OVK and Ravikiran Compositions - a new development

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 30 Nov 2015, 09:09

OVK's inimitable compositional style in both Tamil and Sanskrit is unique and inimitable and I have shown how it is one of the 5 distinctive primary styles of composing in Carnatic.

5 styles of composing? Could anyone elaborate?

Suryasriram · Post by **Suryasriram** » 30 Nov 2015, 09:41

SrinathK wrote:
OVK's inimitable compositional style in both Tamil and Sanskrit is unique and inimitable and I have shown how it is one of the 5 distinctive primary styles of composing in Carnatic.
5 styles of composing? Could anyone elaborate?

According to Chitravina Ravikiran, there are five styles of composing:
Draksha Pakam - Grape Style - Tyagaraja - as easy as eating grapes
Kadali Pakam - Banana Style - Shyama Sastri - you have to peel off the banana's peel to eat it
Narikela Pakam - Coconut Style - Dikshitar - you have to first remove the fiber, then break it and then cut out the coconut pieces, but very tasty
Panasa Pakam - Jackfruit Style - Kshetrajna - very difficult to remove the skin, and very sticky to cut into small parts, but very delicious
Amra Pakam - Mango Style - Venkatakavi - equally delicious in whichever way you want to eat and whatever you eat - with skin, without skin or the seed also!

PKSundar · Post by **PKSundar** » 30 Nov 2015, 14:57

In any ‘crime’ one always questions the motive. What could be RK’s motive to resort to cheap tricks like passing off his own compositions as OVK’s? Fame? He is already world famous- famous enough for a city in US declare one day as Melharmony day, famous enough to be hailed as the world greatest slide player. Is there any need for Tendulkar to play disguised as Bradman to gain fame?!
Edison said “Genius is ninety nine percent perspiration and one percent inspiration”. I was a witness to the ‘one percent’ of Ravi Kiran when he was not even five years old as he nonchalantly answered intricate questions on Carnatic music thrown by people at a private gathering. His father had a tough time restraining the child from doing hand-stands while fielding questions with aplomb. It was clearly a genius at work.
The whole world is witness to the other ‘ninety nine percent’. His day seems to be made of 30 hours as he teaches, composes, plays, researches, lectures and demonstrates various aspects of Carnatic music. Leave alone OVK. Hasn’t he achieved enough in the world of music?
RK is not some wannabe artist who necessarily has to imitate a master’s painting to remain relevant. I understand that such things used to happen in literary works in the past. Even then I fail to see how such an artist can gain fame if his name is going to remain in the shadows. Nor is RK a failed artist who has to resort to such devious means to derive vicarious pleasure out of having his compositions masquerading as OVK’s.
The accusation is the ‘most unkindest cut’ of all indeed.

harimau · Post by **harimau** » 01 Dec 2015, 02:16

In another thread on Pre-Trinity composers (you can find it in the Kutcheri Reviews section), Gayathri Girish's lec-dem was discussed. A question there was why Oothukkadu Venkata Kavi was not on her list.

Her answer was that no corroborative evidence of OVK contemporaneous with his life time or shortly thereafter exists. Thus it is difficult to include him in her lec-dem.

Now I have put the cat among the pigeons!

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 01 Dec 2015, 02:42

Greetings to rasikas. Before I respond to some queries about OVK posted here, I wanted to clarify that my FB post was to merely to highlight the simple fact that OVK and me are two different composers from different eras with clearly distinctive styles (and doubtlessly vastly varying levels)! I also wanted to establish that our works are as well documented in appropriate places. Further, OVK was well known much before I was born and luminaries including Prof T V Subba Rao, GNB, Semmangudi and Kanchi Paramacharya have been eloquent about his brilliance.

I also wish to clarify that I have not felt the least bit offended by speculation that some of these are my works. But it is only right that the music world knows a few clear differences between me and OVK which is the sole reason that I am listing a few points (despite my hesitation to talk about my own works).

Even though I have been composing from age 11, my main idols were the Trinity. I was inspired to compose a krti (in Surati) and a mangalam (in Shree) collectively on the trinity and an exclusive piece on Tyagaraja (in Nattaikkuranji) on the occasion of his 150th year aradhana.

Some of my early attempts at composing subconsciously drew from simple compositions of Tyagaraja and Dikshitar in both form and content. It is only too obvious that their masterpieces are beyond reach for most composers!

While I stand second to none in my admiration for OVK or Shyama Shastri, I have never composed anything remotely close to their styles. Even making a conscious attempt to do so would be an insult to their sublime brilliance though a lyrical phrase here or a sangati there may reflect my internalisation of their (or other composers') works as a student of music.

I have been an admirer of pre-trinity composers including Kshetragna and have composed a couple of minor padams

I have also cherished my interactions with contemporary innovators such as Shri Lalgudi Jayaraman, Dr Balamuralikrishna and some of my tillanas, varnams or krtis may reflect this. Even though I was incredibly fortunate to have been blessed directly by Shri Papanasam Sivan, Shri Shuddhananda Bharati, Shri Periasami Tooran, Smt Ambujam Krishna as well as Shri Tanjavur Shankara Iyer, my compositions will have no more reflections of their works than their (or their tune-smiths') overall classical style.

I have been a fan of languages and hence my passion to attempt pieces in Tamil, Sanskrit, Telugu and rarely even in Hindi/Kannada.

A few of my compositional experiments include 35-tala set of compositions (in 1997), bhasha-malika composition, tala-malika/dvigati tillana/chaturashra tishra tillana, thematic svarakshara pieces

By now, it will be clear that OVK's pieces are significantly different from the above aspects.

As to excellent questions about the tunes of his compositions especially in ragas like Hamsanadam, Balahamsa, equally good answers have been provided by other posters here. I'd also refer rasikas to the fairly lengthy assessment of OVK's melodic contributions:

http://www.venkatakavi.org/ovk/sample-s ... elody.html

Points made in the initial paras there would show why it is almost impossible to assert which composer envisioned the raga in which way (except in broad terms like between Dikshitar and other schools). It is equally futile to speculate as to whether X was more correct than Y in an empirical sense since we have multiple versions of the same raga in different schools or sometimes even within a school.

Just to clarify, my version of Bantureeti has D3 as a rare phrase (and I have also employed D3 in my krti and tillana in Hamsanadam as well). But the majority of the versions do not. Nor does Tanjavur Shankara Iyer's composition in this raga.

With neither Tyagaraja's nor OVK's original audio or notation available, one can only speculate if either composer used it or some other grammar conscious disciple or latter day musician inserted (or removed) it. As I don't want to deviate too from the topic here, I have started another thread on such issues with dozens of examples.

I also refer readers to:

http://www.venkatakavi.org/ovk/index.php/ragas-cluster

http://www.venkatakavi.org/ovk/index.php/talas-used

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 01 Dec 2015, 03:11

Stimulating discussions such as the treatment of ragas like Balahamsa and Hamsanadam by different composers, musicologists & musicians and speculation as to who initiated or followed what, who did not and who is right etc raises more questions than answers.

Given the paucity of first hand notations of Indian composers (unlike their Western Classical counterparts) and the diversity of schools and styles, varying versions of ragas and krtis is almost the norm than exception here. In this scenario, it is downright dangerous to speculate as to who knew or didn't know what, who was right or who wasn't as examples (like Hamsanadam in the OVK thread) and the ones below can easily show.

Dayajoochutakidi in Ganavaridhi (which Mudicondan Venkatarama Iyer used to sing with the grammatically more accurate R3) while the Walajapet School including my guru Brindamma) would sing as a janyam of 28/29 with R2 and both N2 and N3. So also Hindolam, Saramati, Hindolavasantam etc which the my guru's school renders with D2 while several others opt for D1 (some of you may have heard Brindamma's Samaja vara gamana with D2).

Dhanammal's school version of Mamava pattabhirama of MD was jokingly cited by none other than Ramnad Krishnan as the ideal guide for anyone who wanted to learn Madhyamavati

Since the school is renowned for their authenticity, would one be wrong in wondering if MD probably composed it that way and other musicians have violated that spirit by singing it wholly in Manirangu?

