Formalism in Carnatic music

[kvchellappa]

Formalism in Carnatic music

We had a very enlightening discussion on embellishments, though in a thread that was to discuss a specific concert.

“In music, ornaments or embellishments are musical flourishes—typically, added notes—that are not essential to carry the overall line of the melody (or harmony), but serve instead to decorate or "ornament" that line (or harmony), provide added interest and variety, and give the performer the opportunity to add expressiveness to a song or piece.” Wikipedia.

The point that was discussed at length is whether the formal structure of a composition, which perhaps took shape in a moment of inspiration with not just the words but the raga essay as well, can be altered or added to. The protagonist was unyielding for some or good reason. The other side of the argument, not necessarily antagonist, nudged to a compromise that was not reached.

The bhava of a composition is not for tinkering. We have heard many instances of how the music, meaning and bhava are well aligned. For example, in Teliyaleru Rama, the successive sangathis convey the deepening anguish of the composer in not getting the required grace to turn his mind to unwavering devotion. In Ksheera sagara sayana, the sangathis change for ksheerasagara, but not for sayana because Thyagaraja does not intend to disturb the lord in sayana. Examples are aplenty.

To digress, but with a purpose, we read delightful criticism on Shakespeare’s plays like whether Hamlet was mad or not. (No, I am not coming to whether we are mad discussing this). I read a comment that Shakespeare wrote for the stage, not for literary criticism. Many of the points made by the critics may not have been even subconsciously in Shakespeare’s mind. The same thing we see in interpreting our own epics. The exponents add several points sometimes at divergence with what they said in an earlier interpretation. One exponent said candidly, “All of us add ‘podi’, but those that do standing add more ‘podi’”, having a dig at Harikatha. It is anybody’s guess whether the author really had such ideas in his mind when he wrote.

A doubt arises in my cynical mind whether the composers really had such ideas like what the interpreters say with conviction. We have no reliable record of their lives, not even actual period of their life in some case. It is all hearsay and hagiography. There is no document to establish that they in fact had a rigid stand as to how a number must be sung even within a given raga. The notations clealy call for splitting a word often defacing its meaning, and that does not quite lend to the view that a unity between word, meaning, music and bhava was achieved right through. That is not to say that their intention was not to achieve the unity. Bharathi says that of all composers Thyagaraja achieved that unity more and hence his compositions are special. But, I take it that music is the first thing and the rest fall in step.

We read many comments how music is greater than an individual to rein in ‘fans’. Is it then possible that the great composers would have put a premium on the formal structure of their composition above music? If a creative addition is possible, would they have frowned? If they would have, would they be great? We cannot turn around and say that some X is above music. We cannot say that they have captured the best of all times.

We cannot say that for the particular song, the structure is sacrosanct. A point may be adduced to support the view I take as unjustified. If different sangathis were possible for the same song, the composer would not have composed so many pieces in one raga. That is not how we tend. Even in writing, we try to express ourselves in a variety of ways to make it interesting. It is a spontaneous flow not predetermined mostly. Also, the major ragas have infinite scope and a composer gets inspiration and brings out a new dimension in a new krithi. It is also in a different mood and bhava. I am not disputing that.

The stalwarts of previous generation have added sangathis to the krithis of the trinity. They were all convinced of the piety and divinity of Thyagaraja. They would not have added if they considered it a sin, unlike the few ‘upstarts’ now who would do it for the heck of it!

Is this strict rule that for all time a line must be sung the same way only for trinity or for all composers, or only for vaggeyakkaras (those who have tuned their own lyrics)? How can reasonably anyone learn the authentic version of all such compositions and adhere to it, while still practicing music?

The point whether a new sangathi is fitting into the song has to be judged in individual cases by a collegium of artists (not like that on judges selection) and not by any one individual, or on the basis of an arbitrary fiat that it is inviolable.
Change only sustains life. Anything rigid perishes. Pliability enables viability. Art is spontaneous and unrestricted by formalism of any type. A performance has constraints, but art has to be free from injunctions. It is not art if it is fickle and operates as a terminator gene. Creativity knows the contours within which it blossoms.

I have a radical view. The eagerness to be history-conscious and cling to the past is against nature. Nature takes the essentials and moves on. Forgetfulness is a precious gift of nature. It is necessary to have sustained interest in life. To remember or cull out with great labour what fades out is a crushing burden on the limited capacity of mind for ordered thinking and creative impulse. There has been criticism in this forum that the reading of SSP by TMK was faulty. Let that which goes go. It will bring new life and new creativity. Classicism will survive by tradition that renews itself rather than that which stagnates around a few pieces of a creation of one time. We matter more than those that lived before. Art lives through us and those that succeed us, more than by those that have gone before. There is no merit in the point that art lives independent of its practitioners. Where does it live?

To some at least carnatic music is music basically and other dimensions are optional. CM is ultra-elitist and the task today seems to be to preserve it from dilution of the musical aspect. If the other aspects also are to be preserved like it has to be sung the same way for a thousand years, I wonder whether such a constrained art will survive. It has not survived even two hundred years, if the criticism is valid that the composer's kalpita has been vitiated.

Yesudas said that Carnatic music will not die. VVS quoted SSI saying that Carnatic music has the basic strength to survive. If a Thyagaraja was born to put it in limelight and blaze a new trail, why may not others in future? There is no need to feel that he is the last prophet of Carnatic music. What Krishna said of his appearance in relation to dharma may be extrapolated to Carnatic music also.

