chitravina ravikiran shruti values lec-dem MA Dec 26th

[uday_shankar]

9AM to 10AM Kasturi Srinivasan Hall Music Academy

Chitravina Ravikiran gave a packed audience of experts and lay folks at the Kasturi Srinivasan Hall of the Music Academy a fascinating glimpse of how to approach the so called shruti values used in south Indian musicology using a chitravina. This is not a comprehensive recap but a free wheeling account of what I felt were some of more salient take aways:

1. Chitravina strings are an objective tool like a number line that can remove the subjectivity of drawing conclusions such as trying to judge the degree of inflections in vocal music or the extent of pulling on vina strings
The chitravina has a longer vibrating length than the violin and hence has the facility to drill down exactly to any desired pitch or swarasthana with a high degree of precision.

2. Not much difference between the so-called trishruti and chatushruti rishabams
Such ratios are so close to one another that in practice they are practically the same. The same holds for the so-called ekashruti rishabam and dvishruti rishabam and so on. All this directly leads to the next point about trying to assign a fixed value such as a the ekashurti rishabam to a moving gamakam such as the saveri RI.

The one exception where the fixed value of a certain note makes a difference is in regards to the so-called trishruti dhaivata and chatishruti dhaivata. The tuning of the sympathetic strings of the chitravina to the shankarabharam scale immediately highights the problem. When one tries to align the DA to its intuitively right value (which as a consonance with both GA and MA), it falls slightly short of consonance with RI.

3. Not correct to assign a fixed ratio to a moving note suchas a gamakam (like say begada ma)
The notion of an “average” or any other sophisticated mathematical measure of a central value to a gamakam is erroneous. For example, calling the rishabam of saveri as ekashruti rishabam or the madhyamam of begada as something else.

4. A very interesting observation about the gamakas of kalyani GA and Nattaikurunji MA
Ravikiran pointed out that it is easy to conclude, based on violin fingering, that the exact same physical process is used to create the oscillating GA of kalyani as well as the oscillating MA of Nattaikurinji. However, Ravikiran showed that this is a subtle fallacy. In reality, the range of oscillations for the Nattaikurinji MA is more (i.e., all the way from GA to M1) than that of Kalyani GA which is an exceptionally subtle and small inflection of the GA that falls short of M1. Executed on the chitravina string, this distinction becomes startlingly evident...


There was a lot more said but I don’t want to post without verification, which I will when I get time.

Prof. S.R.J., the pre-eminent musicologist of our times had fascinating interactions with Ravikiran during the course of the lecture and one felt that the moderator (Pappu Venugopala Rao) curbed SRJ’s style by asking him to keep his remarks to the end. Fortunately the ever nice N Murali was able cushion it a little. SRJ gave a nice wrap up speech in his inimitable style and promised to hold a special class to explain to the rest of us all that was said by Ravikiran .

[Rsachi]

Uday_Shankar,
Thank you.
I am reading this just after listening to the S'Priya upload of this year's MA concert excerpts aired of Ravkiran.
Whilst listening I had just felt that perhaps there is NO other musician or musical instrument with such a purity of tonality as Ravikiran.
Your debrief kindles my curiosity enormously. I think the combination of the man's musical creativity, his instrument and his insight form an incomparable resource for us to understand CM ragas and gamakas.
Would it be asking too much for a recording of the proceedings of this led-dem to be made available?
Ideally, if somehow rasikas.org can share the recording, and then a moderated web chat, it would serve the interests of Carnatic music ENORMOUSLY.
I leave my request in your capable hands!
Thanks again!
Sachi R

[thanjavooran]

uday_shankar Avl,
Excellent report. Many thanx for the detailed writeup. Ravikiran's presence in most of the Lec Dem shows his interest in Musicology. Rightly said , Pappu Rao's frequent intervention is not in good taste as this was the case last year too during the lec dem of Prof TNK and TS. Eagerly waiting for the balance report from you.
with wishes,
Thanjavooran
29 12 2012

[mahavishnu]

Would it be asking too much for a recording of the proceedings of this led-dem to be made available?
Ideally, if somehow rasikas.org can share the recording, and then a moderated web chat, it would serve the interests of Carnatic music ENORMOUSLY.
I leave my request in your capable hands!

