Notation for Talachinantane Naatanuvemo Jhallanera

[Ramgopal]

Dear Rasikas,
I need your help. Can anyone help me locate the notation for Sri Tyagaraja's kriti "Talachinantane Naatanuvemo Jhallanera"- Mukhari raga, Adi tala please?
I read in one of the posts here from Sri "msakella" - April 2007 that the original notation was modified to achieve a great effect. Would it be possible to get the original notation as well as this modified notation.
Kindly help.
With my humble regards
Ram

[msakella]

Dear brother-member, Ramagopal,

In my forties I was used to go through the notations of many rare Kritis and if the notation is not heart-touching I was used to re-notate it suitably, practice it, give it to my friends and play it by AIR & TV accordingly. For example, in the Sankeertana Ratnavali of Tiruvottiyur Thyagaier, many Kritis are in very beautiful rare ragas also but, very sadly, none of the notations of these Kritis is followable or singable or enjoyable. That is why I have suitably modified the notations of many of them and played them even by AIR & TV long long ago. I did not change the Raga or Tala but the notation and furnished some of them even in my books along with CD (As a reliable teacher, in principle, I never want to deceive the poor aspirants but always bring out any notated book along with the relevant CD to help them honestly).


In the same manner, when I have gone through the great sahitya of this Kriti "Talachinantane Naatanuvemo Jhallanera" ( I have added another Jhallu and made it ‘Jhallu Jhallanera’ without disturbing the Tala) I have searched for the notation and found it in Kritimanimalai long long ago, I vaguely remember. When its notation was not heart-touching with the blessing of the Almighty I have modified it. To my surprise this was popularised well and was sung by many artists including my Guruji Sangeeta Kalanidhi Nedunuri Krishna Murhty Garu without knowing this history.

If you are interested you can give me your email address and I shall send the notation and audio-file to you. amsharma

[Ramgopal]

Dear Sir
I am obliged and delighted with your response. My mail ID is ncramgopal@gmail.com
I eagerly look forward to receive your kind mail with the notations. My mother-in-law Smt NC Rajyalakshmi is a known Carnatic vocal artiste and I am helping her in her research. We will be obliged to receive your mail Sir.
Best Regards
Ramgopal

[bhakthim dehi]

Akella ji, can you enlighten us the way you have modified the not-heart touching notations without changing the ragam or talam?

[msakella]

Dear brother-member, bhaktim dehi,

Basically I was a Mridangist from my 3rd year of age. Even in music, almost right from the beginning, I have been the brought-up of the Great MSG School having very high level of music sense. With his blessings I also have a reasonable sense of music. Later, under the influence of my direct Guruji Nedunuri Krishna Murthy garu I could get the proper acquaintance with the sense of pure Karnataka-music too. By all this it is not at all difficult to tune any song in any Raga.

For example, there is a composition ‘ShreeNaadha nannu jera bilachi” in Ratnakaanthi-raga, having Prati-madhyama also for Hamsadhvani. What a nice Raga it is? But, its rhythmical allocation of the lyric did not allow me to sing it with sense. So, I have made the necessary modifications and shaped into a nice composition to sing with music-sense and ease. Any person having the proper music-sense along with proper rhythmical-sense can very easily do this and I did so. amsharma

[bhakthim dehi]

Dear akella ji,
I have read about your involvement and knowledge in our music. What I wish to know is the modifications that you have introduced.
This post is more confusing. Rhythmic alteration does not include the changes in talam? Your previous post read you have not done any changes in the talam.
Or in this mentioned krithi in Ratnakanthi, you have made changes in the talam?
Being ignorant, I cannot understand the difference. If you have any audio or video recording, you can share which will be of much use.

[msakella]

Dear brother-member, bhakthim dehi,

I did not make any changes either in Raga or Tala. While the rhythmical alignment of the composition was not allowing to sing it with ease and effect I have suitably altered the rhythmical alignment of the lyric. Any experienced musician with the reasonable control over rhythm and note can very easily understand and follow this without any confusion but others cannot. amsharma

[bhakthim dehi]

Akella ji,
Thanks for giving a reply despite your work schedule.
It is not sufficient if an experienced musician alone sees the change, it should be perceived by students alike, as people who cannot understand verbally can understand seeing the notations.
But, even verbally these changes has not been explained!!
So, please give share a link, audio or video.

