Raga Modi - Violin Kumaresh

[sureshvv]

Check 0ut:

https://www.facebook.com/fiddlingmonk/v ... 4470196417

[SrinathK]

Is that Kumaresh!!??? Since when?

[Sachi_R]

It has a fabulous form, what a melody! Hats off. Kumaresh!

[Shyamala Rangarajan]

Ragam MoDi is simply a beautiful creation. Sri Kumaresh can think of composing a kruthi in MoDi and present it in the next concert.

[rshankar]

Ragam MoDi is simply a beautiful creation.

Not mODi (मोडि/மோடி), but mOdi (मोदि/மோதி) as he so painstakingly explains....

[SrinathK]

mOhanam in the aro and harikAmbhoji in the avaro = a bilahari with an N2. Hmm...

I thought this raga already exists - it's known as dEsAkshi. Oothukadu Venkata Subbaiyer has composed santatam aham sEvE (from his navAvarNam) in this raga.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C62vRh2QWg8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_IiugsiyHU

IIRC there is also a composition of Maharaja Swati Tirunal in this raga - saraseeruha nAbha

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWgZJ2CW3F4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtgTIavxZdc

[Sachi_R]

That means मोदि becomes देशाक्षि which means he becomes the nation's eyes.

[SrinathK]

True. It still seems to have served it's purpose

[bhakthim dehi]

Santhatham aham seve of Sri Venkatakavi and Desakshi itself is a mystery. The ragam of this krithi is mentioned as Bilahari in the manuscripts preserved by the family of Sri Needamangalam Krishna Murthy Bhagavathar.
At present, the lakshana of Desakshi is Bilahari with only kaisiki nishadam.
But, history gives a different picture. Desakshi was always considered as a mela, or a janya of mela 35, present day Sulini. Some texts give a different name, as Sailadesakshi to satisfy katpayadhi samkhya.
The only text that considers this as a janya of mela 28 and mela 29 is Raga lakshana manuscript (it places under both 28 and 29). But the scale differs.
Now, we can hear this krithi in both Bilahari and Desakshi, considering as a janya of 28, but with the scale akin to Bilahari ; rendition of Bombay sisters can be given as an example for the former and the rendition by Ravikiran and his disciples for the latter.
When Sri Ravikiran was asked about this difference, he said few of the disciples of Needamangalam Krishna Murthy Bhagavathar used to sing in Desakshi and he had learnt from them.
So, getting in Desakshi will only add more confusions. Let Kumaresh call his creation by any fancy name as he wish.

[Sachi_R]

+1

[SrinathK]

Santhatham aham seve of Sri Venkatakavi and Desakshi itself is a mystery. The ragam of this krithi is mentioned as Bilahari in the manuscripts preserved by the family of Sri Needamangalam Krishna Murthy Bhagavathar.
At present, the lakshana of Desakshi is Bilahari with only kaisiki nishadam.
But, history gives a different picture. Desakshi was always considered as a mela, or a janya of mela 35, present day Sulini. Some texts give a different name, as Sailadesakshi to satisfy katpayadhi samkhya.
The only text that considers this as a janya of mela 28 and mela 29 is Raga lakshana manuscript (it places under both 28 and 29). But the scale differs.
Now, we can hear this krithi in both Bilahari and Desakshi, considering as a janya of 28, but with the scale akin to Bilahari ; rendition of Bombay sisters can be given as an example for the former and the rendition by Ravikiran and his disciples for the latter.
When Sri Ravikiran was asked about this difference, he said few of the disciples of Needamangalam Krishna Murthy Bhagavathar used to sing in Desakshi and he had learnt from them.
So, getting in Desakshi will only add more confusions. Let Kumaresh call his creation by any fancy name as he wish.

Another raga that has changed this much? Please don't mind me asking, but I thought until now the 72 sampoorna melakartha system is a more recent (post trinity) phenomenon (the asampoorna one is the older, original one). A lot of discussion about that has happened in this thread : https://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopi ... 25#p292245

The idea that there were two systems of 72 ragas around the trinity time now seems to be a flawed premise -- the research seems to suggest that the sampoorna system was a newer invention that came along with attempts to fit Thyagaraja's songs into arbitrary ragas.

The 72 sampoorna melakartha system also started the whole idea of trying to fit 'janya' ragas into melakarthas (and tampering with some of their characteristics like aTHANA), and also lead to an algorithmic approach in creating ragas out of template scales.

Unless such an approach had already been developed by the older asampoorna system or the systems older than that ....if only we could go and see what happened right from the beginning... should I go back to Vidyaranya, or Sharangadeva or even older, to the Sumerians and Bharata?

Now Shailadeshakshi is the 35th raga of the asampoorna system and supposedly goes like ----
Aro: S M1 G3 P D2 S'
Avaro : S' N3 D2 S N3 P M1 R3 S

If OVK had composed in this raga, it would make this older than it looks. OVK was pre-trinity.

If there's a text that mentioned a dEsAkshi that belonged under harikAmbhoji or shankarAbharanam, it has to be a different, more recent raga. Right?

Hmm.... so 2 dEsAkshis and now one of them changed into mOdi -- does anyone's head hurt yet?

[bhakthim dehi]

Mentioned a lot of things in a single post. Let me address individually with my limited knowledge, perhaps this evening.

[bhakthim dehi]

Please don't mind me asking, but I thought until now the 72 sampoorna melakartha system is a more recent (post trinity) phenomenon (the asampoorna one is the older, original one). A lot of discussion about that has happened in this thread

We dont have any evidence to claim the sampoorna system to be anterior by date. Venkatamakhin was the first musicologist to devise a scheme of 72 melam; but, he didnt name the ragam in his treatise. If we go by the modern musicologists, asampoorna system itself must have developed after the period of Venkatamakhin, around early 1700.
Govinda of Sangraha Chudamani was not the first one to propose this present sampoorna mela scheme. This scheme , ideally, should be credited to the musician/musicologist who wrote a treatise "Sangeetha Sara Sangrahamu" (as mentioned by Govinda). Even this, we don not know, as this is the first treatise which mentions about this scheme or we have lost any treatise written before this, which also makes a mention about sampoorna scheme.
To add more to the confusion, there could have been a third system as proposed by Prof Sambamurthy.