Ditto that. It would be great if Sri Ravikiran himself would be willing to take questions through this forum following the posting of the lec-dem.

Uday, thanks for a wonderful summary.

[srikant1987]

4. A very interesting observation about the gamakas of kalyani GA and Nattaikurunji MA
Ravikiran pointed out that it is easy to conclude, based on violin fingering, that the exact same physical process is used to create the oscillating GA of kalyani as well as the oscillating MA of Nattaikurinji. However, Ravikiran showed that this is a subtle fallacy. In reality, the range of oscillations for the Nattaikurinji MA is more (i.e., all the way from GA to M1) than that of Kalyani GA which is an exceptionally subtle and small inflection of the GA that falls short of M1. Executed on the chitravina string, this distinction becomes startlingly evident...

Uday, a decent violinist would know this well! Why, sometimes both middle and ring finger are used for nATTaikurinji ma, where as for the kalyANi ga, only the middle finger is to be used.

But yes, these days many violinists -- even vaiNikas and even singers -- have overoscillated gas in kalyANi, mOhanam, etc. It sounds nauseating in fact.

3. Not correct to assign a fixed ratio to a moving note suchas a gamakam (like say begada ma)
The notion of an “average” or any other sophisticated mathematical measure of a central value to a gamakam is erroneous. For example, calling the rishabam of saveri as ekashruti rishabam or the madhyamam of begada as something else.

I too have felt it very dumb to say that bEgaDa ma is "more" or sAvEri riShabha is "less", since they are not a single pitch. But it is heartening to know that vidwans like Sri Ravikiran too agree with that.

[mahavishnu]

But yes, these days many violinists -- even vaiNikas and even singers -- have overoscillated gas in kalyANi, mOhanam, etc. It sounds nauseating in fact.

That will do it.
Sorry, couldn't resist.

[eesha]

uday_shankar Avl,
Pappu Rao's frequent intervention is not in good taste as this was the case last year too during the lec dem of Prof TNK and TS.
29 12 2012

Pappu Rao not only intervenes frequently, his remarks at audience and even sometimes at the artists on the stage are also acidic and boorish, as I have observed last year and this year. He has to tone down a lot.

[thanjavooran]

'Pappu Rao not only intervenes frequently, his remarks at audience and even sometimes at the artists on the stage are also acidic and boorish, as I have observed last year and this year. He has to tone down a lot. '[/quote]
dear eesha Avl,
Please refer under 'my observations' in the following links
# 91 of http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 7&start=75
# 3 0f http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=18743
Thanjavooran
29 12 2012

[varsha]

If there is one pointer to the irrelevance of the guys that hold the reins in the Academy , it is the way he was seen talking down to the likes of SRJ and TRS.Men of stature in advanced age , standing up to reply.
Let me get this straight .If the Academy hopes to have something to do with aesthetics in the future , they should prevent such people at the gates.Let alone allowing them up on to the dias .

[vasanthakokilam]

Uday: Thanks for the write-up. Very informative.

3. Not correct to assign a fixed ratio to a moving note suchas a gamakam (like say begada ma)
The notion of an “average” or any other sophisticated mathematical measure of a central value to a gamakam is erroneous. For example, calling the rishabam of saveri as ekashruti rishabam or the madhyamam of begada as something else.

Understood about the futility of talking of ratios of oscillating notes. But I have a question about Saveri. Taking as an example, Bhavayami swara portion in Saveri, S R G S R... , the second R is definitely oscillated but the artists do not seem to shake the first R. Is that R same as MMG R or different?

