would also like to learn from you how these gamakas and prayogams of CM kamas are different from HM kamas and how that might have come into being. ( if you consider it worthwhile speculating on )

Minor differences in the prayogas overall. Some discernible differences are: 1) HM uses the "s m g m" and " d n p d" prayogas more sparingly, 2) the HM khamaj uses sadharana gandhara and also prati madhyama as occasional vivadi svaras. 3) HM khamaj lengthens the kakali nishada, it is not an "alpa swara" at all. Sometimes even the rishabha is emphasized. It must the kept in mind that "folkish" ragas in HM like Khamaj can be "taken more liberties with". Whereas the CM version is less permissive and more tightly-defined.

I think the main difference is in the style of development. CM compositions in Khamaj have more fast prayogas and oscillatory gamakas. Even the compositions of MD in Khamas are sung at a brisk clip. The HM treatment is often more leisurely. That seems a near-universal difference though between the two systems, and not restricted to Khamas.

SR

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 02 Aug 2010, 11:51

That is informative. Thanks SR.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 02 Aug 2010, 12:07

keerthi wrote:There are no means to substantiate the claim, and I have evidence in favour of the alternate i.e, bhASAnga khamaj, with not one but two bhASAnga-s.

It is almost impossible to sing phrases like sns and snsrs in khamAj without using the kakali note, and the use of kaisiki Ni seems contrived, and is only possible by using the nokku or janta-pratyahata combinations.

Perfectly correct. While the raganga Khamaj is based on the 28th scale, the actual raga (with bells and whistles) has always been a bhashanga raga in the north and quickly became one in the south. At best, one or two of Tyagaraja's compositions can be passably performed in the upanga form, but the raga seems handicapped without the kakali nishada.

Hence, if someone sang today karnAtAka kApi, the listeners will perceive bits of kApI and kAnaDA and darbAr, but not the older karnAtaka kApi, (who is the 'rightful owner' of those phrases)

I agree about the overall idea of ragas becoming defunct and lending their "seed material" to other ragas (a well-known phenomenon), but not really in the above example. The forum has touched upon the "Karnataka Kaphi" story a couple of times while discussing kANaDA-type ragas. The raga became defunct in south India because of the influx of kanada-athana-darbar-nayaki-shahana from the north. Those ragas, combined with some swara changes (I have dubbed it "the age of interpolation" in CM - see a previous discussion), led to new ragas that turned out to possess most of the lakshanas of KK (which therefore became obsolete). It was not a case of KK lending material to other ragas....a somewhat subtle difference exists.

Other ragas also have gone out of circulation in the North and could be due to either of the two mechanisms that we have mentioned above. E.g., shuddha malhar (supplanted by miyan malhar and gaud malhar), sorath (supplanted by desh and jaijaivanti).

There are certain sancAra-s to be seen in older kalyAni compositions, that are taboo now, being in the jurisdiction of yamuna kalyAni or mOhana kalyAni.

Yes, a well-known example is the gita of Purandaradasa (kamalajadala) from the 1500s has antique prayogas which are no longer practised in CM Kalyani. At that time the raga was still being assimilated into CM by way of HM (where Kalyan and Yaman Kalyan still remain close cousins). CM has separated these ragas more clearly and developed Kalyani as a unique raga.

SR

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 02 Aug 2010, 21:51

1. the so called 'upanga' species of khamAj may have been crafted, in the light of the prizewinning dubious lakSaNa grantha the 'sangraha chUDAmaNI'.

SR, some other time, in some other thread, if you're so inclined, we should discuss the lyric of sujana jIvana, I have got hold of some interesting pAtha-bhEda-s.

2.

As far HK is concerned, it is more a scale and less a raga, so the issue becomes somewhat redundant in my opinion. Of course, HK is a well-known scale in world music (Greek, Middle Eastern etc). In Bharat it was the basic scale of the ancient Tamils. But none of these are raga-based systems. I think the influence of the folk traditions was minimal. But to be 100% sure, one has to find the oldest Harikambhoji composition. Are there any older than Tyagaraja's ? As for the identity of HK as a raga, I have considered this in the past and listened to several compositions. It is hard to see anything...occasional flashes like the phrase at the beginning of "rama nannu brova ra" (d p m g r s r g)...but seems nothing coherent that develops a separate identity. Some prayogas (not just the swaras) show shades of Sankarabharanam. Overall it is a haze to me.