[msakella]

Dear brother-member, bhakthim dehi,

I hereby furnish the link of this Kriti. You can also verify with the original notation of the Kriti. amsharma https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eeNXXj ... sp=sharing

[bhakthim dehi]

Thanks a lot Akella ji. I will listen and come back to you.

[bhakthim dehi]

Dear akella ji,
Heard your rendition of the krithi. The following changes were noted by me, as against the notation. Correct me if I am wrong.

1. Your version has an atheetha eduppu.
2. Pallavi and charanam of your version starts with gandaram, whereas it is madhyamam and panchamam in the notation respectively.
3. Your version has phrases like gpgrsr, pgr in tara sthayi (to cite a few) which are not seen in the notation.

I have few questions now as a student of Music.

1. What is the reason or what do you achieve by introducing these changes?
2. When the composer has clearly notated his krithis, we making changes like these are acceptable ?

[msakella]

Dear brother-member, bhakthim dehi,

I am very much surprised to go through your post carrying full of contradictions. However, I have again verified with my notation and audio-file and found both my notation and the audio-file are absolutely correct and tallied. Please take them to three or four professional musicians, ask them to tally all of them and come back to me. amsharma.

[bhakthim dehi]

Dear Akella ji,

Contradictions in you post are so glaring.
You have admitted here that you made some modifications in the post # 5. In that case, the notations given in the book cannot tally with the audio file. This is what I have mentioned.
If you are not willing to accept this and proceed further, you can leave this issue.
Both the audio file and the notations are online and any sensible person who knows the basics can verify the same.
But, I stand with my views. The notations given by the composer has been changed!!

[msakella]

Dear brother-member, bhakthim dehi,

In your post you wrote:

1. Your version has an atheetha eduppu - my version started from the 2nd half of the 1st Kriya which is called Anaagata eduppu.

2. Pallavi and charanam of your version starts with gandaram, whereas it is madhyamam and panchamam in the notation respectively - In my notation all the Pallavi, Anupallavi and Charanam have started in Panchama and in my audio-file also they are the same.

2. Your version has phrases like gpgrsr, pgr in tara sthayi (to cite a few) which are not seen in the notation - as I did nowhere sing gpgrsr, or pgr in my audio-file they are not in the notation.

As I did not feel much of true-Mukhari in the original notation I did modify the notation to make it more nearer to true-Mukhari as per my will and pleasure. If you feel it wrong please do not sing it and please throw away my notation and audio-file. That is all.

Many of the conservative, egoistic and selfish Tamilians think very high of themselves and do things in this manner.

However, hereafter I do not like to continue this dialogue. amsharma

[bhakthim dehi]

Dear Akella ji,

Whether you reply or not, I like to record this message for posterity.

As I did not feel much of true-Mukhari in the original notation I did modify the notation to make it more nearer to true-Mukhari as per my will and pleasure. If you feel it wrong please do not sing it and please throw away my notation and audio-file. That is all.

I am talking only about the krithi in Ratnakanthi. The file you sent only had that krithi. Why to bring in Mukhari here? You are confused I feel.
Its good that, you accept, you make changesin the notations as per your will and pleasure.
Is that a justified act of a teacher? If suppose, the old version had some rare phrases, and since it dint appeal to you and eventually you change that, didnt you deprive the seeker from learning those rare phrases?

My comments and observations are only for the krithi Ratnakanthi. I am comparing the notations given by the composer Thiruvotriyur Tyagayyar to the audio file furnished by you in the post #9.

Your version has an atheetha eduppu - my version started from the 2nd half of the 1st Kriya which is called Anaagata eduppu.

Does this not contradict your previous statement.

Below is your post #12

I have again verified with my notation and audio-file and found both my notation and the audio-file are absolutely correct and tallied.

Your version has an atheetha eduppu - my version started from the 2nd half of the 1st Kriya which is called Anaagata eduppu.

What I can hear is the krithi, in your version, starts at the end of second drutham. This is what I meant as atheetham. Conservative, egoistic and selfish Tamizhians who wants to share their knowledge by both teaching and publishing books has taught me this. If any Andhra musician has written any other book, saying this as Anagatham , please inform us, the egoistic and selfish group.

Pallavi and charanam of your version starts with gandaram, whereas it is madhyamam and panchamam in the notation respectively - In my notation all the Pallavi, Anupallavi and Charanam have started in Panchama and in my audio-file also they are the same.