Another raga that has changed this much?

we can count the ragam that have not changed!!

The idea that there were two systems of 72 ragas around the trinity time now seems to be a flawed premise -- the research seems to suggest that the sampoorna system was a newer invention that came along with attempts to fit Thyagaraja's songs into arbitrary ragas.

Attempt was made to give names to the ragam handled by Thyagarajar, mainly by referring with Sangraha Chudamani. But, it doesnt mean he didnt compose in sampoorna scales.
Certainly, there were 2 or 3 systems prevailing around Trinity time.

Unless such an approach had already been developed by the older asampoorna system or the systems older than that ....if only we could go and see what happened right from the beginning... should I go back to Vidyaranya, or Sharangadeva or even older, to the Sumerians and Bharata

Not necessary. Trinity has followed the raga system as advocated by Venkatamakhin (yes, Thyagarajar and Deekshithar school is a myth). We can group the treatises into three groups, ChathurdandiPrakashika, Shahaja's Ragalakshanam, Tulaja's Sangeetha Saramrtam as one set, the texts anterior to these as another set and Sangeetha Sara Sangrahamu, Sangrahha Chudamani, Raga Lakshana mss from andhra to be the third set.
There are certain ragam with same name, but with a different lakshanam mentioned in CDP-RLS-SSA set and the other set. It can be seen, when ever such a confusion arise, only the raga lakshanam given in CDP-RLS-SSA has been followed by Trinity. Another Raga Lakshana compendium attributed to Venkatamakhin (Muddu Venkatamakhin II) also follows this set.
Among the Trinity, only Thyagarajar and Syama Sastrigal has taken ragam from the third set, which has a constellation of scalar ragam (also has given different scale for old ragam mentioned in the first set). This doesnt mean Deekshithar has not handled any scalar ragam.
Also, when Walajapet manuscripts are analysed, it is clearly seen Thyagarajar has not followed Sangraha chudamani (excluding very rare examples).

If OVK had composed in this raga, it would make this older than it looks. OVK was pre-trinity.

If there's a text that mentioned a dEsAkshi that belonged under harikAmbhoji or shankarAbharanam, it has to be a different, more recent raga. Right?

We assume OVK to be a Pre-Trinity composer. In that sense, on all probabilities, he must have followed the first set of treatise.
Excluding Raga Lakshana mss of Andhra, (almost) all other treatise say Desakshi as 35 mela.
This shows either 'santhatham aham seve' must have been sung in Bilahari and some disciples of Neesdamangalam Krishnamurthy Bahagavathar must have learnt, who is the source for Sri Ravikiran's version or this should have been composed in Desakshi, 35 mela, again was changed into two versions- Bilahari and Desakshi (Ravikiran's version) by some musicians.
Here, a point to ponder is, Raga Lakshana Andhra mss place Desakshi under two mela 28, 29. If it is 29, the structure is much similar to Bilahari. In that case, the disciples of Needamangalam Krishmurthy Bhagavathar who sings it in Bilahari is almost right.

Hmm.... so 2 dEsAkshis and now one of them changed into mOdi -- does anyone's head hurt yet?

I feel, whenever confusion arises, we can give 2 raga names, especially when they have a different lakshanam.

[chitravina ravikiran]

Greetings to all. Purandara Dasa's geetam, Bhaya samaya in Deshakshi, included in Sangeeta Vidya Darpanamu (and later in my Perfecting Carnatic Music series), is 28 Janyam (SR2G3PD2S - SN2D2PM1G3R2S) and has little to do with the Shoolini derivative.

Several disciples of NKB's school have referred to Santatam aham seve as Deshakshi and those versed in grammar like Jalatarangam Smt Seetha Duraiswami used to render it in flawless Deshakshi as seen in Purandara Dasa's geetam. However I've also heard a few sing it in bhashanga Bilahari (using both Ni-s).

[bhakthim dehi]

It is interesting to see two disciples of a same teacher following different versions.
Did you find any plausible explanation for this? I am asking this to you as you have interacted with many of NKB 's disciples and they would have shared with you some vital information.

[bhakthim dehi]

It is known that, many (or all?) compositions of Purandaradasa were tuned by later musicians as we have lost the musical structure (correct me please, if I am wrong).
I am raising this question because, all the treatises mention Desakshi as mela 35, excluding this Raga lakshana Andhra mss. In that case, even if Purandaradasar would have composed this devaranama in Desakshi, it could have been only in the present day mela 35.
Also, Purandaradasa has handled only around 32 ragas (please correct me if I am wrong). Does Desakshi features in that?
Else, version given in Sangeetha Vidya Darpanamu is a later constructed one?

[Sachi_R]

I feel Kumaresh should change the Raaga name to Jayalalitha. Anything with Modi is full of controversy.

[chitravina ravikiran]

-" It is interesting to see two disciples of a same teacher following different versions."

One of the most regular occurances in our culture - including in the paramparas of Trinity. Also it is unrealistic to expect everyone to exhibit the same degree of grammar consciousness / conscientiousness.

It is generally accepted that have PD's practice pieces including Malahari, Deshakshi geetams (and sarali etc) have come down in original tunes.

Going only by books and retro fitting what may have been can be speculative - at best. Even in this information era, seasoned musicians and many authors don't know names or contours of all ragas in existence or all variations in names or renditions. It is obvious that even the best musicologists a few hundred years ago would have had even less access to information from every possible source though we revere them for documenting what was available to them for posterity.

[bhakthim dehi]

One of the most regular occurances in our culture - including in the paramparas of Trinity. Also it is unrealistic to expect everyone to exhibit the same degree of grammar consciousness / conscientiousness.