There is little correlation between the Arohana-Avarohana of Devakriya in the Tyagaraja school and his own Nati mata marachitivo (which is vastly different to MD's Shree guruguha in Devakriya (which is the same scale as Shuddhasaveri).

The same holds good for many of Dikshitar's compositions. Would one speculate that T and MD were unaware of scale and sequence?

Can one conclusively prove who is more right between the composer and the theoretician who wrote the scale or lakshana in some treatise? Did the composer intentionally change the contours of the raga? Did someone else do it? If so, is the someone who changed it back to the grammatically more acceptable version right or wrong? Or did the theoretician get it wrong and freeze an incorrect grammar for posterity?

The final obvious question is: between two theory books with vast fundamental differences between them, which is right and which is wrong?

I can list hundreds of examples but the point should be obvious. It is dangerous to speculate or judge with a bunch of theory books. A point which Brindamma eloquently made in a rare lec-dem.

Ragas evolve with times as musicians refine and sometimes define them.

Irrespective of the composer, I have always gone by the raga as I have known it today, based on the majority of precedents of great masters (except for songs learnt from impeccable sources like Brindamma). This happened even in 1700s as is evident from variants between the older school that MD consciously followed vs the ones that almost everyone else opted for.

In this context, my refinements of OVK is no more nor less than what most quality musicians (or my humble self) effected on the works of any composer, if we felt the situation called for it. However, I have always strongly advocated that any refinement should be minimal and based on only musical necessity and not totalitarian or based on stylistic imposition, altering the very spirit of the raga/work.

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 01 Dec 2015, 08:44

A living organism, language and form of art evolve and adapt. There is nothing like yesterday's form was gold.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 01 Dec 2015, 08:48

It is very heartening to see Sri.Ravikiran responding to the queries amidst his busy schedule.

Points made in the initial paras there would show why it is almost impossible to assert which composer envisioned the raga in which way (except in broad terms like between Dikshitar and other schools). It is equally futile to speculate as to whether X was more correct than Y in an empirical sense since we have multiple versions of the same raga in different schools or sometimes even within a school.

I feel it is possible to envision their view of a particular raga if we look into the old treatises. We very well know that Sri.Thyagaraja swamy and Sri.Muthusvamy Dikshithar belongs to the school of Venkatamakhin. Almost his system of raga lakshanam was followed by Shahaji and Tulaja. The raga lakshanam given by Sri. Subbarama dikshithar also follows that of Tulaja (with few variations at some places). This shows that te tradition created by Venkatamakhin was closely followed even during the time of Trinity. We cannot deny the authenticity of Subbarama Dikshithar and hence deviation from this norm can be considered to be a variant/mutated version and an original one.
With respect to Thyagaraja svamy, we have got the manuscripts of Valajapet school(I mean that of direct disciples). The authenticity of Valajapet manuscripts was proved beyond doubt by Prof. Sambamurthy. The raga lakshanam of Thyagarajas songs given in Valajapet manuscript colosely follows that of Tulajas and SSPs version. This is applicable only to the ragas which find its mention in the Tulajas treatise.

Just to clarify, my version of Bantureeti has D3 as a rare phrase (and I have also employed D3 in my krti and tillana in Hamsanadam as well).

You incorporating D3 in your tillana shows your knowledge, adherence and respect towards our tradition.

Conclusion of my abovesaid extended discussion is twofold:
1. that the older bygone versions were all alike.
2. we can predict how our composers would have sung (with respect to raga lakshanam) is somewhat predictable.
It should have been the same for OVKs krithis also. So any variation from the normal is considered to be a variation which is brought about by some/many musicians; reason being unknown.

I have few queries and it will be of much use if you can answer the same:
1. Didn't you get a query in your mind when you play / listen to the version of Kalyana rama?
Didn't you compare with your version of Bantu reethi which has D3?
2. To my knowledge OVK was not lucky (or lucky enough?) to have many disciples and Needamangalam Krishnamurthy Bhagavathar inherited these
treasures from his ancestors. In that case, do you know or have come across any other school/disciples possessing his compositions?
In that case have you seen those notations?

I think this will enhance our knowledge on OVKs compositions.

Ponbhairavi · Post by **Ponbhairavi** » 01 Dec 2015, 11:36

In literature it is said இலக்கியத்தில் இருந்து தான் இலக்கணம். இலக்கியத்திற் காக இலக்கணமே தவிர இலக்கணத்திற்காக இலக்கியம் இல்லை.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 01 Dec 2015, 19:04

We can be in memory lane or we can be in reality lane; the choice is in each one of us. Time and change will not wait for us.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 01 Dec 2015, 19:25

The question is not regarding the composers. I have given evidence on earlier posts that both MD and Thyagaraja svamy followed the same tradition and my evidence also shows that they didn't create any new tradition; rather only followed what they have acquired and the music that was prevalent. OVK , considering to be pre trinity composer should have followed the same.
The query in hand is whether the musical form of OVK krithis have been changed or not.
Umpteen number of examples can be given for change in the version of the krithis of Trinity between schools. One of the reason for these many variants was bizarre naming of the ragas just by following a single treatise. This issue was discussed in MAjournals several times in the past.
Following the present corrupted pattern naming it as a reality or trying to resurrect the lost old days, at least to little possible extent is up to an individual. But always an attempt must be made to realise that these changes were brought in by other later musicians. It is also essential to look into the old treatises for both a musician and musicologist , rather than concluding lakshana is important than lakshya.
Only by repeated analysis and rational, unbiased understanding of the lakshana given in the old treatises, raga svarupa will be fully expressed and this is the only way of paying homage to our great composers. Not by mere mechanical rendition of their krithis or observing a week or a day in a year.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 01 Dec 2015, 19:40

Very informative points. But we need to examine a few more areas:

We very well know that Sri.Thyagaraja swamy and Sri.Muthusvamy Dikshithar belongs to the school of Venkatamakhin. Almost his system of raga lakshanam was followed by Shahaji and Tulaja.

If so, how would we explain the drastic difference between T and MDs versions in the examples I gave earlier as well as numerous other ragas? Including their approach to the 72 melakartas?

we have got the manuscripts of Valajapet school(I mean that of direct disciples).

To the best of my knowledge, these are a small subset of his compositions.

The authenticity of Valajapet manuscripts was proved beyond doubt by Prof. Sambamurthy.

Even granting that, does the absence of manuscripts invalidate the Umaiyalpuram or Tillaisthanam or Andhra Schools?

Conclusion of my above said extended discussion is twofold:
1. that the older bygone versions were all alike.

We have scores of examples to prove that not only are these unalike but even versions within one school is quite unalike be it T or MD. I have myself learnt more than one version of several songs such as Morabettite (Todi), Dayajoochutakidi (Ganavaridhi), Sukhi evvaro (Kanada), Samajavaragamana (Hindolam) etc.

2. we can predict how our composers would have sung (with respect to raga lakshanam) is somewhat predictable.

From above, we can clearly see that it is impossible to predict beyond very rough surmises. Further, as I have showed in the other thread (Speculation), there are literally thousands of imprints on most of these compositions. It is a well known reality that most of MDs krtis have been 'Tyagarajised' over the years. In short, the more number of performing and composing disciples the less the predictability - unless they are of a temperament like Veena Dhanammal and Brindamma.

1. Didn't you get a query in your mind when you play / listen to the version of Kalyana rama?
Didn't you compare with your version of Bantu reethi which has D3?

No, for the simple reason that the majority of versions of Bantureeti I had heard did not have D3! Hamsanadam is not an exception to vivadi notes like D3 being eschewed or minimised. Popular examples are Nattai where D3 is more in books than in reality. How do we judge composers in this case?