[uday_shankar]

Taking as an example, Bhavayami swara portion in Saveri, S R G S R... , the second R is definitely oscillated but the artists do not seem to shake the first R. Is that R same as MMG R or different?

I will certainly check with chitravina ravikiran and request him to respond to our questions. In the meanwhile I'll mix some insights gathered over time from Ravikiran with some personal fiction...

As far as I can tell there is no "difference" between that R and MMG R . In general, most sensitive artists sing/play their R1's as close to the SA as the aesthetics permit it and it varies even within a given raga. Again they take it higher in specific instances - for example in a raga like Revati, where the plain R1 definitely sounds elevated due to its similarity with the age old candence of vedic chanting, wherein the highest swara (I forget their names - I think the high note, equivalent to R of revathi or G of kharaharpriya, is called Uddata) is heard higher than what is normally perceived as R1. Again, HIndustani intonations for swaras close to Sa and Pa are definitely much more elevated (R1 and D1 in Bhairav) or depressed (M2 and N3 in Yaman) than their Carnatic equaivalent ragas. But jugalbandhis go on merrily without much discord. Each system has an accepted aesthetic and even within that there are many variants.

[chitravina ravikiran]

Hello rasikas,

First up, I wish you all a wonderfully tuneful new year!

Those who have been attending the Music Academy lec-dem sessions over the last 3 to 4 years may have taken cognisance of certain discussions (even debates) between me and other expert committee members/musicians regarding ragas like Begada and how their notes are handled, how they should be classified etc. I had repeatedly postulated that several assumptions about notes were wrong - over centuries - because of two inherent flaws:

1. Trying to scientifically measuring them using voice - which is largely instinctive (even if the musician possessed a keen intellect). Deflecting a veena strings or controlling the blowing in a flute is also non-standardized - from a study angle.

2. Trying to declare a shruti value to a moving (oscillated) note.

There are a few other issues too, such as:

1. Illusory: Modern technology has conclusively proved (even in sessions like Madhumohan’s at the Music Academy, 2010) that shrutis and even swara frequencies the human mind perceives can be quite different to music actually rendered (even on instruments). This implies that a lot of talks, discussions or even debates have been based on brilliant theory on paper but imagination in practice

2. Minuscule intervals: It has to be noted that the 22 shruti system does not always follow a consistent interval between consecutive shrutis.
In other words, a trishruti Ri or Da does not lie exactly in between a Dvisrhuti and Chatushruti Ri and Da respectively, as its name would imply. It is just an interval of 81/80 (which is almost negligible in practice). This is probably the single most important concept to remember while talking about 22 shrutis. There are 10 such (pramana shruti) intervals in the 22 shruti scheme.

Let's consider the implications of the above. Those who imagine a clear cut distinction between such shrutis try to demonstrate ragas based on this flawed assumption of a distance and in the process render the notes incorrectly or write books about various ragas and notes that can be fatally misleading... Examples of Begada Ma, Ni, Gowlipantu Ma etc fall under this category.

The other side of the coin is that in many instances, there are real distinctions between notes which have not been documented correctly (like the Da in Reetigowla vs the Da of Sriranjani and Anandabhairavi, which means that only a very few artistes render them correctly. More later!!

[cacm]

Dear Ravi,
I thank you for enlarging & enlightening us. I particularly have been intrigued by the physics aspects of sruti as well as swara frequencies etc and did some experiments on what "absolute" time (in the Newtonian sense!) is the outside limit for a performer to correct MISTAKES.
I treated the whole process as one in which the delivery of the sound mechanism is treated as a transducer, then the performer as a servo-mechanism in which the musician hears his own deviation from "Correct value" (from what his brain is telling him/her) and making Correction, and the latest facts about the plasticity of the brain (to the extent we can tell) etc and did some experiments and came to the conclusion that one hundredths of a second is what the number is for a "PERFECT" artist like you to correct any mistakes made in execution.
To me that amazes me even more than my amazement of musicians of your calibre -I include MMI, MSS, and PMI in this category- are able to do! VKV