This makes our research interesting and with the present available evidence, its our duty to reconciole as history plays a very important role for the development of any field.

Going only by books and retro fitting what may have been can be speculative - at best.

Not necessary always. Books are the only guide when we dont have any other material to understand the past. This is done in any field which allows research.

It is generally accepted that have PD's practice pieces including Malahari, Deshakshi geetams (and sarali etc) have come down in original tunes.

I doubt. Sri Subbarama Deekshithar himself has mentioned the ragam of the geetham 'aanalekara' has changed from the old suddha saveri to devakriya (the present suddha saveri). This could have been the case with Desakshi too!!

It is obvious that even the best musicologists a few hundred years ago would have had even less access to information from every possible source though we revere them for documenting what was available to them for posterity.

This is the same point I wish to reiterate.
Doing research and coming out with a plausible finding will, by no means, disrespect our predecessors. All we need to do is to conduct an unbiased research.

quote]It is obvious that even the best musicologists a few hundred years ago would have had even less access to information from every possible source though we revere them for documenting what was available to them for posterity.[/quote]

Going by your words, Sangeetha Vidya Darpanamu would have wrongly mentioned the raga as Desakshi, I mean the swaras that it take. It is up to us, to research and analyse the facts.

[Rsachi]

https://youtu.be/C62vRh2QWg8

From the above, it seems Modi is a Raga with the scale identical to Desakshi. I do believe, still, that we must listen to Kumaresh's मन की बात. Some interpretation differences may be there.

[bhakthim dehi]

This picture must have been taken from a book published in the recent past. This will not show us any light as we are dealing with a composer who lived around 1700.
This can be called as modern Desakshi or 'converted Desakshi'

[Sachi_R]

Bhaktim Dehi,
The book page is from Raganidhi published by the Music Academy in the fifties.

[shankarank]

Desakshi was always considered as a mela, or a janya of mela 35, present day Sulini.

For a time when vivAdi was not favored that makes sense! Now it sounds something like to Harikambodhi as what is kaRNa ranjani to kAra sAra priyA- !

[shankarank]

An alpa prayogam like sN3N2s borrowed from nAganandini will make it a janya of 28, 29 & 30. We need 3 eyes not just two! Third eye vision is good A licentitious singer searching for mUrchanas will land there

[chitravina ravikiran]

This can be called as modern Desakshi or 'converted Desakshi'

This is precisely what I mean when I say that too much speculation only based on books, ignoring aural (which I favour to 'oral') traditions is dangerous. Books - even by the greatest analysts and scholars - only reveal one part of the story. The older the book, the greater the probability of information from other regions/practices that may have not percolated down to the book in question. There are so many other dimensions in real life art - even today - that can never be captured by any book or website.

Going by books, how does one account for variations within sishya parampara of Tyagaraja or other composers? Just because we have manuscripts of Walajapet, do we dismiss the other direct disciples versions? How does one account for variations in MD or SS in Veena Dhanammal style vs what is published in so many 'authentic' books? Dhanammal and Brindamma have never placed over-reliance on books nor have almost all the legends in the field. The descendants of SS told me personally that Dhanammal's version of SS was the most authentic one. Not those published in books. Though most of the legends I have known were never short on intellect, they placed their trust on authentic sources and believed that music was best learnt by ears - not eyes and brains.

We do recognise that a number of musicians/composers have changed original works slightly or substantially in over. However, that cannot be cited as the only possibility by over-contextualising books and dismissing anything not found in them as latter day additions.

At the end of the day, any book can only confirm the existance of a given raga/style/features, not their non-existence.

[bhakthim dehi]

when I say that too much speculation only based on books, ignoring aural (which I favour to 'oral') traditions is dangerous.

Oral tradition is never ignored.
When oral tradition is unavailable, only textual tradition has to be relied on is my view. We, certainly, do not have anyone living with us, who can authoritatively educate about these changes. We are not talking about the changes that has happened at a time when music was started to get recorded. Our period of study is even before that.
Also, oral tradition is prone for misinterpretation. Else, we would have not got so many versions.
To conclude, both textual and oral versions has advantages and disadvantages and the researcher has to be smart enough to use thean aid which can reveal an answer to the question under study.

Books - even by the greatest analysts and scholars - only reveal one part of the story.

Yes, they reveal 'what was sung' and cannot reveal 'how it was sung'. This is a major limitation. But, when you want to do an analysis of how a ragam was used by a composer, 'what was sung' is much sufficient. No one can replicate how a krithi was sung by a composer. And, in my opinion, that is not required too, as the voice nature, its production, etc differs from one individual to another.
More than this, gamakam used by the composer cannot be determined by textual tradition, unless the particular author, who writes a book mentions that.
Even, oral tradition has this limitation. Gamakam is not used uniformly, even when a same krithi is rendered by different artists. Sometimes, intra-artist variation can also be seen. So, with oral tradition we face a different problem.
So, ignoring a textual tradition is equivalent to not willing to accept the change that has crept in.
Also, textual tradition is equally accepted in our tradition;else we would not have so many manuscripts and books.

The older the book, the greater the probability of information from other regions/practices that may have not percolated down to the book in question.

Why should an author record the various changes seen in other parts of the country when it is not his intention?
When they are writing a book, they restrict themselves to the compositions that they are going to notate, and lakshanam of the ragam involved.
Even now, no author mentions about the changes seen in other parts of this country.

The more newer the book, the more changes can be seen. In fact, all the versions are now standardized and modern authors wont even know what has happened in the past, leave behind the changes that is seen elsewhere.

In this issue, Sri Subbarama Deekshithar scores. He mentions about the changes that have crept in (for few ragam).
Now we have a text which denotes these changes. How many of us has went through that and how many has applied that? Meagre.
So, it is not with an author or a text; its up to a researcher to search for an authentic source, analyse and interpret in an unbiased manner.

Going by books, how does one account for variations within sishya parampara of Tyagaraja or other composers? Just because we have manuscripts of Walajapet, do we dismiss the other direct disciples versions?