there aren't older HK songs, but a very distinct svarupa of the raga has come into being.. the anupallavi of dinamaNivamshatilaka, has a few sangati-s, which have a reflection in the anupallavi of oka mATa oka bAnamu.
(actually a lot of very singular harikAmbhoji can be seen in the whole of the dinamAni.. song)

The absence of D nyAsa and the difference in the 'uccAraNa' of the d and n swara-s can be used to tell apart HK and its so called janya-s.

these sancAra-s may represent the kernel of what is now rAga harikAmbOdhi

there is a brilliant recording of entarA nI tanaku (and of rA rA phaNishayana) by vid.Sri R.K.SrikaNTan who has given a very telling exposition of the rAga, and his neraval and swarakalpana are definitive accounts of the rAga.

I would specially draw attention to when he dwells in the gmpd region with an occasional N and still establishes an unambiguous crystallisation of the rAgaswarUpa.

I agree, however, that it is a limited rAga, and will never have the multidimensional, multitextural quality of say kAmbhOji.

This leads to another bat in my belfry.. musicians with a certain musical understanding, and a certain degree of aesthetic vision, can (and have) fashioned singular identities for rAga-s (often those based on the scales that arose out of the 72 element periodic table)

I can cite the example of veeNa balachander, who in his highly original expositions of the mElarAgas {First released as several LP- and now a set of CD-s} has invested very successfully many of the melakarta-s with distinct identities.

Similarly Balamuralikrishna, in an Alapana of shrutiranjani/ kAntAmaNi [which shares the pUrvAnga of kalyAni] sang a recurrent srgmp sancAra (underscore is to indicate second speed) which isn't sung in any rAga of the same chakra. I felt this was a cerebral-aesthetic attempt to sculpt out a wholesome lakshaNa for a raga, instead of singing a patchwork AlApa of A's pUrvAnga and B's uttarAnga.

My teacher, Smt. Sakuntala Narasimhan, while teaching a krti in nAgAbharanaM (nagAnandini) pointedly told me to eschew some sancAra-s (which I sang) that had the gamaka-s and graces that smelt of ShankarAbharanaM, and I can discern a very unique rAgaswarUpa, in her expositions of the rAga.

This goes to show how we can't pooh-pooh the 'ah!-its-merely-a-scale' rAga-s.

I feel the Sivan brothers have manfuly tried to do the same in their mElarAgamAlikA and have had some success in demonstrating the nature of several rAga-s.

Yes, a well-known example is the gita of Purandaradasa (kamalajadala) from the 1500s has antique prayogas which are no longer practised in CM Kalyani.

are you sure it is by PurandaradAsa..?

I wish I could ask him what kamalaja-dala means..?

What sancAra-s from this are antique..? I noticed a strong consonance and continuity form this gitam to the Adi and ATa tAla varnaMs to the padam iddAri sandunA. Am very interested in knowing what in the geetammay be a relic of older Kalyani (if at all there were one)

hariniraghavan · Post by **hariniraghavan** » 02 Aug 2010, 22:08

Keerti, where can I get hold of Dr.R.Sathyanarayana's paper on evloution of Khamas? By the way I too have my own doubts whether Kamalajadala is Purandaradasa's.
Harini.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 03 Aug 2010, 00:09

keerthi wrote:1. the so called 'upanga' species of khamAj may have been crafted, in the light of the prizewinning dubious lakSaNa grantha the 'sangraha chUDAmaNI'.

Yes indeed, quite possible. The selfsame work that likely played a role in the obsoletion of Karnataka Kaphi and emergence of new versions of the kanada-based ragas.

SR, some other time, in some other thread, if you're so inclined, we should discuss the lyric of sujana jIvana, I have got hold of some interesting pAtha-bhEda-s.

Very interesting. Perhaps in the Ragas section ?

there aren't older HK songs, but a very distinct svarupa of the raga has come into being.. the anupallavi of dinamaNivamshatilaka, has a few sangati-s, which have a reflection in the anupallavi of oka mATa oka bAnamu.
(actually a lot of very singular harikAmbhoji can be seen in the whole of the dinamAni.. song)

Perhaps it is a question of degree and hence subjective. Dinamanivamsha (to me) has very strong Sankarabharanam shades.

I would specially draw attention to when he dwells in the gmpd region with an occasional N and still establishes an unambiguous crystallisation of the rAgaswarUpa.

