Ok, I was only speaking to the wider group and correcting what I had said wrong. It was not addressed to you.RSR wrote: ↑14 Mar 2018, 11:17-----------------------------------------Ranganayaki » 14 Mar 2018, 07:04
HM: 7 swaras, 12 distinct swarasthanas. Apart from sa and pa which are fixed, all the other swaras have 2 swarasthanas each.CM: 7 swaras, 16 sometimes overlapping swarasthanas. Ri, ga, dha and ni have three swarasthanas each that may overlap, and ma has two.
I know about that.
First I'm not sure which 46. I thought you meant to exclude only 40.I exclude all the 46 janaka ragams that need breaking the rule.
So are you saying there should be no Vivadi ragas? But they exist in songs. Are you saying that Ganamurthe should not be sung? Are you saying that you want to change the musical convention that has developed? I can understand if you say that some ragas are only scales and you don't like them. You can exclude them in yournlistenig and some musicians exclude them in their performances. But if you want to limit carnatic music to what hm has, you could just listen only to hm.. your stance seems absurd to me (without meaning any disrespect, honestly) and I feel confused. Am I missing something? Why do you want to negate the entire difference between cm and hm?
How? If these nice ragams haven't already been adopted, how will a new system which removes OTHER ragams make the north adopt your nice ragas?That will bring some nice ragams from CM to HM'
But, if we analyze the CM ragams usually composed and sung, we will find that quite a few of the janaka ragams and derivatives are lacking in musicality.
So? Don't listen to them! It may even be that no one is singing them! I don't understand the need to change the entire convention or how you propose tonsingle-handedly achieve it.
If you are actually trying to explain cm to your hm friend, you seem to be insisting on making cm fit in your hm structure. How does that inform your friend? Then he already knows what you have to teach him anyway. Again this seems so absurd that I feel I must be wrong, I'm missing something!
So nowyou are not making the distinction between swaras and swarasthanas. Why have two terms for the same thing?To put it simply, there are only 12 swarams and swarasthanams that can be written down.
They are S r R g G m M P d D n N S
S = Shadjama
Also, you say there are only 12 swarasthanas that can be "written down," whatever that means, yet you proceeded to list 16.
Just a friendly note that the word is Shadjam, and not Shadjama. If you are removing the last M, which I often do, it would be Shadja, and not Shadjama. The word does not resemble " Madhyama" or "Panchama."S = Shadjama
So in a nutshell, I don't follow what you are trying or wishing to do. Are you arguing for a completely new musical system that negates much of the old and tries to fit it into the hm mold?
[/quote]From this, your subsequent explanation, becomes unnecessary. No offense meant. [/quote]
None taken. But the way I see it, your entire exercise makes no sense. And i keep feeling that I am not following you fully, you can't possibly be wanting to say something absurd. Which is why I am even writing back. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother to write back to your view! Also, you said "subsequent explanation." Your view is so completely different, I'm not sure which part of what I said is acceptable to you.