Here comes the role of a researcher. Though, he should refer to all the available materials, he should use his intellect to gather information, compile and to give a valuable hypothesis.

To make it simple, texts to be traced back to their source. For example, Sri KV Srinivasa Iyengar says in his book that he has contacted several disciples of the composer Thyagarajar and compiled everything together. He never mentions which krithi was procured from which disciple. This is an instance of a weak evidence. An experienced researcher will never rely on a material such as this to make a conclusion. This by no means, degrades this author. A good researcher will value each and every source. As I said, he should use his intellect to prove or disprove his hypothesis.
whereas, if this author has mentioned about the source, it would have become a very valuable source.

So, when an author says his source, we come to know the relationship between the source and the composer. Whether, the source has directly learnt from the composer or the source has learnt from a person who is related with the composer, can be ascertained. The more the source is close to a composer, the less the changes are.
Walajapet manuscripts score here. They were written by Walajapet Venkataramana Bhagavathar and his son, who has learnt directly from the composer. An evidence like this can be compared only with a manuscript or a book written by Umayapuram brothers, Thillaisthanam Rama Iyengar, Subbaraya Sastri, Veena Kuppaier etc. They all have learnt directly from the composer. Unfortunately, we lack these.

If any of the readers here possess, please let me know. It is a significant help to our music fraternity.

Same condition is with OVK. We have a mss written by the disciples of NKB. But do we any mss written by a musician anterior to NKB? to my knowledge , a big no.

How does one account for variations in MD or SS in Veena Dhanammal style vs what is published in so many 'authentic' books?

We are not talking about the style of any musician. We talk here only with reference to the version. Many krithis (if not all) match well with Pradarshini. I hope you mean only about Pradarshini and Keerthana Prakashika, when you say authentic.
Yes, differences do exist in some cases. Those need to be addressed only by musicians like you who has learnt directly from them. As I have said earlier, you even can account for the difference seen in the krithi 'santhatham aham seve' as you have interacted with many disciples of NKB.

The descendants of SS told me personally that Dhanammal's version of SS was the most authentic one.

Descendents of Syama Sastri are so generous that they have placed the handwritten mss of their family member online. Any one can verify.
But, differences do exist between the version given there and that of Brinda.

Though most of the legends I have known were never short on intellect, they placed their trust on authentic sources and believed that music was best learnt by ears - not eyes and brains.

If music is only for ears, there is no need for a forum like this.

We do recognise that a number of musicians/composers have changed original works slightly or substantially in over. However, that cannot be cited as the only possibility

We we realise a problem, why should we hesitate to solve by conducting research?

by over-contextualising books and dismissing anything not found in them as latter day additions.

With krithis , it can be applied. But, not in a case like this.

At the end of the day, any book can only confirm the existance of a given raga/style/features, .

This is what my discussion is all about. When every other book says a lakshanam, and only a very few later books give a different lakshanam, that too not in the line with the lakshanam handled in a composition, it becomes a mandate for us to solve this issue.



Finally, I would like to say, changes have taken place, and research is a must to prevent further deterioration.

[chitravina ravikiran]

Finally, I would like to say, changes have taken place, and research is a must to prevent further deterioration.

Change doesn't automatically mean deterioration. Actually, it has been observed by numerous experts that tradition is forever evolving and not a frozen thing.

Both textual and oral versions has advantages and disadvantages and the researcher has to be smart enough to use thean aid which can reveal an answer to the question under study.

Agree 100%! Which reinforces our topic of Deshakshi, which is a fascinating raga with its own swaroopa - as seen in PD's geetam and OVK's Santatam. There is absolutely little need to presume that it was 35-based just because we only have textual reference talking about that. That need never mean that the 28-based version didn't exist.

Yes, they reveal 'what was sung'

To be precise, they reveal some parts of 'what was sung', to the best of knowledge of the author(s) of that period in their region/schools (or regions and schools to which they had access to information).

My own experience taught me that it is difficult for books to be completely inclusive of everything in any era. Several years ago, I had composed krtis in a couple of ragas whose scales I didn't find mentioned in almost every book I knew (including Sangeeta Chandrika which had the largest compendium then of 1072 ragas, (until Smt D Pattammal's 'Raga pravaham'). I checked about these ragas with several musicians as well before naming them as Samapriya and Vivahapriya. A few years later, I found out that Vivahapriya had been named as Sarangatarangini by Shri GNB decades earlier and Samapriya had been used (with an occasional foreign note of D2) in the last stanza usually rendered in Chinnanchiru kiliye (un kannil neer).

Sum & substance: Music is too vast to be captured wholly by textual or aural traditions and while performers may tend to place more value to aural traditions, scholars may do the same for the written word. There is no denying both are important, though neither is error proof.

[melam72]

@Chitravina Ravikiran - the ragam Sarangatarangini has been used in multiple Ilayaraja film songs like 'Thendral Vandhu Ennai Thodum' as well as 'Isaiyil Thodangudhama'.

Un Kannil Neer Vazhinthaal is NOT the last stanza of Chinnanchiru Kiliye. It has been sung so by lazy musicians after MLV stopped with that in her rendition of that song in Manamagal (c.1951?). Chinnanchitu Kiliye is NOT a chinnanchiru song. The complete version with some 10-odd ragas has been rendered by Sanjay Subhramanyan in a commercial release, and ends with Madhyamavathi (not Neelamani).

[chitravina ravikiran]

Un Kannil Neer Vazhinthaal is NOT the last stanza of Chinnanchiru Kiliye

I know, which is why I used the word - usually! I have seen full versions of this as well as numerous other popular ones like Dikku teriyada kattil. Several permutation combinations are used in popular culture which adds one more dimension to the raga system.

My personal experience with these ragas - Samapriya in 1970s and Vivahapriya in 1990s - (even after I had considered most of the available resources then) also gave me an insight as to how some ragas end up having two names (such as Andolika & Mayuradhwani). The combinations were obviously discovered by different people unaware of the previous one. These things happen often in math and science too.