I will check this out and reflect upon it to see if I can arrive at something clear.

This leads to another bat in my belfry.. musicians with a certain musical understanding, and a certain degree of aesthetic vision, can (and have) fashioned singular identities for rAga-s (often those based on the scales that arose out of the 72 element periodic table). This goes to show how we can't pooh-pooh the 'ah!-its-merely-a-scale' rAga-s.

I am not pooh-poohing mela ragas. I know that several musicians have tried to put together a singular identity for each mela raga, and it is indeed quite possible. For some ragas, they have been successful in my opinion. The expertise of scholars is not in question. I suspect this has more to do with the relative absence of existing "old" ragas which already cover that terrain. That is the main issue here, I think. For example, ragas like Kanakangi are relatively easy to sculpt because there is essentially nobody else to lay claims to its territory. Harikambhoji has the problem of a scale that lends itself to many existing ragas.

are you sure it is by PurandaradAsa..?

Yes, yes, I know it does not contain the "purandara vitthala" signature, is in "pure" Sanskrit, and has similarities to Appayya Dikshitar's gitam in Mohanam, etc. The tradition attributes it to Purandara and perhaps that is a guess (unless there has been a more reliable assignment of the composer).

When I learned the gitas in Kalyani and Mohanam my guru (Purushottam Shastri) explained that the sahityas are attributed to Purandaradasa and Appayya Dikshitar respectively.

I have always been curious to know whether the sahitya of "kamalajadala" is found within Appayya Dikshitar's works ? In fact I have been more suspicious of the Mohanam varnam "varavinamrdupaani" (which explicitly praises "Ranganayaki") being attributed to Appayya Dikshitar. Are any shaiva-oriented gita sahityas also attributed to him ?

I wish I could ask him what kamalaja-dala means..?

Kamalajadala means "Having brahma (kamalaja) as a part (dala)". Dala also has the secondary meaning of "leaf", e.g. "sarasijadala" means "lotus leaf". Or there could be an error in the sahitya transmission and it should be "kamaladalavimalasunayana" (single word).

What sancAra-s from this are antique..? I noticed a strong consonance and continuity form this gitam to the Adi and ATa tAla varnaMs to the padam iddAri sandunA. Am very interested in knowing what in the geetammay be a relic of older Kalyani (if at all there were one)

1) PGRS
2) D, D, D, G, G, G

SR

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 03 Aug 2010, 00:35

When I learned the gitas in Kalyani and Mohanam my guru (Purushottam Shastri) explained that the sahityas are attributed to Purandaradasa and Appayya Dikshitar respectively.

I have always been curious to know whether the sahitya of "kamalajadala" is found within Appayya Dikshitar's works ? In fact I have been more suspicious of the Mohanam varnam "varavinamrdupaani" (which explicitly praises "Ranganayaki") being attributed to Appayya Dikshitar. Are any shaiva-oriented gita sahityas also attributed to him ?

This is very interesting.. though we have discussed this elsewhere in rasikas; you have added a new question. there is a nAta geetaM on gaurI, which uses as the lyric, the first verse of AD's kuvalayAnanda - amarI-kabarI-bhAra-bhramari-mukurI0krtaM
dUrI-karOtu duritaM gaurI-caraNa-pankajaM ||

'VaravIna' is really interesting,

1. I suspect (and speculate(outrageously)) that it may have been vara-vInA-mrudu-vAnI [along the lines of vINA-mRdu-gadanA et.c.]

2. it refers not just to ranganAyakI, but to a varada-priya-ranganAyaki; and an unqualified use of the word varada can only refer to the varadaraja i.e. kari-varada form.
It may be an interesting exercise to trace a shrine where there are deities with these names.

p.s - Appayya dIkSita has a verse on varadarAja called varadarAjastava.

3. I see no evidence favouring Appayya dIkshitar's authorship of varavInA - the lyric is too simple, bordering on the banal, and Appayya was a genius poet.

Kamalajadala means "Having brahma (kamalaja) as a part (dala)". Dala also has the secondary meaning of "leaf", e.g. "sarasijadala" means "lotus leaf". Or there could be an error in the sahitya transmission and it should be "kamaladalavimalasunayana" (single word).

1) PGRS
2) D, D, D, G, G, G

Mayyybee.. Not so sure.. PGRS is staple in lots of krti-s, (and it is sung to the tune of pmGRS)

The latter phrase i have learnt as DnD, GRG,, [if you refer to the karuNA sharadhE phrase ].