I have not come across any other active school of OVK and his descendants have spoken eloquently about how OVK shunned any publicity and was perpetually immersed in a divine plane all the time. But several of his descendants were considered to be distinguished musicians including his nephew, Kattu Krishna Iyer, who is said to have been a royal artiste in King Amarasimha's Court (Tanjore). I have written elsewhere about how Paruttiyur Krishna Shastrigal (1815-1910) was acknowledged as an expert on OVK's compositions but am not sure who his sources were.

To summarise, versions of ragas have been different in the classical era and continue to be, despite (even respectable) treatises favouring one or the other.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 01 Dec 2015, 19:57

I have given evidence on earlier posts that both MD and Thyagaraja svamy followed the same tradition and my evidence also shows that they didn't create any new tradition;

As I have said in the other thread, how would this statement account for the fact that numerous ragas are different in T and MD's compositions?

In short, be it T, MD, OVK or even Shyama Shastri (whose manuscripts of lyrics I have seen when I performed in his descendant's house), very few notations are available. Change has been an inevitable reality, even in the case of living composers like Tanjavur Shankara Iyer. What can we expect it in classical era compositions? A multitude of versions do exist for many songs/ragas. Those who diligently included vivadi swaras like R3 or D3 were exceptions to the rule but do we know for certain if they followed a composer or some musicologist?

Judging which version is authentic based on books can be a dangerous exercise as it presumes a blind trust on the ability of the author - something that even scholars such as Prof S R Janakiraman wouldn't recommend! I have a tremendous respect for Subbarama Dikshitar but his raga lakshanas are not followed by Tyagaraja or many other composers. For instance, do we see the N2 mentioned for Saveri in SSP in any composition of T or even MD in most versions? Only Brinda school used to render Shri Rajagopala this way.

While scholars specialise in sorting out which are authentic, performers mainly follow their gurus or other legends who have inspired them.

In an ideal world, performers should still place at least 10-15% stress on the musicological or theoretical aspects of what they present and scholars should at least be able to practically demonstrate at least 40-50% of their theories in order to be convincing (but this is another topic altogether!)

munirao2001 · Post by **munirao2001** » 02 Dec 2015, 13:11

Reality is centrality for rasothpathi and rasanubhuti, pleasure of aesthetics and emotions at first and rarest of the rare, bliss (blissful, moments) for art form with lakshya and lakshanam, for oneself and universal self in practice or its rasikatvata, rapturous listening. Lakshanam's ideal is capturing and encapsulating the abstract aesthetic in lakshya through rules of grammar, documenting, enabling recall pleasure of the original creativity in its re creativity. Higher ideal of lakshanam to enable new insights, original creativity with the gained discipline,mastery, either in strict conformance or non conformance, justified, its appreciation, its acceptance and its endorsement, with established lakshana for its practice.

Reality is manodharma, sense of mind in imagination and creativity built on the edifice of both kalpita and kalpana. Mind in observation, introspection, inference on the values of the great compositions enabling discovery of new ideas, resulting in new ragas, new compositions and melodies or ornamentation, its establishment is also the reality. In the practice of Classical Music, as a performing fine art, value additions and value deterioration are both reality and universal.

Speculation is only on the merits, demerits, values of practices and experiences with motivation for self fulfillment or in few extreme cases, self aggrandizement/gratification. Sruti and Smriti Vedanta experience are also reflected in lakshya, karna parampara and lakshana manuscripts or texts, published. Just like various identified recensions of Veda, recensions on lakshanas is in the public domain of knowledge. Established authority's speculation gains the image and identity of reality but with relevance to its time, temporal. Inquiry, questioning, challenging, establishment of truth only ends the speculation and the mirage of its image and authority. In ending the speculation, establishing the reality, reality of rasothpathi and rasanubhuti, afresh or anew.

munirao2001

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 04 Dec 2015, 14:53

We very well know that Sri.Thyagaraja swamy and Sri.Muthusvamy Dikshithar belongs to the school of Venkatamakhin. Almost his system of raga lakshanam was followed by Shahaji and Tulaja.

If so, how would we explain the drastic difference between T and MDs versions in the examples I gave earlier as well as numerous other ragas? Including their approach to the 72 melakartas?

The answer is very simple. All these changes can be attributed to the later musicians. Let me cite few examples. Entha muddo is sung in Bindumalini. But Late Dr.T.Srinivasaraghavan used to sing this krithi with kakali nishadam, maiking it as a janya of Suryakantham. He felt this version is more expressive than the version in Bindumalini!!. This is also the case with sattaleni in Naganandhini. The above mentioned musicican used to sing only in Samantha!!.
Pahi rama dhutha is given only as Vasantha varali in the manuscripts of Veena Kuppaier. But sung in Shadvidhmargini now!!
Nagumonu , change to the now prevalent by Musiri Subramanya Iyer and the addition of cascade of sangathis in Vathapi Ganapathim by Mahavaidyanadhayyer is known.
Thyagayyar has composed in ragas in both the mela systems. Examples include Vasanthabhairavi-Vakulabharanam, Karaharapriya-Sri, Kedaragola-Harikambhodhi, Navaneetham-Nabhomani. Though we didn't gei to see other pairs, this very well indicate he is aware of both the systems.

we have got the manuscripts of Valajapet school(I mean that of direct disciples).

To the best of my knowledge, these are a small subset of his compositions.

The corpus constitutes of 200-250 compositions. Its an approximation. It can go more than this too. I don't think this is a small number.

The authenticity of Valajapet manuscripts was proved beyond doubt by Prof. Sambamurthy.

Even granting that, does the absence of manuscripts invalidate the Umaiyalpuram or Tillaisthanam or Andhra Schools?

I never said Valajapet disciples were only loyal and only their vesion is reliable. When we want to see the change that has happened, only if get the notation of direct disciple, it makes sense. I never had the opportunity to examine the manuscripts of Umayalapuram Krishna Bhagavathar-Sundara bhagavathar ,Tillaisthanam Rama Iyengar or the direct disciples belonging to he Andhra schools. Hence I mentioned only about the Valajapet manuscripts.

Conclusion of my above said extended discussion is twofold:
1. that the older bygone versions were all alike.

We have scores of examples to prove that not only are these unalike but even versions within one school is quite unalike be it T or MD. I have myself learnt more than one version of several songs such as Morabettite (Todi), Dayajoochutakidi (Ganavaridhi), Sukhi evvaro (Kanada), Samajavaragamana (Hindolam) etc.

I think my first response in this post will answer this query too. I ll explain the second part. MD and Thyagaraja svamys songs were dissimilar.
Raka sashivadana in Takka: I have heard versions of MLV, Sudha Raghunathan(belonging to GNB school), ArunaSairam and TNRajarathnam Pillai. All were alike with a few variations. In all the versions the pallavi runs for 2 avarthanams (raka and intha which is prosododically right) and charanam starts with panchamam. Can a charanam start with an alpa svaram?
Intersetingly, I have heard a musician from Karnataka wherein the pallavi runs for only 1 avarthanam and the charanam starts with madhyamam. It also has phrases like rmgs, mrgs. This is the same given I the Valajapet manuscripts too. This version sounds alike to the MD krithi sundaramurthimaashrayami.
Second example is Ennalu tirikedi in Malavasri. This song is notated in the Valajapet manuscripts and also printed in the book Rare krithis of Thyagaraja by Sri.Subba Rao. This version of Malavasri is similar to a padam by Kadigai Mukku pulavar in SSP and also has all the phrases given for Malasri in Tulajas Sangita Saramrta and SSP.
Third example is the phrases srs and pns in Anandbhairavi. These phrases do not find in the krithis of Thyagaraja (prevalent versions) but seen in the manuscripts (Neeke teliyaka). This song is also printed in the book Thyagaraja Hrudayam by Sri. KV.Srinivasa Iyengar. The version remains the same.
I hope this will prove that we have lost the original version of many songs of Thyagaraja svamy and the original version must have been similar with MD .

1. Didn't you get a query in your mind when you play / listen to the version of Kalyana rama?
Didn't you compare with your version of Bantu reethi which has D3?
No, for the simple reason that the majority of versions of Bantureeti I had heard did not have D3! Hamsanadam is not an exception to vivadi notes like D3 being eschewed or minimised.