Same in the case of ragas like Kalavati which have multiple versions in different compositional schools like Tyagaraja and MD. Deshakshi is a similar case in point.

At the riks of repeating an earlier point, one can see that reference in books about one version only proves that at least that existed. It can not negate the existence of other version(s) at the same time/prior.

Evidence that at least some of Purandara Dasa's works - especially the basics were very alive during times of OVK is indisputably seen in at least two of his compositions:

1. Bhajanamrta paramananda - Nattai Saptaratna where he mentions him in the 7th charanam.

2. Adum varai adattum - Huseni - where he uses the terms Sarali, Jantai, Alankarams in a brilliant manner in the final MK. (Full lyrics and possible audio-video in www.venkatakavi.org)

Finally, OVK school sings several of his compositions in Bilahari and only Santatam aham in Deshakshi. So they were aware of both ragas and the minute distinctions between them.

The above are merely additional points to ponder over apart from the excellent ones made by knowledgeable rasikas here...

[bhakthim dehi]

Change doesn't automatically mean deterioration. Actually, it has been observed by numerous experts that tradition is forever evolving and not a frozen thing.

Change is like a mutation. It can be silent without any effects, can be positive or negative.
Evolution or change cannot be withheld. What I like to emphasize these changes must be known to music students and artiste alike, so that they know and accept the change.
This change becomes positive if it occurs in kalpana sangeetham or the likes; but it is much detrimental when it occur in the ragam or the compositions of our great composers.
When we say, we learn the art of kalpana sangeetham only from our compositions, shouldn't the kalpitha sangeetham be intact?
Can we change the story of Valmiki Ramayana saying its a change? We have so many versions of Ramayanam. But they all have a specific name and we know the differences between the moolam, Valmiki Ramayanam and these versions.
Is this not to be followed in our music too? When we give give an exalted status to our music saying it as Gandarva Veda, is it not our duty to keep these compositions and the ragam intact?

Let me give an example proving how this change can be deleterious.
Let's take Anandhabhairavi. It was sung only with suddha dhaivatham and had many phrases which are not used like NDNS, GDP etc. To fix this ragam to be in line with the arohanam-avarohanam (which is a later developed system/evolution), these phrases are eschewed. Even, some musicians opine these to be removed form the geetam 'kamala sulochana'. Is this accepted?
By saying this, I am not against this arohanam-avarohanam system. I am saying , a raga like this should not be truncated to be in line with the scale which was developed much later.

Agree 100%! Which reinforces our topic of Deshakshi, which is a fascinating raga with its own swaroopa - as seen in PD's geetam and OVK's Santatam. There is absolutely little need to presume that it was 35-based just because we only have textual reference talking about that. That need never mean that the 28-based version didn't exist.

We have instances wherein a ragam has a composition of more than one composer (Trinity and Pre Trinity), but not mentioned any treatise of that time period.
THis is not the case with Desakshi. This is well mentioned in the treatises of the Trinity and OVK period, but with a different structure. This means, that raga was so popular at that time to find itself mentioned in all these treatises. A knowledgeable will never deviate the lakshana of any ragam sung doing his time period. So, this krithi must have been composed in the old Desakshi, or originally this krithi could have been composed in the present structure with a different name.

Only Raga Lakshana and one mss with unknown authorship from Andhra mention this as Desakshi. Desakshi mentioned in both the treatises differ from the lakshanam handled in this krithi. Also, they were posterior in date to OVK> If we are going to say OVK followed these treatises, its nothing less than insulting him.

Now, if we have two versions running in NKB family of descendants and disciples, it means some confusion must have happened. Except you, no one can throw light on this, as I have already mentioned, you have interacted well with the disciples.

I had composed krtis in a couple of ragas whose scales I didn't find mentioned in almost every book I knew (including Sangeeta Chandrika which had the largest compendium then of 1072 ragas, (until Smt D Pattammal's 'Raga pravaham'). I checked about these ragas with several musicians as well before naming them as Samapriya and Vivahapriya. A few years later, I found out that Vivahapriya had been named as Sarangatarangini by Shri GNB decades earlier and Samapriya had been used (with an occasional foreign note of D2) in the last stanza usually rendered in Chinnanchiru kiliye (un kannil neer).

You have given answer for this too.

My personal experience with these ragas - Samapriya in 1970s and Vivahapriya in 1990s - (even after I had considered most of the available resources then) also gave me an insight as to how some ragas end up having two names (such as Andolika & Mayuradhwani). The combinations were obviously discovered by different people unaware of the previous one. These things happen often in math and science too.

A raga can have two or more names. One such example is Sindhuramakriya (the raga portaryed in the krithis 'devadi deva' and 'sindhuramakriya' of Thyagarajar).
On careful examination, we can see these kind of confusions occur only with the scalar ragam. You will never find a Kamboji or Todi having two different names. our example, Desakshi comes under this second category. It was a much popular raga that every other author in that time period knows. We even have a composition of Annamacharya in this ragam (if I am not wrong).

1. Bhajanamrta paramananda - Nattai Saptaratna where he mentions him in the 7th charanam.

2. Adum varai adattum - Huseni - where he uses the terms Sarali, Jantai, Alankarams in a brilliant manner in the final MK. (Full lyrics and possible audio-video in www.venkatakavi.org)

You have given a good evidence that OVK was well aware of Purandaradasa. He must have been well aware of his works too. This is not only with OVK. Any composer of that time period had a good knowledge about their predecessors, in spite of poor communication systems prevailing at that time.
Purandaradasa's geetam, in tuned to Deakshi given in the book SVD itself is top be questioned. As I have mentioned, what is the source of the author of the mentioned book? Research includes probing each and every possible evidence.
The genuinity of Desakshi version of the geetam cannot be accepted unless this information is given.

Finally, OVK school sings several of his compositions in Bilahari and only Santatam aham in Deshakshi. So they were aware of both ragas and the minute distinctions between them.

