Ananda Coomaraswami on Music (excerpts) (1918)

[kvchellappa]

Music
Music has been a cultivated art in India for at least three thousand years.
While the words of a song may have been composed at any date, the musical themes communicated orally from master to disciple are essentially ancient.
The art music of India exists only under cultivated patronage, and in its own intimate environment. It corresponds to all that is most classical in the European tradition. It is the chambermusic of an aristocratic society, where the patron retains musicians for his own entertainment and for the pleasure of the circle of his friends: or it is temple music, where the musician is the servant of God. The public concert is unknown, and the livelihood of the artist does not depend upon his ability and will to amuse the crowd. The arts are nowhere taught as a social accomplishment; on the one hand there is the professional, proficient in a traditional art, and on the other the lay public. The musical cultivation of the public does not consist in "everybody doing it," but in appreciation and reverence... The musician in India finds a model audience—technically critical. Out somewhat indifferent to voice production. The Indian audience listens rather to the song than to the singing of the song: those who are musical, perfect the rendering of the song by the force of their own imagination and emotion.
In India the thing fixed is a group of intervals, and the precise vibration value of a note depends on its position in a progression, not on its relation to a tonic. The scale of twenty-two notes is simply the sum of all the notes used in all the songs—no musician sings a chromatic scale from C to C with twenty-two stopping places, for this would be a mere totir de force.
The more essentially the singer is a musician, however, the more the words are regarded merely as the vehicle of the music: in art-song the words are always brief, voicing a mood rather than telling any story, and they are used to support the music with little regard to their own logic ..
Natya Sastra declares that human art must be subject to law, because in man the inner and outer life are still in conflict.
.. the harmony of art, which rises above good and evil.
.. art is nearer to Life than any fact can be.
Mr. Yeats: Indian music, though its theory is elaborate and its technique so difficult, is not an art, but life itself.
"Those who sing here," says Sankaracharya, "sing God": and the Vishnu Purana adds, "All songs are a part of Him, who wears a form of sound."
We have here the sound of the tambura which is heard before the song, during the song, and continues after it: that is the timeless Absolute, which as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. On the other hand there is the song itself which is the variety of Nature, emerging from its source and returning at the close of its cycle. The harmony of that undivided Ground with this intricate Pattern is the unity of Spirit and Matter.

[shankarank]

The art music of India exists only under cultivated patronage, and in its own intimate environment

As if "art" otherwise had a platonic existence without people to experience it! He is already an "intellectual" with a western lens that looks at it with their eyes!

It is the chambermusic of an aristocratic society, where the patron retains musicians for his own entertainment and for the pleasure of the circle of his friends: or it is temple music, where the musician is the servant of God

So the language of renaissance of resisting something enters here! He is already speaking the language of the left! And the language of Christian theologists!

The public concert is unknown, and the livelihood of the artist does not depend upon his ability and will to amuse the crowd. The arts are nowhere taught as a social accomplishment; on the one hand there is the professional, proficient in a traditional art, and on the other the lay public.

The expected uprising has not happened!

The musical cultivation of the public does not consist in "everybody doing it," but in appreciation and reverence...

And "everybody knowing it" as well to the list!

The musician in India finds a model audience—technically critical. Out somewhat indifferent to voice production.

Doesn't this contradict somewhat what he just said? So without doing it - they know it?

The Indian audience listens rather to the song than to the singing of the song: those who are musical, perfect the rendering of the song by the force of their own imagination and emotion.

I cannot believe this. We have a oral tradition that lays so much emphasis on sound as well! Even if it is the song - the samskriti of its setting is being ignored - just the sound of the syllables, vallina , mellina mixture/balance that has impact on singing! Every 78 RPM that we hear defies this!

This may be true of later movie era - when light music entered!

The more essentially the singer is a musician, however, the more the words are regarded merely as the vehicle of the music: in art-song the words are always brief, voicing a mood rather than telling any story, and they are used to support the music with little regard to their own logic ..

The westerners know words only as part of language and semantics - because they had to understand others and control them - the colonial project. Here language itself is sound first and heard first!

Natya Sastra declares that human art must be subject to law, because in man the inner and outer life are still in conflict.
.. the harmony of art, which rises above good and evil.
.. art is nearer to Life than any fact can be.

In their own language the first synonym for science is art!
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/science

[Sachi_R]

ShanakaranK,
Jon Higgins once said he chose Carnatic music because he did not have the magnificient voice for singing Western music, and realised that in CM, the quality of the voice (timbre, resonance etc.) was less important than the actual singing. This seems to be the same idea mentioned by Ananda Coomaaraswami.

Sriram Parasuram has said in an interview that the CM listener does not actually listen to the singer, but to the stored memory of a song in his mind as the singer sings that song merely like a cue or a shadow line. So the actual singing in that specific instance should merely aid the mental replay, and not offend it by some external nuances or variants.

I agree with both these points. I think a typical Carnatic musician would simply fail any voice delivery test for a Western or Hindustani vocalist.

[shankarank]

So pretty much you are saying Carnatic music is not music after all ! Wow !!

So it is all about all these hungry Bhagavatars lunging for a "chance" in what we call a "sabha" ?

Or in modern times NRI kids wanting a news clipping in their resume?

[shankarank]

Sriram Parasuram has said in an interview that the CM listener does not actually listen to the singer, but to the stored memory of a song in his mind as the singer sings that song merely like a cue or a shadow line. So the actual singing in that specific instance should merely aid the mental replay, and not offend it by some external nuances or variants.

So lets bring in some notions from the alma mater:

https://youtu.be/Q6Gw08pwhws?t=317

I guess if the recording is scratchy - that bothers us, but if the voice is gruffy - we could take it. For the conditioned the (sound) processing shuts down!

I like this youtube comment there as well:

Professor Balakrishnan truly cares about his pupils and takes the time to introduce the neuro-psychological aspect of something as banal as blinking. He also acknowledges his digression.

Another Legend.