I am amused that you didn't get this query.

Popular examples are Nattai where D3 is more in books than in reality. How do we judge composers in this case?

There are versions of Jagadanandakaraka with dhaivatham. Similarly, MD krithis were all notated with dhaivatham in SSP indicating the mistake lies only with the musician.

To summarize OVK or Trinity or any pre-trinity composer has adhered to the tradition that they have inherited and not changed, though created new ragas on their own.
Its only due to fewmusicians of the past who knowingly or unknowingly have changed the version.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 04 Dec 2015, 15:01

For instance, do we see the N2 mentioned for Saveri in SSP in any composition of T or even MD in most versions? Only Brinda school used to render Shri Rajagopala this way.

Sri. KV.Srinivasa Iyengar in his Thyagaraja Hrudayam has mentioned that Saveri was used to be sung with kaisiki nishadham and sadharana gandharam by purvikas. But it is not followed now. Tis he has written in the year 1921. So we have an another source Saveri had the lakshana mentioned in SSP.
Definitely the disciples only follow their gurus and no-one, including me cannot except the musicians to sing given in the various old treatises. But the point here, we must always admit the raga lakshanam has been changed from the period of Trinity and we are not the followers of our tradition in a strict sense.
In medicine, history is always recorded and all the present day practitioner are much aware about the past. This is mainly done for us not to deviate much from the past and to improvise ourselves within the domain established. Similarly, history of old versions must be unearthed and preserved, atleast not practiced.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 04 Dec 2015, 15:06

I request the moderator to merge this thread with speculation and reality thread.

Suryasriram · Post by **Suryasriram** » 04 Dec 2015, 16:21

Would like to ask Sri Ravikiran sir a question:

The Saptaratna Kritis as notated by yourself in your book, are slightly different in a few kritis like Bhajanamrta, Balasaramurali and Madhava Hrdi Khelini, and vastly different in the others viz. Aganita Mahima, Alavadennalo, and Jatadhara Shankara, when compared to the notations published by the disciples of Sri Needamangalam Krishnamurthy Bhagavatar, in Sri Krishna Ganam. (Since I have not learnt Sundara Nandakumara, I do not know about its notations. And I understand the two extra charanams in Jatadhara Shankara were recently discovered and published.)

So, why is there such a lot of difference among the swaras of these kritis?

P.S. I am in no way pointing fingers on anybody, it is just a huge query which I had when I learnt the kritis, which was difficult since the notations in both books didn't tally.

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 04 Dec 2015, 20:32

Just for those who might not grasp the gist of why this discussion has erupted in the first place refer to the links below :

http://guruguha.org/wp/?p=317
http://guruguha.org/wp/?p=243

The prevailing opinion is that Thyagaraja and Diskhitar composed as per the Sangraha Chudamani and the Venkatamakhin schools respectively. However, there is also a body of research that claims that the Sangraha Chudamani is actually a work of later fabrication some 40 years after the passing of Thyagaraja and the Walajapet school believed that many of his krithis were tampered with on the basis of what was in this book.

Not only this, it is also believed that the modern melakartha system expanded to it's full set of 72 ragas, fully separating from the asampoorna system of Dikshitar as a result of this very process.

And then you have all those differences between the schools -- just take a look at what happened to Kana Kana Ruchira in Varali because of the superstition that it should not be taught...

Then the next question would be to what extent OVK's tunes have also been influenced by the developments that happened in CM in the late 19th century.

Since my knowledge of music history is very little, I have just summarized what I found in the links. I have a lot of reading to do... But all I can say is that if all this is true, then what we presently call as tradition(s) are no older than about a hundred and fifty years.

But what do we do? There was no recording facility until the 20th century, and anything before that technically belongs in the DARK AGES, where things ran rampant, for the better or the worse, which was then (rather ironically) passed down as tradition (sorry traditionalists

).

You could even argue that it is in fact the presence of recordings and easy information available today that has caused Carnatic music to stabilize to where it is right now.

There's nothing we can do about it now, or ... -- maybe someone will come up who will resurrect the "Dark Saveri".

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 04 Dec 2015, 21:06

Thanks. It was interesting to read. I was struck by, 'India has forgotten more music than other countries have created.'

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 04 Dec 2015, 21:39

Nice post Srikanth

munirao2001 · Post by **munirao2001** » 05 Dec 2015, 11:13

Let us be clear. Tradition is not sampradaya. Sampradaya, is subject to changes with the value perceptions of the practitioners. The wealth of knowledge has to be enriched to achieve the excellence, the tradition. Sampradaya and Styles with value additions celebrate the tradition, enriching, enabling and establishing the art form and its greatness for learning, practicing and appreciation. Conformance and non conformance is related with Sampradaya and Styles only, which are rooted in Speculation and not to the Tradition. Established art form demands conformance to the excellence, its core strength and values, is rooted in Reality, ending speculation gaining knowledge and its successful practices.

munirao2001

Ponbhairavi · Post by **Ponbhairavi** » 05 Dec 2015, 12:53

It is a big surprize for me that OVK cannot be considered as a pre trinity composer as there is no contemporaneous evidence.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 05 Dec 2015, 13:35

Mistake is on my side. I should have made it as OVK or Trinity or any other pre trinity composer. I think it is clear now.

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 05 Dec 2015, 14:40

What will be the Indian word for tradition?

munirao2001 · Post by **munirao2001** » 05 Dec 2015, 15:25

KVC Sir,

In musicology, two languages words usage is not correct. But, incorrect practice usage of Sanskrit and English is prevalent, inescapable for the ease of understanding.
For the English word, Tradition the nearest equivalent of Sanskrit words are 'Autkarsha', Supreme Excellence and 'Niravadya', Blemish less, Excellence. Other Sanskrit words which can be used in specific contexts are, Udgha and Sreshtathva.

munirao2001

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 05 Dec 2015, 17:12

kvchellappa wrote:What will be the Indian word for tradition?

There are several words, in some sense Sampradāya is also tradition. How about Ācāra?

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 05 Dec 2015, 17:18

bhakthim dehi wrote:I request the moderator to merge this thread with speculation and reality thread.

Done

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 05 Dec 2015, 17:47

Thank you srkris

munirao2001 · Post by **munirao2001** » 05 Dec 2015, 18:50

Srkris Sir,

Sampradaya, with its root in Sampath, is wealth of knowledge and practice, partaken with 'daya', love. Aachara, is following and treading/moving, in general. Yet another word commonly used is 'paramparya'. Paramparya is related to following and acting on values and deeds in the past in the present,in specific aspects. All of these are not related or co related to tradition, tradition in art form.
Observing and studying the usage and its deficiency, I have attempted to define the tradition, as related to art form in my article on 'Karnatic Music, Tradition and Enlightenment' and was published few years back. My posting on tradition is related to my article. Some of the popular practitioners have accepted it but it is yet to get the acceptance of musicologists.

munirao2001

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 05 Dec 2015, 21:58

Anyway, on the lines of the discussion, a treat for rasikas :

http://www.sangeethamshare.org/tvg/UPLO ... positions/

The Sri Rajagopala in Saveri with the N2 instead of the N3 is available here. But you need to listen carefully for it -- it is easiest to spot in the "D-N-D-P" phrase, but the gamaka on the N2 masks it's presence very well. It's all too easy for this raga transition to N3 and most listeners would barely spot it -- and that's probably what happened to Saveri.

Suryasriram · Post by **Suryasriram** » 05 Dec 2015, 22:30

SrinathK wrote:Anyway, on the lines of the discussion, a treat for rasikas :

http://www.sangeethamshare.org/tvg/UPLO ... positions/

The Sri Rajagopala in Saveri with the N2 instead of the N3 is available here. But you need to listen carefully for it -- it is easiest to spot in the "D-N-D-P" phrase, but the gamaka on the N2 masks it's presence very well. It's all too easy for this raga transition to N3 and most listeners would barely spot it -- and that's probably what happened to Saveri.