I rejoice your surmise that it may be | ka-ma-a | la-a-da-la || as that was my guess too..

The rAllapalli pATHAntara is kamala-daLa-nibha; and I find that highly satisfactory as well.

Having Brahma as a part sounds contrived; and also in not in keeping with PD's style. i can see others like srIpAdarAja and vijayadAsa doing that ,but not PurandaradAsa.

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 04 Aug 2010, 03:51

keerthi wrote:1. I suspect (and speculate(outrageously)) that it may have been vara-vInA-mrudu-vAnI [along the lines of vINA-mRdu-gadanA et.c.]

Quite possible.

3. I see no evidence favouring Appayya dIkshitar's authorship of varavInA - the lyric is too simple, bordering on the banal, and Appayya was a genius poet.

As far I can see it is quite decently composed, with attention to prosody. The last line might be corrupted. It may have been a simple invocation. Not sure the "simplicity" of the lyric can be used for attribution purposes, especially for such a short composition. I do agree that the subject is not something Appayya Dikshitar might be expected to compose on, which is what "aroused my suspicion" earlier.

Mayyybee.. Not so sure.. PGRS is staple in lots of krti-s, (and it is sung to the tune of pmGRS)

I prefer to draw a clear distinction between PGRS and PmGRS....the two are separate prayogas. The "m" is not an alpa swara in CM Kalyani. When it is in fact used as an alpa swara in CM, it is in Yamuna Kalyani - and goes back to my earlier statement that the two ragas are more clearly separated in CM. Especially in a lakshana gita, omitting the "m" is quite significant.

The latter phrase i have learnt as DnD, GRG,, [if you refer to the karuNA sharadhE phrase ].

Hmmm...interesting. I have never seen it notated that way before. I wonder if these variations result from later efforts to "regularize" the gita with respect to the development of the raga. In other words, after Kalyani developed into what we know post 18th century or so, it might have looked a little odd that the lakshanagita sounds a little "obsolete", so someone might have tried to "reprise" the lakshanas (either formally in writing, or informally by oral transmission).

Having Brahma as a part sounds contrived

Not sure why....every Sanskrit determinative can be turned into a possessive compound (bahuvrihi). Nothing contrived about it at all....actually a standard feature. But I agree, it can be confusing and lead to allegations of "imperfect sahitya". E.g., words like "indrashatru", "diviyoni", "rajaputra" (among many other examples) in Rgveda are bahuvrihi compounds often confused for tatpurushas. These are revealed constructs and not later artificially made-up rules. Perhaps such words are confused as tatpurushas due to later "conditioning" ?

But overall, in the cases we are discussing, I think the dice are in favor of the "corrupted lyrics" (and maybe even corrupted prayogas!) hypothesis.

SR

srinath G · Post by **srinath G** » 17 Aug 2010, 16:56

saphilablue wrote:you are probably not going to see this reply, but here goes anyway. janya ragas are derived not only on the basis of swaras, but also o the gamakas used. for example, mohana could be a janya raga of shankarabarana or kalyani as well based solely on the swaras. however the gamaka for the daivatham comes from N2 and not N3. hence it is a janya of harikamboji.

This is quite reliable and correct reason for MOhana raga to be janya of harikamboji...
well said Sir

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 25 Aug 2010, 09:06

Mohanam is a very old raga and furthermore its lakshanas have very little to do with Harikambhoji. Even an elementary study of the gita "varavinamrdupani" and varna "ninnukori" makes it clear that it is fully covered by the lakshanas of the later-developed "super-ragas" Kalyani and (to some extent) Sankarabharanam. In that sense it is a janya of Kalyani and Sankarabharanam. The gamakas on dhaivata and most of the gamakas on rishabha and gandhara are clearly Kalyani territory (with some influence of Sankarabharanam). In the historical sense, however, it is older than all of these ragas.

I wish gurus would teach the basics of raga analysis to young learners. Use the didactic compositions such as gitas and varnas to explain these aspects. Muddled conceptions of ragas have proved a difficult habit to kick in CM.

SR

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 25 Aug 2010, 10:24

SR, can you explain more on the gamaka relationship between Mohanam and Kalyani. We probably discussed this before.
Especially the gamaka of Mohanam on Ga which I like very much: The curve that goes to Pa and come back and settles down on Ga.