[mahavishnu]

1. Illusory: Modern technology has conclusively proved (even in sessions like Madhumohan’s at the Music Academy, 2010) that shrutis and even swara frequencies the human mind perceives can be quite different to music actually rendered (even on instruments). This implies that a lot of talks, discussions or even debates have been based on brilliant theory on paper but imagination in practice

Sri Ravikiran, Thank you for your excellent summary. I have been intrigued by the psychophysical problem of tone perception (that you described above) in my own research. One of the big questions that has been floating around in the music cognition community is why people are fooled by this illusion, that the stimulus energy (from the acoustics) and the perceived note are indeed different in a context sensitive manner. And why this difference is particularly difficult to tell in the context of voicing.

A major recent finding in this area that you would find useful is that people perceive their own pitch more accurately using a slide instrument than with the human voice (this has only been shown in the context of W.Classical music and non-oscillating notes, so it still has a long way to go before it can attack the Da in Reetigowla vs the Da of Sriranjani and Anandabhairavi).

But, I thought this link here could help you refine this question in your research further. http://www.brams.umontreal.ca/plab/publ ... rticle/161

I paraphrase here from their abstract: In a series of experiments, musicians and non-musicians were tested in pitch matching and judgment tasks.....

"Experiment 1 introduces a new instrument called a slider, on which participants can match pitches without using their voice. Pitch matching on the slider can be directly compared with vocal pitch matching, and results showed that both musicians and nonmusicians were more accurate using the slider than their voices to match target pitches, arguing against a perceptual explanation of singing deficits. Experiment 2 added a self-matching condition and showed that nonmusicians were better at matching their own voice than a synthesized voice timbre, but were still not as accurate as on the slider. This suggests a timbral translation type of mapping error."

Updated: VKV sir, I just saw your post above on servo mechanisms. I think the paper that I have mentioned actually talks about exactly this process in pitch-corrections and the fast time scale of its operation. I think you will find the conceptualization here quite interesting.

[Rsachi]

Mahavishnu, VKV and other cognoscenti,
I think this topic as could be presented by Sri Ravikiran is an ideal starting point for a series of rasikas.org webex/Citrix hosted video presentation with listeners being able to interact via voice/text. The software can be selected on suitability basis, but I think rasikas.org can take a lead here and start sessions. The sessions can be at the usual Chennai concert times like 5:30-8:00 PM, with recorded timeshift recasts. I am prepared to pitch in a contribution to make this happen! Of course it should be held in a hall with good acoustics and some lucky rasikas co-located with the presenter can attend/manage the event.
What say!?
Sachi R

[mahavishnu]

I'm in. I think we rasikas should do a full interactive session with Sri Ravikiran.

[Rsachi]

Yes, that's what I thought!

[yessel]

I request the members to send a thanks message to Ravikiran for sharing this precious recording.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/11a3gfmmeofju ... ravina.zip

[mahavishnu]

Thank you, Sri Ravikiran for sharing this here. It is very kind of you.

[Rsachi]

Many thanks, Mr Ravikiran and Yessel!

[chitravina ravikiran]

I am glad that Mr Yessel was able to share this with all of you. I thought it would be more realistic for all of us to discuss such intricacies against the background of the audio of the demos I had given as well. (I don't possess a copy of the recording yet...) Given the importance of this subject, I will be most happy to have live interactive sessions with rasikas on this at anytime convenient to all.

Mahavishnu,

I do mean to check the link in detail though I glanced at it. But it is interesting to note that that slide is recognised even in other cultures as a highly scientific option...

did some experiments and came to the conclusion that one hundredths of a second is what the number is for a "PERFECT" artist like you to correct any mistakes made in execution.

VKV sir,

That is remarkable to know - at least in theory. I must clarify that in reality, other factors (such as other instruments, ambient noise, hall acoustics etc) can sometimes slow down the perception or correction processes even with respect to plain notes.