I have no suspicions on that school. What I am saying is some confusion has happened regarding the exact version of this song and if your version of 'converted Desakshi' is the original, it must have been called by some different name.

I like to say, that some confusions exist with in that school regarding the structure of the krithi 'santhatham aham seve'. If the 'converted Desakshi' version is authentic, it could have been called by a different name as the composer knows the lakshana of Desakshi.

[chitravina ravikiran]

I am only going to touch upon a couple of points in the interests of deeper communication between practitioners and analysts.

For instance the presumption that composers (esp of the caliber of Tyagaraja or OVK) would follow only one or two books as their sources of knowledge is untenable. They may have gone through some treatises (wholly or partially) but even that would be only one of their data points. They would be exposed to multiple sources of knowledge, from gurus, other schools/styles they heard, discussions with contemporaries not to mention their own introspection, which no book can capture. So any talk of them having been aware of one type of Deshakshi or Kalavati etc that we see today in books from a given period is (as I often say, dangeriously) speculative.

Change is like a mutation. It can be silent without any effects, can be positive or negative.

True but which is positive/negative is a subjective judgement each artist/listener.

When we say, we learn the art of kalpana sangeetham only from our compositions

This is an over simplification, valid only in certain contexts and applicable only upto a level. In reality, kalpana sangeetam is an ocean and much older than the repertoire we have since 1700s.

Let's take Anandhabhairavi. It was sung only with suddha dhaivatham and had many phrases which are not used like NDNS, GDP etc.

Pandora's box

1. I have never heard anyone sing it only with D1 way till date. Artists do not learn these great ragas by reading up books. They go by what their ears have been exposed to and the majority of compositions and improvisation in Anandabhairavi by past masters since the Audio Era (100 years at least) use D2 predominently in the raga. Since we know that a sizeable few in this set placed a lot of stress on maintaining pathantara shuddha we can infer that their gurus sang much the same way, say 150 years back. And so it would go on - otherwise we would have at least ONE school that sings Anandabhairavi with only D1 today which proves the validity of any book that states this. I have heard several hundred renditions of Anandabhairavi but only once did I hear a rendition that brilliantly used D1 a bit more than usual. This was by Smt Parashala Ponnammal and even she used these phrases towards the end of her alapana and yet made it aesthetic.

2. As for NDNS - only one or two songs of MD (like Anandeshwarena) is said to contain that phrase which sounds true when an artist of the calibre of Brindamma sings it but more as ND,,NS,,N, S,N, S,,, (in Tyagaraja yoga vaibhavam) as opposed to just NDNS (seen in Kamalasulochani). Books which mention NDNS can never capture how that phrase was sung and any artist who has not learnt from a proper aural tradition but yet wants to sing NDNS for the sake of it, can end up making it un-Anandabhairavi-ish.

3. Similarly in Athana, G3 and N3 was used a little more till early 1900s than by latter artists like GNB, Semmangudi, MMI and Ramnad Krishnan. Begada is another classic case where over 95% of audios show at least 80% of usage of N2 as opposed to N3. Notes like D1 and G3 in Anandabhairavi, N3 and G3 in Athana owed their dominance to folk and theatre and they have got minimised as music refined over time.

4. We respect the authors of the past but the best way to show our respect is to
(a) be aware that they were human and may not have been able to capture the whole art in a single work.
(b) be aware that even the best authors were prone to errors of omission/judgement (like wrong mela-janya classification)
(c) ensure that present theory keeps pace with healthy refinements and evolution
(d) not take things written in books out of context
(e) drag music back citing treatises

If the 'converted Desakshi' version is authentic, it could have been called by a different name as the composer knows the lakshana of Desakshi.

That is again our presumption, in the light of the above points.

[kvchellappa]

Even as a layman, I am able to appreciate the nuances and practical dimension of art as opposed to theory and book-bound views. A masterly explanation. Music as an art evolves and what is pleasing and classical survives. A prejudice as to what it should be seems out of place in creative fields. It is quite likely that some of the best things of the past have gone out, but it is quite likely too that some of the best things that were not there have come in. When dragons were there, human beings were not there perhaps, but they are there now.

[bhakthim dehi]

the presumption that composers (esp of the caliber of Tyagaraja or OVK) would follow only one or two books as their sources of knowledge is untenable

They have created new ragas too. It is a known fact , Thyagarajar was not even interested in saying the name of these ragas to his disciples. We do not know much about OVK. Also, he did not have much disciples. Whether they create or they have adopted from any source, they will never contradict the name and lakshana of the ragas which were popular at that time.
Whenever we do a research, it is a must to derive answer form an available evidence and not the reverse. So I say it again, the lakshanam of the krithi ' santhatham aham seve' as handed over to you and followed by you can never be called as Desakshi. First of all, having met various disciples of NKB disciples, you could have been able to give a plausible solution by this time to have a v2 almost similar versions for this krithi. The other version in Bilahari is too important for analysis as it is extant in the direct descendant line of OVK. Else, we must be able to get a version from a musician anterior to NKB who can say the exact version of this krithi. Anyways , it cannot be called as Desakshi, as it not satisfying the lakshana of Desakshi, past or present.

Point to be understood here is the entire argument is ONLY on the controversy prevailing around name of the raga of the krithi 'santhatham aham seve' rendered by your school.

We do rely on textbooks to name the rarer ragas.

It is up to a person to call it as Desakshi, it can never be accepted for arguments or analysis.

This is an over simplification, valid only in certain contexts and applicable only upto a level. In reality, kalpana sangeetam is an ocean and much older than the repertoire we have since 1700s.

I dont remember mentioning anywhere that the kalpana sangeetham is a recently developed one.
What I mentioned was the present day kalpana sangeetham is mainly relied on compositions.
Any musician learns to sing a swaram, or a ragam only from the galaxy of compositions available in any particular ragam.
Your statement itself attest this.