Secondly, is there any evidence of genealogical relationship between Mohanam and Kalyani in the sense Kalyani actually developed out of the old raga like Mohanam or it just so happens they happen to have the relationship you are talking about.

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 25 Aug 2010, 10:53

Mohanam is a very old raga and furthermore its lakshanas have very little to do with Harikambhoji.......
The gamakas on dhaivata and most of the gamakas on rishabha and gandhara are clearly Kalyani territory (with some influence of Sankarabharanam)....

In the historical sense, however, it is older than all of these ragas.

The story of mohana is fascinating; in that, it is has a very recent history under the name 'mOhana'.

The oldest known compositions(using the name mOhana) are the mega vaRNam 'sariga dAni' of karvETinagaraM gOvindasAmayya, and ksEtrayya's padam 'maguva tana kElikA-mandiramu'.

It earlier existed as an auDuva rAga with several subspecies - It was called regupti and revagupti.

The modern version of regupti uses Suddha R and D in the south indian connotation of that word; while mohana-that-was-rEgupti used the northern 'Shuddha' i.e, chatushruti R and D.

I remeber reading in one of the turn-of-last-century publications that the Govindasamayya varNaM was referred to as a rEgupti varnaM.

Prof. SRJ has mentioned in his rAgalakSanam, about the persistent tradition of referring to the rAga as rEgupti in Andhra-land. [when they heard hamsadhwani for the first time, Andhra scholars said,""Oh! this is merely regupti with a NiSAda"]

There are no compositions of annamayya or shESayyangar in this rAga (at least under this name). It has however been used by the trinity and their contemporaries including mAtRbhUtayya and pallavi dorasAmayya.

It is interesting to note that the notes of bhupAlam in the southern and bhUp(Ali) in the northern tradition are the same five notes [while they currently differ in there swara-sthAna-s]

Thus we have an interesting mosaic with several regupti-s and bhupala/i-s and mohana running riot!

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 25 Aug 2010, 11:39

keerthi wrote:The modern version of regupti uses Suddha R and D in the south indian connotation of that word; while mohana-that-was-rEgupti used the northern 'Shuddha' i.e, chatushruti R and D.

You are of course correct about modern regupti, but not about the "mohana-that-was-regupti". It is important to note that:

1. The authoritative Ragavibodha of Somanatha (1610 CE), an Andhran author himself, clearly states rEvagupti as using shuddha R (in the south Indian sense, NOT the north indian) and shuddha D (again in the south Indian sense, NOT the north indian). Bhatkhande explicitly notes that the meaning of "shuddha" here is the equivalent of "komal" in Hindustani. In other words, these svaras have not changed. The original revagupti was not sung with the swaras of present-day mohanam.

2. Somanatha also has the raga Bhupali which is listed as a janya of the "mallara" mela. It has the swaras of present-day Bhupali/Mohanam.

Prof. SRJ has mentioned in his rAgalakSanam, about the persistent tradition of referring to the rAga as rEgupti in Andhra-land. [when they heard hamsadhwani for the first time, Andhra scholars said,""Oh! this is merely regupti with a NiSAda"]

It looks like this "tradition" is not of very old vintage. Perhaps a variant/interpolation of the accepted paradigm that might have found favor among some authors. Or maybe an unfortunate result of an incorrectly copied manuscript ? Who knows ? Perhaps this "tradition" is of the same category as the aThANA with the antara gandhara ?

In summary, I don't think there is enough evidence to suggest that the origin of mohanam rests in the revagupti variant. See below for my own theory.

It is interesting to note that the notes of bhupAlam in the southern and bhUp(Ali) in the northern tradition are the same five notes [while they currently differ in there swara-sthAna-s]

Yes, indeed. I have also noted this before. Other such CM/HM "pairs" with "inverted" (either fully or mostly) swaras are Shri/Shri, Hindolam/Hindol, Malahari/Malhar.

My theory is again linked to the "age of interpolation". There seems to have been a great tendency to: (1) interpolate and switch swaras of known ragas, (2) obscure the northern origins of many southern ragas, while at the same time (3) import a number of northern ragas and attempt to make them look different by process (1).

I speculate that the swaras of the existing raga Bhupali were switched to "shuddha" (in the CM sense) and called Bhupalam. Whereas the swaras of the original raga Bhupali were appropriated with a new name "Mohanam" that now sounds like it is a totally different raga. I am not implying that all this was done by the "same person". I am saying that people started singing the so-called Mohanam as a "new" raga while developing amnesia with respect to the already existing Bhupali.