Truly the N2 is almost undetectable! But the violinist is full on N3... alapanai still going on though... so I will have to listen fully.

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 05 Dec 2015, 22:44

The Alapana actually uses the N3, except maybe in a couple of spots where the phrases are slow enough to allow the gamaka on the N2, would you believe it? It's the krithi that has the N2 through and through. The thing is that the nishadam in Saveri is not a jeeva swara where you can loiter long enough for it to establish it's own identity.

Which shows that while the old raga lakshanas still existed and were preserved in the krithis, it had made way for the more modern version of the raga everywhere else. But if this was indeed the way the N2 was handled in Saaveri, then it is all too easy for this raga to shift towards N3 especially with a more lakshya oriented temperament

The style of Brinda Mukta feels like looking through a time machine, almost.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 06 Dec 2015, 07:58

Thought-provoking points made by many of you, taking this discussion forward. I am mainly sharing only a few observations (and not conclusions) at this stage.

The answer is very simple. All these changes can be attributed to the later musicians.

Not all but a lot of them! Observations clearly suggest that composers may have been aware of some ragas in a similar manner but in many other instances, they followed/created different versions. There is no evidence to suggest that T and MD originally had the same concept of Devakriya, Veeravasantam, Vegavahini and a number of other ragas. There is not a single version of Natimata marachitivo that is remotely connected with Shree guruguha or Challaga nato that is anywhere close to Veena pustaka dharini. There is glaring difference even between their versions of Hindolam my guru Brindamma explained and demonstrated in a class. How can we assert that all these are only latter day changes?

Thyagayyar has composed in ragas in both the mela systems. Examples include Vasanthabhairavi-Vakulabharanam, Karaharapriya-Sri, Kedaragola-Harikambhodhi, Navaneetham-Nabhomani. Though we didn't get to see other pairs, this very well indicate he is aware of both the systems.

He may very well have been aware of another mela system or he may have thought that ragas like Nabhomani were janyas of the Sampoorna melas with different sequences. There is no similarity between his Nabhomani and MD's. Even in Shree, T doesn't use PDNPM, as per almost all T's sishya parampara, whereas MD and SS did use it. How can this be credited to latter day artists.

As a student I was passionate to learn from high quality and authentic sources and respect the distinctions between composer's styles or even disciples' styles. Which is how I know two versions of Samaja varagaman, Mokshamu galada, Morabettite and many others. I have performed both in some of my concerts. I respect both but the obvious question is: Which one reflects the intent of the composer?

With all due respect to brilliant authors, it would be very dangerous to go place any more than contextual importance to manuscripts except to acknowledge that a given views or version was also prevalent at a given time in a given place. A holistic look clearly suggests that many alternate views/versions also co-existed intentionally or otherwise.

I never had the opportunity to examine the manuscripts of Umayalapuram Krishna Bhagavathar-Sundara bhagavathar ,Tillaisthanam Rama Iyengar or the direct disciples belonging to he Andhra schools. Hence I mentioned only about the Valajapet manuscripts.

Does this mean you have personally examined the Walajapet manuscripts of about 200-250? I have heard only about a much smaller number. It would be wonderful if you could kindly share details of where these are now.

I never said Walajapet disciples were only loyal and only their vesion is reliable. When we want to see the change that has happened, only if get the notation of direct disciple, it makes sense.[/quote}

Agreed but when the various direct disciples of T have been known to claim authenticity of their varying versions, an obvious question would one assess their degree of reliability with respect to the composer's intent? (As a composer, I have a different take on this but I am asking it from other perspectives.)

I hope this will prove that we have lost the original version of many songs of Thyagaraja svamy and the original version must have been similar with MD .
Thank you for the excellent examples of Takka, Malavashree, Anandabhairavi etc and I agree that we have lost original versions of many songs of not only T but also all the composers. But given my examples in this as well as earlier posts, it would be difficult to generalise about the similarity. Many composers have handled some ragas similarly, which is a testimony to the popularity of those ragas then.

There are versions of Jagadanandakaraka with dhaivatham. Similarly, MD krithis were all notated with dhaivatham in SSP indicating the mistake lies only with the musician.

I am aware of those versions! But the Q was about books vs common practice, speculation vs intent!

To bring it back on track, given the fluidity (or non-existence) of our notations/versions, we can never assert whether T or MD or OVK used certain notes/phrases in 100% of the cases. Most musicians (including me) have refined major parts of repertoire according to personal sense of aesthetics/grammar. As I have said often, changes are more difficult to effect (impose) upon varnams/songs with madhyamakala sections.

In OVK's case, I have shown hundreds of examples over the years which reflect his basic intent - even allowing for changes over time.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 06 Dec 2015, 08:14

Saveri N2

N2 is never instead of N3.

My guru Brindamma asserted that it was occasionally used in Saveri when she taught me Telisenura (padam). I also follow her version of Shree rajagopala in some areas to reflect this. It would be instructive to hear her version of Daridapu as well.

Shri K V Srinivasa Iyengar's reference in Tyagaraja hrdayam (which I have seen) is only an acknowledgement of this. If Walajapet or other T's manuscripts specified this, it would be more conclusive.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 06 Dec 2015, 08:32

I wondered for a very long time how much OVK's tunes have also been affected by the process of change that has affected all other composers in this system. I also confess that it was OVK's music that first opened my awareness to music beyond the time of the trinity. It's just that I keep seeing how ragas keep evolving -- less than a hundred years ago, Begada had phrases that aren't around today

Absolutely right about Begada. So also Athana and to a lesser extent Bilahari, Anandabhairavi and others. In Athana and AB even available audios show that the more obviously dramatic N3 and G3 usage have been trimmed down or eliminated in many schools (though Brindamma managed the incredible feat of being able to render these without making them sound gaudy or dramatic! In Begada, over 90% of available audios have much more of N3 than what is suggested in books.

Semmangudi sir once told me that Bilahari N2 was more an error that had become ratified over time. He demonstrated the same phrases with N3 (I have similar theories about numerous such cases in point).

As for OVK's tunes, I feel that they are probably less affected than any other composer of that era for reasons I have cited elsewhere.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 06 Dec 2015, 08:49

no corroborative evidence of OVK contemporaneous with his life time or shortly thereafter exists

This statement may have been understandable in 1940s when many in the mainstream music world heard OVK's compositions for the first time. Since then, an ocean of water has flowed under the bridge and the overwhelming available internal evidence studied and shared have shown that he lived sometime shortly after Tulasidasa (or Bhadrachala Ramadasa). The Music Academy Journal of 1956 noted 1955 as the 190th Death Anniversary of OVK.

I have shared elsewhere about the personal communication I received from descendants of other families who spoke about OVK's connection to Bhaskara Raya. I have also shared similar communication from descendants of Paruttiyur Krishna Shastrigal (1815-1910) who have asserted that he was acknowledged as a scholar in OVK compositions.

There have been similar dissensions about the time period of numerous others including Sadashiva Brahmendra, Narayana Teertha and others which are being reconciled only through internal evidence. In OVK's case, luckily we have the descendants of his brother still available and his Family Tree (http://www.venkatakavi.org/ovk/home/family-tree.html) as well as other details like family deity being Devi have been shared by them.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 08 Dec 2015, 19:23

Not all but a lot of them!.

Yes. Not all are culpable.

There is no evidence to suggest that T and MD originally had the same concept of Devakriya, Veeravasantam, Vegavahini and a number of other ragas. There is not a single version of Natimata marachitivo that is remotely connected with Shree guruguha or Challaga nato that is anywhere close to Veena pustaka dharini.