They go by what their ears have been exposed to

If a musician can learn to develop kalpana sangeetham , without a knowledge about kalpitha sangeetham, why are we not hearing an elaborate RTP in Abheeru or Amrapanchamam?

Pandora's box

I know.

placed a lot of stress on maintaining pathantara shuddha we can infer that their gurus sang much the same way, say 150 years back.

We can cite as many examples to disprove this statement. Few examples being the changes that the ragam Mandhari and Abheri faced.
It is to be remembered the entire discussion is about the changes that has happened before the era of recording. This I have stated before too.

otherwise we would have at least ONE school that sings Anandabhairavi with only D1 today which proves the validity of any book that states this. I have heard several hundred renditions of Anandabhairavi but only once did I hear a rendition that brilliantly used D1 a bit more than usual.

Most of the people like to be on the side of majority. This is the normal human mentality. Very few like to be on the other side, which has become much more meagre in the present era.
This is the same reason for the present version of nagumomu and the other krithis in this league to be popular. If we are not going to record the changes now, the future generation will not be even aware of this.

As for NDNS - only one or two songs of MD (like Anandeshwarena) is said to contain that phrase which sounds true

NDNS is seen with 3 krithis of Deekshithar - Kamalamba, Dandayudhapaanim and Tyagaraja yoga baibhavam. Anandeswarena doen not have NDNS. It has NDNDP. Manasa guruguha has NDNP . A krithi by Melattur Venkataramana Sastri and Kshetrayya padam too has this phrase NDNS.

Books which mention NDNS can never capture how that phrase was sung and any artist who has not learnt from a proper aural tradition

Is it not possible to hear these kind of phrases with a Veena?
Are we not referring textbooks when we dont have any oral tradition? Do you mean to say musicians are not learning from notations, in the absence of oral tradition?
So, musicians can come out with a proposal to abolish these phrases, if they are not capable enough to render these phrases. Good solution.

but yet wants to sing NDNS for the sake of it, can end up making it un-Anandabhairavi-ish.

If everyone sings Hamsadvani with kaisiki nishadham for the next 100 years, singing kakali nishadham after that will not be Hamsadvani-ish.
This has happened to this ragam.

3. Similarly in Athana, G3 and N3 was used a little more till early 1900s than by latter artists like GNB, Semmangudi, MMI and Ramnad Krishnan. Begada is another classic case where over 95% of audios show at least 80% of usage of N2 as opposed to N3. Notes like D1 and G3 in Anandabhairavi, N3 and G3 in Athana owed their dominance to folk and theatre and they have got minimised as music refined over time.
[/quote

Yes, I know. Not only Atana and Begada, I can cite several others too. I want to restrict my discussion to the issue rather than getting into the raga lakshanam discussion. I cannot prevent myself from giving an example. Just gave Anandabhairavi as an example.
This example mentioned by you clearly mentions the change seen in our ragam

What is refinement? Leaving the phrases and eschewing the swaras?
So, if using D1 gives us an unrefined music, can we can convert all the ragas having D 1 to D2?
Already, ragas like Sourashtram, Bhairavam, Madhavamanohari has lost this, we can include Huseni and Mukhari into this league.
We need not have any compositions in Gowri ,Salanganata et al.

Esthetics and refinement are to be done within the scope of any particular ragam; not at the expense of its lakshanam.

This was by Smt Parashala Ponnammal and even she used these phrases towards the end of her alapana and yet made it aesthetic

When this artist can render suddha dhaivatham and make it esthetic, why other can't try to learn from her?
So, this shows rendering a composition with an esthetic appeal lies with a muscician.

If anyone else is not able to provide an esthetic appeal or not make it Anandhabairavi-ish, it shows his disability. He /she must develop the skill rather than changing a ragam to his convenience.

(a) be aware that they were human and may not have been able to capture the whole art in a single work.

A seasoned researcher will never give a conclusion based on a single composition.

(e) drag music back citing treatises

We need not refer Chaturdandi Prakashika et al. We need not have any mela-janya system; We need not have any particular phrase or a svarasthanam for any particular ragam.
If a musician sings Anandhabhairavi with prathi madhyamam, we can follow that as it becomes an oral tradition.

Music as an art evolves and what is pleasing and classical survives.

If majority of the crowd requires 'swara raga sudha' to be sung in Kalayani, as the latter ragam is more pleasing for them and if the musician is capable enough to make it Kalayani-ish without any traces of Shankarabharanam, we can render the mentioned krithi in Kalyani.
Thyagarajar who composed this krithi is not with us to object.

[chitravina ravikiran]

Point to be understood here is the entire argument is ONLY on the controversy prevailing around name of the raga of the krithi 'santhatham aham seve' rendered by your school. We do rely on textbooks to name the rarer ragas. It is up to a person to call it as Desakshi, it can never be accepted for arguments or analysis.

I have addressed this several times but will encapsulate it one final time! The OVK school does make a distinction between Bilahari and Deshakshi in Santatam aham seve and a few artists have rendered the correct version of this with only N2 and 28 janya, which tallys exactly with the raga in Purandara Dasa's geetam, and I have shown indisputable evidence of OVK's familiarity with PD's works right from his Sarali varishais.

And I have cited ragas like Kalavati and Devakriya which may have only one version captured in treatises, which proves that treatises, however good, have missed out on several things that existed. So, non-reference in a treatise - however venerable - is not equal to non-existence of a fact.

Renditions of Deshakshi a la Bilahari cannot be taken as 'authentic' (just as we cannot accept rendetions of Bhoopalam like Bowli or Lalita as Vasanta etc, something that we see happening often enough in the field) or proofs of anything.

Finally, I have cited the sources of my version of Santatam aham seve, and these are highly competent direct disciples of NKB, who were clear about the distinction between Bilahari and Deshakshi. I rest my case...