Whatever the vagaries of the name changes, I was essentially referring to present-day Mohanam as the raga that is very close to Bhupali, and also including some Deshkar lakshanas. In all these cases, we immediately see the influence of Kalyan and secondarily Bilawal from the HM system, which appears as the influence of Kalyani and secondarily Sankarabharanam in CM. Perhaps it is more appropriate to refer to "Mohanam" as "Bhupali", indeed the ancient raga.

Harikambhoji is, of course, not even a bit player in these considerations at all.

SR

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Aug 2010, 18:46

Sangeet Rasik wrote: 1. The authoritative Ragavibodha of Somanatha (1610 CE), an Andhran author himself, clearly states rEvagupti as using shuddha R (in the south Indian sense, NOT the north indian) and shuddha D (again in the south Indian sense, NOT the north indian).

SR - can you provide more specifics on this reference (i.e.any book that refers/elaborates on this) - in particular explicit reference to distinction between the North Indian and South Indian ris.

In other words, these svaras have not changed

Do you mean in the context of regupti (i presume) or that through time the suddha-swaras were always R1/D1?

Thanks
Arun

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 25 Aug 2010, 20:13

Arunk,

The reference (stated before in the athana discussion) is: "Music Systems in India: A Comparative Study of some the Leading Music Systems of the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries" by VN Bhatkhande. He has exhaustive tables of swara assignments and melas from previous works (both northern and southern) spanning 4 centuries.

I have cross-checked some of his tables, e.g. with caturdandiprakashika, and they seem to be accurate.

Keerthi,

More on revagupti: Ramamatya (1550 CE), Somanatha (1610) and Venkatamakhin (1639) all seem unanimous on this raga w.r.t. to the R, G, and D swaras. It takes shuddha rishabha, antara gandhara, and shuddha dhaivata (all in the CM sense) - same as the modern version. This seems to have been well-known/accepted, as can be inferred from Venkakatamakhi's criticism of Ramamatya (who had a different conception of the nishada in mela hejjuji - the parent scale of revagupti):

CP IV. 204-205: "Ramamatya, your statement that kakali nishada should be taken in the mela of hejjuji raga, is, again, utterly despicable; for shuddha nishada is taken in that mela in the whole world by both instrumentalists and singers."

This seems to imply that the scale of hejjuji (and hence revagupti, see CP:V.79-80 where he states it is born of hejjuji-mela by omitting ma and ni), as stated by Venkatamakhi (and corroborated by Somanatha), was well-known as standard. In any case, the disagreement with Ramamatya is on the nishada...all three of them agree on the rishabha, gandhara, and dhaivata as seen in the comparative mela raga tables.

More on Bhupali/Bhupalam later.

SR

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Aug 2010, 20:44

Thanks SR. I need to buy that next time I am in India. So the reference to the difference in suddha-svaras between North/South is directly in ragavibodha (as opposed to inference by musicologists)?

The reason I ask is that sometime ago I was looking into more insights on "problem" (in interpretation - against the 2-vina experiment as well as consonance principles) with taking R1/D1 as the "original" (i.e. pre-mela) suddhaswaras as was proposed by (some) early mela authors (i.e. problem compared to something closer to R2/D1 and also perhaps more importantly G2 rather than G1). I was trying to see if did anyone else suggest R2/D2 as the original swaras or was it uniformly R1/D1 (in which case the interpretation is somehow incorrect). At that point, I remember reading as the only text which referred to R2/D2 as the original suddha-swaras was some work hrdayaprakasa. From googling now, I think this maybe Nijenhuis' paper (who also did an extensive study on Ragavibodha if I am not mistaken - perhaps the info is in the same paper - I think I have a copy at home - will check later).

Arun

keerthi · Post by **keerthi** » 25 Aug 2010, 22:19

At that point, I remember reading as the only text which referred to R2/D2 as the original suddha-swaras was some work hrdayaprakasa

the hRdaya-prakAsha of king hRdayanArAyaNa dEva uses the words chatushruti; and is of uncertain time.