[Observer]

Thanks to Ravikiran Sir and Yessel for making the recording of the lec-dem available to us. It was indeed a fascinating and a very interesting session.

But it makes me wonder if musicians actually measure the ratios while singing/playing ragas or do listeners do mental math on the shrutis that they perceive. If they actually don't do that in real-time, why worry about the assigning of shruti ratios to gamakas or even to plain notes for that matter?

Western music could do well with a discrete 12-tone scale, but Carnatic music being complex (can also be called 'imaginary' as in mathematics) with its continuous nature, gamakas, jaarus, bhrigas etc., warranted more swaras for a better depiction. Great people centuries before us have logically derived 22-srutis in a geometrically progressing manner with well-defined intervals (not necessarily equal intervals) and have given them names like ekasruti, trisruti etc. The additional ten ratios could be viewed as more 'indicative' of the range of oscillations in practice rather than be construed as being cast in stone as fixed values. This is evident from our present day practical approach of pruning the number down to 16-swaras with an overlap of R2-R3 with G1-G2 and D2-D3 with N1-N2, with the notes sharing swarasthanas on the instruments as discussed earlier in this forum itself, or with some vocalists pronouncing the notes interchangeably (I don't know if it is right or wrong though).

The discussions in the Q&A session were also on the practical aspects and challenges, like how to negotiate the Ga gamaka in Todi without producing Cha-Ri since it is not a member of the Todi raga framework, as beautifully explained by a gentleman in the audience. The focus did not seem to be on the ratio values of the gamakas per se. This itself indicates that we are aware that the shruti to be produced lies somewhere between Cha-Ri and Sa-Ga, probably a pramana sruti (81/80) less than Sa-Ga, thus establishing the fact that a gamaka can be approximated to a ratio and vice-versa ( ie., the ratio at a miniscule interval from a plain note can be musically discernibly realised by executing a gamaka), respecting the limitations posed by human perception. Ravikiran sir demonstrated this so aesthetically in a particular context in Todi that one can straightaway render the gamaka without starting from Cha-Ri. Perhaps in a fretted instrument one has to first deflect the string from the Cha-Ri position and then do the 'meetu'/pluck to achieve the same objective, or may be play a stronger gamaka on Su-Ri fret itself (reminded of Veena Balachander Sir).

The last point on Saveri Ri in the Q&A also set me thinking. While it is described in this thread earlier that it is incorrect to assign a ratio at a miniscule Pramana shruti interval to the Saveri Ri moving note, it was pointed out in the discussion subsequently that beginners of carnatic music do not understand the essence of ekasruti Ri that has to be executed like a gamaka in Saveri and that they sing it in an unpleasant fashion. Understandably, with Su-Ri enumerated in the Arahonam-Avarohanam of the raga, with no education on the existence of an ekashruti Ri, with a catchy phrase like Sa-Ve-Ri, no wonder the poor kids tend to literally adhere to these points by singing discrete swarams indiscreetly. Doesn't this suffice to say that the significance of the intermediate ratios like Ekashruti Ri cannot be refuted, however small the interval from Su-Ri maybe, pramana 81/80 whatever.

I would think that the ragas have to be first understood holistically. Their characteristic features, their aesthetics or their bhava, the nuances etc. as handed down to us by the greats of yesteryears(centuries) have to be internalised in a practical sense. The underlying theories will never cease to exist, in fact they should be studied to enhance one's understanding of the complex form of our music. It is all the more relevant in today's digital world. Carnatic music is an oral tradition and the Guru has been playing an important role. But nowadays, people learn from youtube, from recorded music, through internet Skype etc. The vagaries of these technologies like insufficient bandwidth, distortion, delays etc., could lead to learners being misled inadvertently, perhaps more fatally than being misled by the inability of an experienced musician teacher's voice to demonstrate the perfect shruti.