Devakriya: This raga find its presence in Sangita Saramrta. Based on my null hypothesis that there is no difference in the handling of ragas, It can be very much assumed that Thyagaraja svamy was very much aware of Devakriya.
Natimata marachithivo: Many krithis of Thyagaraja Svamy were christened haphazardly based on mere similarity to the scales given in Sangraha Chudamani. This opinion is definitely not new, but many times voiced in many of the many past issues of MA journal. I personaaly analysed the version of this krithi given in the manuscripts (closely resembles the present prevalent version) with Sangraha Chudamani (SC) and Sangita Sarvartha Sara Sangraha (SSSS). There are subtle differences between the lakshana of Devakriya (janya of 20) In these books. However, in both the books the scale does not ascend beyond the Madhya sthayi dhaivatham and panchamam respectively. A kriti can be ascertained to a particular raga only if the krithi has the phrases allowed for that raga. When this prime criteria is not satisfied, there is no meaning to rank that krithi into the raga under query. So this krithi was wrongly named as Devakriya.
Vegavahini: The hypothesis applied to Devakriya can be very well applied here too. SC and SSS give the phrase dnd in this ragam. This phrase is totally absent in the version given in the manuscript. It is always pds in the ascent and sndp in the descent; cannot be called as Vegavahini; wrongly named.
Veeravasantham: The krithi E mani pogaduthura is not completely available in the manuscripts. I am unable to conclude anything out of that.
Again I repeat my conclusions(?) these compositions have undergone a quite a big amount of change in terms of raga structure.

Even in Shree, T doesn't use PDNPM, as per almost all T's sishya parampara, whereas MD and SS did use it. How can this be credited to latter day artists.

Dhaivatham in Sree is an alpa svaram. Using an alpasvaram is at the discretion of the composer. So this doent mean that he is unaware of the tradition or he wants to deviate from the tradition.

As a student I was passionate to learn from high quality and authentic sources and respect the distinctions between composer's styles or even disciples' styles. Which is how I know two versions of Samaja varagaman, Mokshamu galada, Morabettite and many others. I have performed both in some of my concerts. I respect both but the obvious question is: Which one reflects the intent of the composer?

I have a great reverence towards Smt.Brinda. I also strongly believe that she is one of the rarest of the musicians to render an unadulterated version of the krithis. Though her lineage can be traced back to one of the disciples of Tyagaraja Svamy, her version cannot taken for drawing conclusions in this discussion just for a single reason that the versions considered/ discussed here only belong to the direct disciples of the saint.

With all due respect to brilliant authors, it would be very dangerous to go place any more than contextual importance to manuscripts except to acknowledge that a given views or version was also prevalent at a given time in a given place. A holistic look clearly suggests that many alternate views/versions also co-existed intentionally or otherwise.

As I ve said earlier, this discusiion is not aimed to change the version of songs/ragas sung in this era. This is to show and make our ourselves to accept the fact that what we are rendering today is not always the version that the composers have sung and transmitted to the posterity.
Ragas had a much beautiful structure in the past. It is to bring back their glory atleast in the aspects of manodharma and to create a record for the future.
These multiple versions came into existence probably only 40-50 years after the demise of these composers, which I will prove with an example.
Pahi ramadhutha is given as Vasantha varali in the manuscripts of Veena Kuppaier. It is now rendered only in Shadvidhamargini.

Does this mean you have personally examined the Walajapet manuscripts of about 200-250? I have heard only about a much smaller number. It would be wonderful if you could kindly share details of where these are now.

Yes. I have personally examined the transcripts of these manuscripts. They are preserved at GOML, Chennai.

Agreed but when the various direct disciples of T have been known to claim authenticity of their varying versions, an obvious question would one assess their degree of reliability with respect to the composer's intent? (As a composer, I have a different take on this but I am asking it from other perspectives.)

Original version should been similar.
In this context I can cite an example. The versions of the krithi Madhilona in Kolahalam in these manuscripts and that of Umayalpuram Sri.Sundara Bhagavathar are similar. There are subtle changes but can be(ought to be) accepted as a basic disadvantage inherent of oral tradition.

But given my examples in this as well as earlier posts, it would be difficult to generalise about the similarity. Many composers have handled some ragas similarly, which is a testimony to the popularity of those ragas then.

If they have created another version it can be better called as a different ragam. We know that Shankarabaranam, Todi and other ragas in this league are treated similarly by Thyagaraja and Dikshithar. I have also tried to prove that the older ragas like Takka, Malavasri, Anandabhairavi were dealt in a similar fashion. As for as Thyagaraja svamy is concerned it is a fact that he was a follower of different lexicons. But, whatever lexicon he has followed, he stuck to the scale given there. In certain instances, he also created new scales.
Let me cite few more examples:
Balahamsa: srgmpmr, rmgr, dnp phrases are availbles in both their krithis. To my knowledge these are never seen in todays version. Rmgs , a characteristic phrase of the present Balahamsa is characteristically absent in both their krithis (version given in manuscripts and SSP respectively).
Saveri: Phrass like dnd, snsnd, pndp ar plenty in both their krithis. These are totally absent in todays version (Brindamma might have used).
Surati. The special phrases given in SSP for this ragam (not used nowadays; atleast I have not heard) like srgr, pdnd, pdp are plenty in both their krithis.
OVK krithis: I have not seen these kind of phrases in the Balahamsa or Surati of OVK krithis. They conform only with the present raga structure.
With the abovementioned examples, I ve tried to prove raga structure handled by Thyagarja Svamy and Dikshithar are same.
This should be taken not only as the music of Trinity, but also as the music representing their era. OVKs music (being a pre Trinity composer) must also follow the suit.
Rather, if I can extend my imagination, I can also say Trinity must have been inspired by OVK. But, at the face of present evidence it is only speculative.
My conclusion here is that we have lost the original tunes of OVK krithis.

There are versions of Jagadanandakaraka with dhaivatham. Similarly, MD krithis were all notated with dhaivatham in SSP indicating the mistake lies only with the musician.

I have listened to this version by the disciples of Thillaisthanam school; but not in concerts.
I have also heard Brindamma saying the reason for her not singing Mokshamu galada in the concerts is that she is the only single person using chatushruthi dhaivatham (I have heard this as an anecdote and not sure about the validity).
My point here, when a version does not become popular or when the number of persons singing aparticular version gets decreased, that particular version gradually disappears from the circulation. Then a real situation appears as out of reality, unauthentic and speculative!!!!

we can never assert whether T or MD or OVK used certain notes/phrases in 100% of the cases. Most musicians (including me) have refined major parts of repertoire according to personal sense of aesthetics/grammar. As I have said often, changes are more difficult to effect (impose) upon varnams/songs with madhyamakala sections.

Definitely yes. The ragam structure ina composition is much depended on the mood or bhava of the composer. But, majority of the phrases characteristic to a particular raga must be present in the composition. Also, he cannot use the phrase which does not belong to that particular raga. In the above mentioned examples, the composer has used two, three or many such phrases depending on the composition.
To make it simple, Thyagaraja Svamy and Dikshithar have not eschewed ga ad dha in the ascent of Surati; rather used the phrase rmgs in Balahamsa (as an example).
Of we understand the importance of preserving our tradition, older versions appear much more esthetic and we always there is no need need for refinement. Avaa padinatha paadinale porum nu tonum.

As for OVK's tunes, I feel that they are probably less affected than any other composer of that era for reasons I have cited elsewhere.

I feel OVK s music is affected more than any other composer. Its high time that we investigate and try to get the real tunes (if possible).

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 08 Dec 2015, 19:24

If Walajapet or other T's manuscripts specified this, it would be more conclusive.

The manuscripts does not mention about the svarasthanams fo all the ragams; Saveri is one such example.

I have shared elsewhere about the personal communication I received from descendants of other families who spoke about OVK's connection to Bhaskara Raya. I have also shared similar communication from descendants of Paruttiyur Krishna Shastrigal (1815-1910) who have asserted that he was acknowledged as a scholar in OVK compositions.

Did you ask about the versions that they know or about any manuscrits in their possession.
Are they not actively involved in propagating the music OVK (as you said in your earlier post#37)?

Now I have a few queries:
1. what is your for OVKs krithis?
2. Have you examined the manuscripts personally?
3. Do we have the musical structure for all the available compositions?