It seems to have had a lot of influence from what is modern carnatic technical parlance; and should be used with caution.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Aug 2010, 22:29

Thanks keerthi, From what I gather, in spite of problem is exact dating, it is still supposedly around 17th century i.e. same era as CDP and others. I dont (or didnt) know about modern that too carnatic parlance usages, given that it is signified as one concentrating on North Indian perspective.

Arun

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 25 Aug 2010, 23:33

arunk wrote:Thanks SR. I need to buy that next time I am in India. So the reference to the difference in suddha-svaras between North/South is directly in ragavibodha (as opposed to inference by musicologists)?

The reason I ask is that sometime ago I was looking into more insights on "problem" (in interpretation - against the 2-vina experiment as well as consonance principles) with taking R1/D1 as the "original" (i.e. pre-mela) suddhaswaras

Yes, it is a must-read. Somanatha does not make an explicit statement on svara differences between north and south. The long-overdue comprehensive analysis (of the scales, svara terminologies, and tuning methods) was done by Bhatkhande, precisely to remove confusion caused by the differing terminologies and methods of "scale-tuning" mentioned by previous authors. Bhatkhande took great pains to acquire/copy the manuscripts of a large number of relevant works - these (along with their location at the time) are listed in the book.

SR

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Aug 2010, 23:55

I presume you have it accessible? Is it possible to give a quick few sentences on his thoughts on the relation/correlation of shuddha-swaras during later system (i.e. 15th-17th) to shuddha swaras of grama system? That is what I am most interested in.

Arun

Sangeet Rasik · Post by **Sangeet Rasik** » 26 Aug 2010, 10:11

Arunk,

I am posting a summary of the shuddha scales of both Northern and Southern works, as analyzed by Bhatkhande. They are arranged in chronological order.

Text Author Location Date Shuddha scale (represented by modern Carnatic/Hindustani melas/thaats)

Ragatarangini Lochana Mithila (Bihar) ca. 1500 Kharaharapriya/Kafi
Swaramelakalanidhi Ramamatya Vijayanagar 1550 Kanakangi
Sadragachandrodaya Pundarikavitthala Madhyapradesh ca. 1600 Kanakangi (see Note #1 below)
Ragavibodha Somanatha Andhra 1610 Kanakangi
Chaturdandiprakashika Venkatamakhin Tanjavur (Tamil Nadu) 1639 Kanakangi
Hrdaya(kautuka+prakasha) Hrdayanarayana Gauda (Bengal) ca. 1650 Kharaharapriya/Kafi
Sangitaparijata Ahobala Rajasthan ca. 1650 Kharaharapriya/Kafi
Ragatattvavibodha Srinivasa Rajasthan ca. 1700 Kharaharapriya/Kafi
Rasakaumudi Srikantha Gujarat ca. 1700 Kanakangi (see Note #2)
Anupasangitavilasa Bhavabhatta Rajasthan 1675-1710 Kanakangi (see Note #3)
Sangitasaramrta Tulajirao Bhonsle Tanjavur (Tamil Nadu) 1783 Kanakangi

Notes:

#1: Although Pundarika was settled in Madhya Pradesh and described the northern music system and ragas, his shuddha scale is Kanakangi. Bhatkhande quotes the author's autobiographical notes in Sadragachandrodaya which mention that he is from the Karnata region in the vicinity of Shivaganga.

#2: Bhatkhande notes that Srikantha's vina tuning description exactly matches that of Ramamatya and Somanatha, and that he must have read their works.

#3: According to the author's autobiographical details (quoted in the original by Bhatkhande), he was born in Malwa (Madhya Pradesh) but later moved to Rajasthan (Bikaner). Bhatkhande notes that his work is heavily influenced by Pundarika (also from the same geographical area) - hence it is not a surprise that his shuddha scale is also Kanakangi.

The difficult part, of course, is that all the authors claim to be aligned with Sharangadeva and Bharata. All of them accept that the only practical grama is the shadjagrama and that the shuddha scale commencing with shadja is the shadja-grama. But the northern system can have the vikrita swaras on both sides of the shuddha swara (which hence is in a central position); whereas in the southern system the shuddha swara is at the lowest position and the vikritas are produced by upward tuning.

The historical records of the medieval authors above seem to indicate that Kharaharapriya was the shuddha scale of the northern works and Kanakangi the shuddha scale of the southern works. Since Bharata and Sharangadeva were both northerners, one could superficially speculate that the northern tradition is more directly connected to their works.

SR

rasikas.org

Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association

Re: Janya-Janaka Association