In this scenario, the documentation and an understanding of the theory could help in making self-corrections. More comprehensive documentation of controversial or complext notes like the Da of Reetigowla, the open and closed intervals of gamakas in the respective ragas, the instrument playing techniques etc., would all be required for the carnatic music of the future. Who knows, musicians could be equipped with lots of computing power on the dias, like iPads and other media gadgets to sing straightaway from notation and rasikas could be equipped each with a Bose headphone so that they can be more discerning to give constructive feedback to the musicians on shruti lapses at so and so time stamp in the recording (we have seen some of these things happening now itself)

At the end of the day, whether or not shruti values are assigned to gamakas, the value of shruti/gamaka in the bigger picture of the raga needs to be understood first (pun intended), by both the musicians and the rasikas to take Carnatic music to more elevated levels.

[chitravina ravikiran]

logically derived 22-srutis in a geometrically progressing manner

Geometric progression?

The additional ten ratios could be viewed as more 'indicative' of the range of oscillations in practice

The focus did not seem to be on the ratio values of the gamakas per se.

Shruti values are not about range of oscillations, which is a completely different area (with some overlaps though, which are incidental). They have been often confused with gamakas and hence wrong examples have been documented in many instances, such as Begada, Ma & Ni.

the documentation and an understanding of the theory could help in making self-corrections.

Sure, as long as they are made with sound practical mastery and scientific approach. The dangers of emotional/instinctive documentation are being reflected in numerous instances, some of which were covered in the lec-dem.

it is incorrect to assign a ratio at a minuscule Pramana shruti interval to the Saveri Ri moving note,

Pramana shruti concept per se is not incorrect. It is a fantastic subtlety perceivable by very, very sensitive ears or with scientific experimentation. How practical it is in real sense is the question here.

The bottomline is -

(a) Much talk has been happening based on imaginary or incorrect perceptions of intervals, even by practising vidwans/gurus/select musicologists.

(b) If 10 out of 22 shrutis are pramana shruti intervals of micro level, we are essentially left with the 12 swarasthanas that many major systems in the world use.

(c) We have tried to retro fit latter day evolutionary practice into centuries prior theory in our zest to provide examples of each of the 22 shrutis. A classic example seen in several books is Yadukulakambhodhi or Neelambari Ma.

(d) CM uses some shruti values not covered in the 12 (or even 22), which are not clearly discussed about in books/lectures.

(e) Assigning shruti values based on vocal renditions can be misleading.

(f) Assigning a single shruti value to a moving note is entirely incorrect (it can be studied as a range).

Thus, a reality check is called for - in order that there is clarity of concept all round, which would lead to clarity in execution. This is what I endeavoured to address in the lec dem in Academy. The subject is vast but given the time limit, I tried to cover a few major examples.

[uday_shankar]

ASSOCIATING A GAMAKA TO A FIXED VALUE

In reality there is absolutely no scientific connection between the moving sadhara gandhara (R2-M1-R2) and it's "fixed" place as used in say Hindolam or even Todi on rare occassions. The association is purely by convention and therefore cultural. For example, a Hindustani musician will perceive R2-M1-R2 as nothing more than an inflection between R2 and M1 like in the raga Durga. For his ear it will bear NO association with the fixed note G2 of Carnatic music. A western ear will also only perceive a curve joining two end points, i.e., only the end points leave a firm aural imprint. I think it is possible that many Carnatic musicians and musicologists, by virtue of being deeply conditioned by the Carnatic idiom have come to inextricably associate the gamakam with the fixed note, find it easy to believe that there's an esoteric "average" value to the curve that exactly equals the fixed note. This fallacy lies at the basis of many a musicological theses that associate curves with fixed values. I think Carnatic gamakas might have evolved through an instinctive set of rules. So, many different flavors of the "same" gandharam for the same raga peacefully coexist according these instinctive rules...and they are all different .