Let new sangathis come and stay or perish on merit and aesthetic appeal.

[rajeshnat]

Lovely opening KVC, if just flows with your lovely cohesive thought . At its core a certain experimentation is the key to bring the fluidity/future breaking the shackles of excess rigidity/past. I think the challenge is for any musician to be universally accepted particularly when he/she moves on . The best example is Mahavidwan Lalgudi Jayaraman, he always had one foot well grounded in rigidity/past but certainly kept his other foot to bring in better fluidity/future. In all this lakshanam barrier should not be crossed by alakshyamAna lakshya sangathi.

Short sangathi as of now let other new sangathis get added.

[sureshvv]

Also one "upstart" alone cannot do much. It has to be picked up other upstarts in the same and from successive generations. It also has to be welcomed, not merely tolerated, by the upstarts in the audience. Only then it becomes integral to the kriti and carries forward. It is not a small hurdle to overcome.

[shankarank]

There has been criticism in this forum that the reading of SSP by TMK was faulty.

Some people did say that piling on to my critique of using SSP to supercede art created thus far. We take a statement and it is not that we take it literally, but we fail to see the overall sense of what is being argued.

If you listened to TMK from early days, he cited what was created by previous generation artists - some may be appropriate on examination and some may not - to argue against the integrity of sampradAya system. Then that extends into : all this sampradAya, tradition and then underlying cultural thinking are all control mechanisms used by musicians with good standing to reinforce their view on things! It turns political!

So I would urge people not to debate this on the merits of music or technical points about music like gamakas - etc.!

It is not about reading SSP - then reading it right or wrong - which may be technical issues. What will you do if no musician has sung a piece? But if you observe those pieces that have been sung and changes made, it is all not a mystery, especially by musicians of acknowledged integrity.

There is a larger sense of the art and it's facets beyond what is available in a notation. That is polishing! Two musicians may do it differently and each may have their own valid reasons. That should be left for debate!

But this new fad about "art" and how a community of people's sense of beauty is elitist , slander them and use the notation to claim some "artful" composer with a huge creativity existed - who has been not been given his due by a close knit, sectarian community, creating atrocity literature etc.. , are all treachery!

It is an attack on the concept that a community of people cherish what they cherish and pass it down!! The current political climate is being used as a straw-man to do these attacks!

This is not about your embellishments, your sangatis, your creativity or your music! The issue has been hijacked for something else altogether!

It is time people see through all these.

[shankarank]

The best example is Mahavidwan Lalgudi Jayaraman, he always had one foot well grounded in rigidity/past but certainly kept his other foot to bring in better fluidity/future.

He honored the bANi of nAdasvara vidvans! So he was not fixated on what would have been the original intent of a composer! This composer at the one end and a creative artist at the other, ignoring the work of generations and precedent setters who brought the art to you - that is the modern individualism! So when we say "past" lets be clear!

[shankarank]

in Teliyaleru Rama, the successive sangathis convey the deepening anguish of the composer in not getting the required grace to turn his mind to unwavering devotion. In Ksheera sagara sayana, the sangathis change for ksheerasagara, but not for sayana

dEnuka is not so pliable. It cannot be changed that much. In dEvagAndhAri - SayanA is all short syllables - that too on descent following already a descent in gara of sAgara!. And the final long syllable is vocalized very well to express dEvagAndhAri. So there are logistical reasons.

Some musicians would beat sIta down in sIta vara sangIta gnAnamu - as the music is set from up to down!

[rajeshnat]

Also one "upstart" alone cannot do much. It has to be picked up other upstarts in the same and from successive generations. It also has to be welcomed, not merely tolerated, by the upstarts in the audience. Only then it becomes integral to the kriti and carries forward. It is not a small hurdle to overcome.

Good point suresh . We just have to qualify that the same and successive generation need not represent the same school or paddhati, it can get crossed over to other school vidwans and vidushis . Also at times it also skips one generation and comes fully out in the next generation.

If you take s kalyanaraman the amount of influence that he has on a generation of musicians is unprecedented , skr formalism is very much living now .

[mohan]

Despite what people say about pAdantara, the improvisational nature of Carnatic music makes every performance of a composition unique. Even the same artiste's rendition of the same composition on two separate occasions will be slightly different. This is more pronounced in vocal music than instrumental music because the voice changes from day to day.

Further, as musicians are creators in their own right, they take it on to themselves to embellish compositions with additional sangati-s. This embellishment adds to the aesthetic appreciation by the audience. Indeed, rasikas often get thrilled to hear a new sangati or embellishment of popular item.

Notation in Carnatic music can only serve as a guide and reference (despite the efforts of many). This is because the nature of gamakam is almost impossible to accurately notate. Hence, versions change through oral transmission.

[kvchellappa]

Absolutely clear enunciation of the basics, Mr. Mohan.

[kvchellappa]

An eminent musician speaks:
"For instance, I, like my guru Srikantan, believe that the composition is sacrosanct. I don’t accept any changes in the way it is rendered. But my sister, I think, feels that there should be a creative element in it. It need not be sung in the same way each time it is rendered."
Smt T S Satyavathi in the interview in Lalita Kala Tarangini, Dec 2017 issue