Oral tradition is never ignored.when I say that too much speculation only based on books, ignoring aural (which I favour to 'oral') traditions is dangerous.
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.
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.Books - even by the greatest analysts and scholars - only reveal one part of the story.
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.
Why should an author record the various changes seen in other parts of the country when it is not his intention?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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.How does one account for variations in MD or SS in Veena Dhanammal style vs what is published in so many 'authentic' books?
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.
Descendents of Syama Sastri are so generous that they have placed the handwritten mss of their family member online. Any one can verify.The descendants of SS told me personally that Dhanammal's version of SS was the most authentic one.
But, differences do exist between the version given there and that of Brinda.
If music is only for ears, there is no need for a forum like this.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 we realise a problem, why should we hesitate to solve by conducting research?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
With krithis , it can be applied. But, not in a case like this.by over-contextualising books and dismissing anything not found in them as latter day additions.
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.At the end of the day, any book can only confirm the existance of a given raga/style/features, .
Finally, I would like to say, changes have taken place, and research is a must to prevent further deterioration.