I will be very happy if my doubts get clarified.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 10 Dec 2015, 21:57

It would be also of great use if you can say about the descendents and/or disciples of Sri Parutiyur Krishna Sastrigal and are their interest in preserving OVK krithis.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 13 Dec 2015, 05:25

Thank you for your most informative posts. Please bear with my late replies amidst the flood relief efforts, travel etc. I agree with several points you have made. I partially agree with

We have lost original tunes of OVK

You have shown in your posts that this is true for any composer of that era. And OVK's works are certainly not insured against changes. Some part of his music has come down to us over the years and others may have got changed over time and many others lost (even according to his descendants).

Again your posts show how multiple karna paramparas of T, MD plus their handling by so many musicians/composers over time means exponentially more changes. It is moot who changed it and when. The fact is most are rendered as per raga structures known today, which is a far cry from what the structures were probably a few centuries ago. OVK's has seen less changes until recently. But as Needamangalam Krishnamurthy Bhagavatar himself used to concede, "not all of the sishya parampara were concert musicians. So parts of the grammar may have got diluted over time".

Even as more and more of us are handling it a lot of the pieces get rendered as per raga structures known today, like T, MD or any other composer including ragas like Balahamsa, Surati. I have heard so many versions of these ragas even in T krtis/padams etc including 'vishesha prayogams' like some you have listed.

I'd like to get to a few other points in greater detail, preferably after examining the Walajapet manuscripts with you (if it is fine by you, kindly email me your convenience.) But from your posts, we get the following picture:

We don't have available notations/even raga scale/sequence for a majority of T or MD krtis. Same holds good for SS krtis whose manuscripts I have seen - only lyrics were preserved.

Even the few we have are not much related to what is being heard - even in Walajapet schools.
- - You contend that ragas like Devakriya have been wrongly named in T school because they don't conform to MD school. Isn't that stretching facts to suit opinions? It is important to note that Devakriya in MD is same scale as the popular Shuddhasaveri in which T and numerous others have composed several krtis (though MD has used a couple of other phrases.
    It is impossible to be certain that phrases were not used by composers like T and MD based on just one available manuscript of some compositions - most of which do not specify even the scale/sequence of the raga, especially when there is clear counter evidence from other sishya paramparas.
  - In MD's case, it is well known that few of his compositions conform to arohana/avarohana sequence through out even as per SSP notation.
  What do we make of that?
  
  In a scenario reliant on aural tradition, books are only ancillary. Which is why I have maintained that we can only speculate about a majority of things. Just as an example of the limitation of books/notating, Surati SRGR,has got refined (defined?) to SRMR. If it was notated as SRGR, it was an error more on the part of the transcriber which can easily be legitimised as acceptable grammar by an author over time. I can prove numerous such cases in live demos...

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 14 Dec 2015, 11:16

I really appreciate your commitment to reply my queries despite your busy schedule.

Some part of his music has come down to us over the years and others may have got changed over time and many others lost (even according to his descendants).

It would of great academic value if you can please share your observations regarding the changes that have crept in.

I have heard so many versions of these ragas even in T krtis/padams etc including 'vishesha prayogams' like some you have listed.

As the original tunes were altered we get to hear so many versions. Vishesha prayogams give us a clue that they are the remnants of the yore.

OVK's has seen less changes until recently

I like to differ again.

'd like to get to a few other points in greater detail, preferably after examining the Walajapet manuscripts with you (if it is fine by you, kindly email me your convenience.)

Its my pleasure to discuss with you. Kindly check your mail.

We don't have available notations/even raga scale/sequence for a majority of T or MD krtis. Same holds good for SS krtis whose manuscripts I have seen - only lyrics were preserved.

To my knowledge, the musical structure of all the krithis of Tyagarajaswamy mentioned in the book by Sri. TS. Parthasarathy is available in the books like Krithimanimalai etc. Same with the Dikshithar krithis. what made you to come to this conclusion?

You contend that ragas like Devakriya have been wrongly named in T school because they don't conform to MD school. Isn't that stretching facts to suit opinions? It is important to note that Devakriya in MD is same scale as the popular Shuddhasaveri in which T and numerous others have composed several krtis (though MD has used a couple of other phrases.

It doesn't confirm to any school. I think my earlier post is not murky in this regard.
Natimata marachithivo is not in line either with the Devakriya given in the earlier treatises(so called Dikshithar school) nor with the Sangraha Chudamani.
Suddha Saveri: is an enigma to me and I will be forced to say a lot of other findings if I start on that. I don't want a digression here.

It is impossible to be certain that phrases were not used by composers like T and MD based on just one available manuscript of some compositions - most of which do not specify even the scale/sequence of the raga, especially when there is clear counter evidence from other sishya paramparas.

I can be certain about Valajapet manuscripts. The ragas which I have cited like Surati, Balahamsa, Saveri have more than 3-4 compositions notated in the manuscript. Only svarasthanas were not mentioned; not the ragas. In all these compositions, all the prayogas mentioned find its presence; number might vary.
I also gave an example (Kolahalam) wherein I tried to prove the earlier versions were similar. Manuscript from the direct disciples (if we get) will definitely prove my hypothesis.
There is no reason to exclaim for dissimilarity between the two sishya paramparas when we examine a later version.
In the case of OVK krithis, be it Kathaya kathaya or Parvai Ondre in Surati or Neela lohitha in Balahamsa, I am unable to trace the presence of any of the said prayogas. A composer must include (would have included)the key phrases atleast once in his compositions. This becomes much more evident when there is a single piece in that particular ragam ( eg Guruguhaadantyam of Dikshithar).

In MD's case, it is well known that few of his compositions conform to arohana/avarohana sequence through out even as per SSP notation. [/list] What do we make of that?

Is it wrong to follow the scale?
I always amuse the presence of arohanam and avarohanam in a book like SSP. But, not even in a single place Sri. Subbarama Dikshithar violated the lakshanams given in the earlier treatises. I will cite Chaayatarangini as an example. He gave a straight srgmpdn and sndpmgr as arohana-avarohana. But a straight forward phrase like is never found in the krithi Sarasvathi Chaayatarangini. What he meant probably was that the phrases srgm, pdns are available. So we find phrases like pmgmpdns, npdns etc. (Even Thyagarasvamy krithis notated in the manuscript has the phrases srgm and pdns). But, pns and srm are the only phrases in vogue now.
So irrespective of the karma, they have followed only the lakshanas given in the older treatises.

Just as an example of the limitation of books/notating, Surati SRGR,has got refined (defined?) to SRMR. If it was notated as SRGR, it was an error more on the part of the transcriber which can easily be legitimised as acceptable grammar by an author over time.

In a ragam ike Darbar we can cite this as a limitation as the vocal sound does not confirm wwith the svarams sung. But here, I don't think so.
In Surati, ga is sandharana in nature and it cannot be notated as rmr or viceversa. Moreover this prayogam is clearly seen in the krithis of Dikshithar.
So a real phrase once is speculated now as an illegitimate phrase.

Now I have a few queries:
1. what is your for OVKs krithis?
2. Have you examined the manuscripts personally?
3. Do we have the musical structure for all the available compositions?

I will be very happy if my doubts get clarified.

MaheshS · Post by **MaheshS** » 14 Dec 2015, 20:34

There are two threads about OVK that are worth reading before we go thro the same issues again and again,

Oothukkadu Venkata kavi - a pre trinity composer?
and
Value of OVK's contributions

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 14 Dec 2015, 22:06

Except you know, Raga Andhali. Now that changed from G2 to G3 by the time the SSP was written.

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 15 Dec 2015, 08:35

Thank you very much for your email. I will call you at the earliest to go over the manuscripts and discuss other clarifications you have sought. For now, just a couple of points.

In Surati, ga is sandharana in nature and it cannot be notated as rmr or viceversa. Moreover this prayogam is clearly seen in the krithis of Dikshithar.

Surati Ga is antara, not sadharana.

Limitations or variations/mistakes of notation: Any musician/guru knows only too well that even in a class of 5 students, each of them could end up interpreting what they are taught in different ways.