The rest of the points made in that post clearly have taken every single point of mine way out of context

[bhakthim dehi]

The OVK school does make a distinction between Bilahari and Deshakshi in Santatam aham seve and a few artists have rendered the correct version of this with only N2 and 28 janya,

Let me make my point clear for the last time. I never said I had a doubt on the authenticity of these 2 versions; for me both were extant in a school who is an authority on OVK krithis.
I raised a query ONLY on the name of this 'converted Desakshi' version. When the lakshanam seen in this krithi does not confirm with the 'real Desakshi' or an a'altered Desakshi given in two treatises which I have mentioned earlier, logically this cannot be called as Desakshi. This is my view from the beginning and its going to be the same.
If anyone wants to call it as Desakhi or Hamsadvani or anything else, its their wish and it cannot be accepted by anyone with a logical brain.
I am not going to elaborate on this further ,as I have clarified my statement several times.

which tallys exactly with the raga in Purandara Dasa's geetam, and I have shown indisputable evidence of OVK's familiarity with PD's works right from his Sarali varishais.

When an evidence is given to support our statement, the given evidence must be a valid and an accepted one. It is a known fact, Purandaradasa' compositions were later tuned. ONLY , if this author has furnished an information about the source of that geetham, and only if that source is a valid one, this can be taken as an evidence and compared.
At the present level of understanding, this CANNOT be accepted as an evidence it satisfies the two conditions mentioned above.


I never disagreed with anyone here regarding OVK's familiarity with Purandaradasa's compositions.


If research has has to be done, it SHOULD be done only in this manner.

If still, this is to be called as Desakshi ,we can very well stop following the nomenclature system.

[chitravina ravikiran]

After my return to India, I discussed this with ace musicologist Shri B M Sundaram who mentioned that there were raga-lakshana manuscripts in Saraswati Mahal Library, Tanjore, which refer to Deshakshi with S R2 G3 P D2 S - S N2 D2 P M1 G3 R2 S. And not all of the authors mention Dikshitar school Deshakshi. Further, there are ragas with similar names like Deshakshiri that are mentioned in a few works.

[bhakthim dehi]

Happy seeing you doing a research on this topic along with Sri BM Sundaram, a renown musicologist amidst your busy schedule.

raga-lakshana manuscripts in Saraswati Mahal Library, Tanjore,

he is referring to the manuscripts referred in Music Academy journal or has found out a new one?

Deshakshi with S R2 G3 P D2 S - S N2 D2 P M1 G3 R2 S

I like to remind a point here. I never denied Desakshi was not mentioned in any of the manuscripts as a janya of mela 28. You can look in to the post #30. Some also consider it as a janya of mela 29.
Also the scale differs from one manuscript to another.
My point here is only regarding the name of the ragam of the krithi "santhatham aham seve" as rendered by you or the disciples of NKB from whom you have learnt. (Just name alone is my query and nothing else).
It should be remembered here, scales were named by different authors, and hence a single scale can have 1 or more (raga) names . Contrarily, a single ragam can have 1 or more scale. I can cite many examples for both.
This is the problem with all the 'krama' ragas, the ragas that follow the arohanam and avarohanam strictly.
Going by this, you can discover so many new manuscripts, if you are lucky enough.
Without knowing the source and the time period of these manuscripts, , they are only a set of weak evidence and it cannot solve our query.

And not all of the authors mention Dikshitar school Deshakshi.

Wrong.
Desakshi was mentioned by Govinda Deekshithar, Ramamatya, Venkatamakhi, Shahaji and Tulaja, to cite a few, in their respective treatises, with the swarasthanam that the present Sulini has (35 melam).

Deekshithar school or Venkatamakhi school?

I think with the interest you have in this subject, you might unearth an unknown treatise too!!!
May that happen soon as we too will get an opportunity to understand our music more.

[Siri Girish]

I have seen few discussions regarding that Raga Modi is not a new Raga but it's same as Raga Desakshi....
I don't think they are the same....
Modi raga is a new Raga itself and Desakshi is a old raga itself.... My explanation for this discussion:

Deshakshi raga has the same notes as Raga Bilahari but the gamaka or shift from Sa to Ni in the avarohana makes it a different raga ..., and Deshakshi has the Ni of deerashankarabharana raga , just like Bilahari.... But here raga Modi has the same Arohana but it has the avarohana of Harikambodi...... People often get confused with the avarohana of Deshakshi with the avarohana of Harikambodi, this confusion is because of the gamaka or shift from Sa to Ni in Avarohana of Deshakshi...... The gamaka or shift here in Deshakshi should be done with perfect precision , if not done like that , the raga will sound different or will sound like raga Modi.....
So I think Deshakshi and Modi sound a bit alike but they are not at all the same...... So Modi is a New raga itself and Deshakshi is a very famous old raga itself, both are different and not the same.....
I think I am very much correct... But sorry if I'm wrong .......
Thank you.......

[Sachi_R]

This is a moment for celebration and not discussion.

Sri. Kumaresh is a highly creative and gifted violinist. I love his energy. This tribute of his to Modi is a wonderful thing at many levels.

Watch this:
https://youtu.be/KJGY7j6pBTg

[munirao2001]

Maestro Kumaresh himself told the rasikas at his concert of Vani Kala Kendra's SRNMF, 2019 at Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru, Modi and Desakshi are same but given two names, the practice existing in lakshana, sampradaya

[RasikasModerator2]

Whatever opinions on politics all of you members have, please keep it to the lounge.

Or better, avoid kick-starting the topic itself as far as possible. Because we have never ever seen a fruitful discussion on politics in our entire lives anywhere in the world in any form and we know where the topic eventually goes and how quickly.

Music unites and politics divides. We do not wish for needless bad blood amongst our members. Kindly remove any such posts in musical threads.

[sureshvv]

May be we can all agree that neither the NYTimes nor the Guardian are arbiters of the truth. Their biases and wilful negligence when presenting the truth is well known to all by now.

[ratanabhinav]

Here I create raga Modi Kalyani
Kalyani janyam
Aro S R M P N S
Ava S N D M G R S

[RasikasModerator2]

If you do not mind, we're moving this to the ragas page.