If people have trouble accepting that there's no "average" value to the curve, take the "limiting case" of a harmonium, where there is no curve but just the discrete end points. In this case, the harmonium player literally plays only the end points R2-M1-R2 to "simulate" his gamaka on G2. Those accultured to the idiom are able to accept it as a G2 gamaka but surely even they would not suggest that it gives an "average" perception of the fixed note G2 ?! So, it's only acculturation !

SOME THOUGHTS ON TODI GANDHARA

In Todi, if you take a series of Ga's such as in a an artificial phrase R S R G , , M , P , as far as I can tell, the limits of the gamakas would be:

G (first oscillation): R1-M1-R2
, (second oscillation): R2-M1-R2
, (third oscillation): R2-M1-R2

The point is that the "perception of chatushruti Rishaba" gets created only if R2 is used as the starting point during the first oscillation. For subsequent playing of todi Ga, I could swear that the limits are definitely R2 and M2 like any other instance of sadharana gandhara such as Ananada Bhairavi, etc...
Similarly, for an avarohana phrase such as M G R S, the gandhara would be M1-R2-M1 as in most other instances of sadharana gandhara. Here too there's no perception of chatushruti rishaba.

So the "perception" of chatushruti rishaba in Todi has nothing to do with the gandhara swarasthana being "less by a pramana shruti" from the sadharana gandhara.

[harimau]

And here is a Hindusthani musician talking about 22 sruthis and demonstrating at least some of them in this 3-minute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPpNQ0uDqgA

I can't be bothered to look for a longer video that shows all the 22 sruthis but I am sure inquiring minds would want to search his website and decide whether 22 sruthis exist or some of them are merely oscillations around a sruthi.

His instrument has (from what my weak eyesight tells me) 22 markings and he uses no fixed frets but open strings and a slider a la the gottuvadhyam.

[Rsachi]

Thanks Harimau.
I found Dr. Vidyadhar Oke has a website with samples you can hear at leisure:
http://www.22shruti.com/22_shruti_sound ... safed1.asp

Needs Flash player to hear.
Ciao.

[uday_shankar]

decide whether 22 sruthis exist or some of them are merely oscillations around a sruthi

This is a mischaracterization of the problem statement.

First, it is a fallacy to think of a fixed note as some kind of an "average" value of an oscillation.

As regards 22 shrutis, why stop with 22 ? We could even have 72. So yes, the 22 shrutis certainly "exist" but the question is what practical use do they have.

How many "fixed" notes do we need in practice to play music effectively ? The answer is 12. This is precicely why even Raghunath Naik designed the vina with 12 frets in an octave. Of course, I believe there are other intonational flaws as regards playing the fretted vina on two strings tuned to Sa and Pa, which is neatly sidestepped in the sitar, but that's a subject of another discussion.

[Observer]

Sri Ravikiran and Sri Uday_shankar: Thanks for your valuable time and paraphrased comments.

The two points that had kindled my curiosity initially are:
1.some people try to declare a shruti value to a moving (oscillated) note. 2. some people demonstrate ragas by futilely trying to employ the subtle pramana shrutis.
I tried to wear their thinking caps and started thinking aloud ( rather in black and white) from their point of view, as expressed in my earlier post.

However, if those musicians and musicologists assign a single fixed ratio to Gandhara and declare it as the Todi-Ga, when the various avataras of Ga are being manifest in the 'Vishwaroopam' of Todi , it is probably because of their acculturation, as very finely described by Uday_shankar. Not suprising, since the Carnatic culture, the oral tradition and the ragas under discussion are all centuries old and there are a lot of other influencing factors like styles/baanis, pathantharas, schools of thought, individual gnanam(not gangnam!), even guru-bhakthi which may pose resistance to a change in the thought processes.

Again, it would be nice if such people could understand, explore and demonstrate the raga in its true practical form and not get fixated on shruti ratios. The underlying theory could still be used as a reference but discretion and practical judgement are to be exercised while explaining in textual form. All said and done, Carnatic music is an art so unique, so creative and so instinctive that it cannot be precisely documented or standardised like the protocols of science and technology.