Living composers like Tanjavur Shankara Iyer have confided in me how their songs have undergone sharp deviations from what they intended (sometimes positively).

Which is why, in very broad terms, a true traditionalist would find it hard to subscribe to frozen traditions (a point made by numerous legends over time.)

Except you know, Raga Andhali. Now that changed from G2 to G3 by the time the SSP was written.

That is more in my guru Brindamma's school, I think. Most theory books mention it as 28 janyam with G3. But Brindamma was of course vociforously against pre-occupation with 'theery'

While on the subject, several other ragas like Saraswatimanohari of MD vary sharply from T's versions. Which leads to one possible conclusion - composers handled at least some ragas quite differently and a few similarly.

The danger I am talking about is in trying to retro-fit opinions to facts with respect to composers' handling, when we do not have ANY thing in the composers' own hands to go by, unlike Western scenario where original notations of Bach/Mozart are available and difficult to change. Inevitably, changes are the norm in our tradition. As long as they are evolutionary refinements based on inner musical compulsions, after mastery over tradition and sensitivity and integrity, rather than sensationalism for personal gains, one has not much cause for complaint.

My personal leaning has tended towards 'loyalty to the raga - as we have it today from great masters over time including gurus'. "What it used to be before", "what it could have been in which school" are all wonderful pieces of interesting information that we respect to study timelines of various traditions.

munirao2001 · Post by **munirao2001** » 15 Dec 2015, 13:21

My personal leaning has tended towards 'loyalty to the raga - as we have it today from great masters over time including gurus'.

CNR Sir, Is not the ideal is of " Loyalty to the raga/passion, its rasothpathi, its rasanubhuti in conformance to the lakshya and lakshana of art form" deriving and delivery of pleasure/bliss and its partaking with rasikas? All the great maestros contributed the deviations and variations, both in lakshya and lakshanam aspects, with their imagination and creativity, also their limitations. To establish the deviations and variations, they justified them as in line with tradition and in respect of the tradition. To end the contradictions and confusions, I have realized that Excellence, with no second, is the ideal and truly enabling creativity of rasa of raga and its delivery of rasanubhuti. To establish excellence, with no second, documentation is needed with experts panel, contributing.

munirao2001

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 15 Dec 2015, 18:07

Surati Ga is antara, not sadharana.

Yes. I know it takes antara gandharam and is placed under harikamabhodhi melam.
I feel you are much contented (obsessed!) with the present way of addressing ragas to forget (probably overlook) their past glory.
Presently, to my knowledge, rgr is not at all used in Surati. Then why did I mention?
The answer is rgr was used in tara sthayi and its position there is sadharana!!. Now every other related comments in my previous post should make sense.

Limitations or variations/mistakes of notation: Any musician/guru knows only too well that even in a class of 5 students, each of them could end up interpreting what they are taught in different ways.

I too agree they have their own limitations. No one can equal a sincere and dedicated guru. But when we want to study the changes, its essential to look only those notations given by great Vidvans of the past.
I said Vidvans and I meant what I said. It implies they are capable of listening and notating what ever they have heard from their master with utmost care. The practice of writing notation itself indicates that their intention was to preserve their (his) Guru's krithis for posterity.
We might not be talented enough to read their notation. Hence, Its always better not to impose our limitations on them.

Inevitably, changes are the norm in our tradition. As long as they are evolutionary refinements based on inner musical compulsions, after mastery over tradition and sensitivity and integrity, rather than sensationalism for personal gains, one has not much cause for complaint.

There is need of lakshana then. What appears esthetic to us might not be for the next generation. They can very well introduce prati madhyamam in Surati or can sing Gitarthamu in Hameer and call it as an evolution.

My personal leaning has tended towards 'loyalty to the raga - as we have it today from great masters over time including gurus'. "What it used to be before", "what it could have been in which school" are all wonderful pieces of interesting information that we respect to study timelines of various traditions.

I really appreciate you for the interest shown by you in trying to preserve the raga structure as it is now. But this attitude was not shown by some (or many?) musicians of the past and certainly history repeats in the future. Hence, at least to have a record, we must do research, analyse and bring back those lost changes (atleast in theory). So, in the future, practicing musicians like you who wants to takes care in preserving the tradition will take that as a guide and prevent downfall of our tradition (can I use this word?) which can otherwise happen.

Before reciting Vedam or Prabandam, even now it is a practise to say Lakshminatha samarambaam or Sadashiva samarambaam; not only the taniyan of our direct guru. This kind of respect must be shown to the direct disciples of the Trinity too as we can equate them with Yaamuna or shankaraacharya in our musical tradition.

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 15 Dec 2015, 18:55

While I don't think what was lost in the dark ages may ever be found back unless someone gained trikala - gnyana, I'd say that the present information age with the ability to record and archive anything and anywhere and discuss it out loud will stabilize the current form of our music. The list of available compositions however, will continue to grow to ever more gargantuan levels (I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all lest I be misunderstood) as more ancient composers are discovered and newer composers come to light.

I'd say however that it will become more and more difficult for newer / newly discovered composers and compositions (or it may take it's own time) to become as well known as the older ones as the current Carnatic repertoire itself is massively vast.

Maybe extinct ragas could even be reinvented as new ragas someday.

But at the end of the day, a thorough understanding of the evolution of our raga system to the current scale-derived 72 melakarta and the consequences of adopting such a system and how it has subtly influenced our choice of phrases and swaras in the ragas we use today -- is very important information for everyone to know.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 23 Dec 2015, 14:09

I like to give an update to fellow forumites regarding this topic.

I like to thank Sri. Ravikiran for not only inviting me to have a discussion in person on this topic, but also for sharing the valuable manuscripts in his possession. He was instrumental in me reviving this thread again.

The manuscripts in his possession were procured by him from the family of late Sri. Needamangalam Krishnamurthy Bhagavathar (NKB), an authority in the compositions of Venkatasubbaier. So the authenticity of manuscripts need not be proved.

As a preliminary report I like to mention about two ragas, Bilahari and Reethigowlai. The krithis in NKB mss will be compared with the Dikshithar and Tyagaraja Svamy krithis belonging to the sources which I was discussing in the past.

Bilahari: I was able to get 3 krithis: Santhatham aham - first avarana krithi in the set of Kamakshi Navavaranam, Nindringu unnarul and Vandaduvum ponadhuvum. The archaic phrases srgdp, rgmgr, dns, sgs were found in these krithis. These phrases also seem to be present in a Tana varnam of Sonti Venkatasubbaiya, krithis of Dikshithar and Thyagaraja Svamigal. I doubt whether are we hearing these phrases in the present era.

Reethigowlai: This is one another interesting ragam to study. Brundavana nilaye is the only kruthi I was able to get from NKB mss. The krithi itself starts with snnp in the mandhara sthayi and the second sangathi with npns. there are plenty of mandra sancharams in the pallavi. This very well contrasts to the present version (atleast the version which I have heard). Usually, the older versions tend to have copious mandra prayogams is my observation. Apart from this, phrases like srgm, pdm, sndns (Madhya sthayi), pdnndm were all found. These again find its presence in the gitam given in Pradarshini, Dikshithar and Svamy's kritis.

So with the available evidences, we can conclude (?) that the original tune of the compositions of our composers have been changed (partly or completely), either knowingly or unknowingly by some of our musicians of yesteryear.

Now, it is up to an individual to take this or not.

SrinathK · Post by **SrinathK** » 23 Dec 2015, 17:13

Are these manuscripts are being digitized and archived online?

At the very least it proves that OVK also followed the prevailing tradition of the times. Which makes the Sangraha Chudamani stand as the odd book out.

We might as well dump the concept of "tradition" in CM now and pray to God that the old versions of our ragas be at least rediscovered as new ones ...

-- and it makes you wonder, has CM only stabilized today in it's current form because of the progressively easier availability of information since the 20th century?

If yes, then the concept of tradition in CM is a very modern thing.