At the same time there definitely is a lot of maths and science, once again from age old times, in the areas of talas, shrutis etc.(btw, sorry for my mistake in generalising it as 'geometrically progressing', though I did specifically mention that the intervals are not equal). Without this type of evolution, we wouldn't have had the concept of melakartha ragas, nor would the practical musician be doing an innovative graha-bhedham with the rasika going ga-ga about it (Sa-Ga?An-Ga?). How correct is it from a practical raga point of view?: Sorry, I don't know.

As you rightly said, a realty check is required to do coarse (course) corrections, but looking at the amount of inconclusive research, debates, talks that are going on from such long times, it is evident that is not going to be an easy task. Institutions like the Music Academy can do some serious work on this by calling for a collective and collaborative effort from musician_musicologists, musicologist_musicians, physicists/mathematicians and rasika/researchers. December season conference lecdems may not provide full justice in this regard since the speaker is not given enough time to present his points on a serious subject like this and the senior vidwans are literally given just a Panchama_shruti interval of a minute to express their views . Especially during the festival time, the attention span of people (including musicians) ranges from canteens, networking, attire, CD-shopping, to brand-building, publicity, cutcheris etc., thus diluting the necessary focus on important topics. Ultimately, a lot of responsibility lies on the shoulders of everyone in the CM community to pass on this tradition and grand culture of ours to future generations without distortion.

It is heartening to know that young, learned musicians like you are taking leadership in trying to bring everybody in the fraternity on to the same thought_platform.
Wish you success in your endeavours!

[vasanthakokilam]

Thanks Harimau.
I found Dr. Vidyadhar Oke has a website with samples you can hear at leisure:
http://www.22shruti.com/22_shruti_sound ... safed1.asp

Needs Flash player to hear.
Ciao.

Dr. Vidyadhar's site has quite extensive material on how he arrived at the frequencies of the 22 sruthis. He is defining the sruthi to be the nyAsa ( the place to stay ). I am not sure if his method of deriving the ratios are acceptable or not, but he has taken the pains to explain his method as clearly as possible. He has also provided tables on which shruti is to be used for which raga. I do not know if those are accordance with the ancient texts or current practice by the artists.

He states many things are consistent with what is discussed in this thread by Ravi Kiran and Udah: that, there is lot of confusion in this area by both musicians and musicologists and it is his mission to set it alright on strong mathematical and practical basis and that sruthi is not any average value but exact frequency where the raga sangeeth can come to rest ( nyAsa ). It will be great to hear the critical analysis from Ravi Kiran, Uday and Arun if and when they have the time to read all the extensive material at Dr. Vidyadhar site, in case they are not already familiar with Dr. Vidyadhar's work in this area.

[sureshvv]

Were you able to hear 22? I was able to hear only 12.

[harimau]

This is a mischaracterization of the problem statement.

First, it is a fallacy to think of a fixed note as some kind of an "average" value of an oscillation.

As regards 22 shrutis, why stop with 22 ? We could even have 72. So yes, the 22 shrutis certainly "exist" but the question is what practical use do they have.

How many "fixed" notes do we need in practice to play music effectively ? The answer is 12. This is precicely why even Raghunath Naik designed the vina with 12 frets in an octave. Of course, I believe there are other intonational flaws as regards playing the fretted vina on two strings tuned to Sa and Pa, which is neatly sidestepped in the sitar, but that's a subject of another discussion.

I don't think I mischaracterized the problem statement.

Some people are of the opinion that only 12 sruthis exist and get a platform at the Madras Music Academy to talk about it.

I merely pointed out that there is a website that demonstrates 22 sruthis.

As to why have 22 sruthis when you can have 72, I just want to point out that the Late Smt Vidya Sankar presented a lec-dem titled "Sruthir Anantham" the title of which says that sruthis are infinite. A video of that lec-dem is floating around.

As for moi, I am perfectly happy listening to Mohanam so 5 sruthis are enough for me! |(