What do you mean by your notation? Are you not following the notation by Thiruvotriyur Tyagayyar? He is the composer. Though he is a selfish, conservative and egoistic Tamizhian, you need to follow him only, when you sing his kruthi.
I stand with my opinion. Pallavi starts from madhyamam and charanam form panchamam in the notations provided by Tiruvotriyur Tyagayyar. To be more precise, your pallavi starts as GMP and charanam as MGM contrasting with madhyamam and panchamam in the notations.
Your audio files are here. Anyone can listen and comment.

Your version has phrases like gpgrsr, pgr in tara sthayi (to cite a few) which are not seen in the notation - as I did nowhere sing gpgrsr, or pgr in my audio-file they are not in the notation.

For the phrase manamulanu, you have sung pgr; it is gr in tara sthayi in notation. This is a beginning of the second avartanam, wherein the first avartanam ends with tara rishabham. In your version, there is an additional sangathi which ends with tara sadjam. And when you start the second avartanam, you have started with pgr.
for the phrase ledha, you have used gpgrsr and gpg,rsr; notation here reads as snsns (nishadham in mandhra sthayi). If you need more, I can give samples from chanranam too.

I raise this issue because, your version sounds more like Hamsadvani. I want to clarify on this . Unfortunately, topic got diverted.

I always get into discussions to learn more. I think it is a way to enhance ourselves, bet it a Tamizhian or Andhrite. My ego never gets hurt, if the mistake pointed by you or anyone is genuine. And, if your ego gets hurt, because of me asking a genuine doubt, I cannot help that.

[shankarank]

It seems we are quickly losing track of who said what. So.. let me align the quotes with links to respective posts - in case people did not notice clicking on the up arrow in each quote takes you back to the original post.

1. Your version has an atheetha eduppu.

1. Your version has an atheetha eduppu - my version started from the 2nd half of the 1st Kriya which is called Anaagata eduppu.

Does this not contradict your previous statement.

What I can hear is the krithi, in your version, starts at the end of second drutham. This is what I meant as atheetham.

Are we arguing based on old desAdi vs new dEsadi? In the old dEsadi, isn't the palm up position considered the start of the Avarta? Did the word dRtam even enter the usage then - when that type of tALam was in vogue??

[bhakthim dehi]

Your quotes didn't capture the essence of discussion. It adds more confusion.

We were talking about Thiruvotriyur Tyagayyar who has set the kruthi under discussion to adhi talam. Why is desadhi to be discussed here?

[shankarank]

Thanks! I guess, I might have understood the source of the confusion

[srini_pichumani]

Dear Akellagaaru,
Thank you very much for this recording. Your rendition is extremely beautiful and melodious -- full of mIgaDa !!!

Bhaktim-dehi,

I don't know how you interpreted it to be atIta eDuppu. Very naturally, it falls into the commonly understood anAgata.

(ShankaranK asks a valid question, perhaps rationalizing or wondering to himself why you interpreted the eDuppu the way you did.)

In any case, maybe you can share the notation you are looking at ? I tried to look for this composition in a book by Terazhundur Ranganathan and KMM-4 that I have, but couldn't find it.

Best regards,
-Srini.

Ps: Also, on another point/charge you raise that it sounds Hamsadhvani-ish, it actually increases the aesthetic quotient, as it were !

As an aside, I remember a very interesting conversation wih TKG sir where he specifically remarked on leading the contour from a familiar raga's realm to the rarer offshoot or takeoff -- as much a valid approach as any. In fact, he was all for it as opposed to a completely bewildering approach to a new scale/raga.

[Ranganayaki]

2. Pallavi and charanam of your version starts with gandaram, whereas it is madhyamam and panchamam in the notation respectively - In my notation all the Pallavi, Anupallavi and Charanam have started in Panchama and in my audio-file also they are the same.

Dear Sri Akella-Garu,

I am so surprised to read what you have written above. Yes your Anupallavi and Charanam do start in Panchama, but your pallavi as you have sung it definitely does not. It starts with a gandhara. Logically, you ought to agree! The first three notes make the syllable "Shree" in "Shreenadha." They are three ascending notes. If it started at Panchama, then the three ascending notes will have to be "pns. You did not reach upper shadjam.

Thank you for sharing your nice recording.

[Ranganayaki]

I really don't think Sri Akella needs my explanation, which is the most confusing thing. But going over the conversation, I think that he might have forgotten that it was the Ratnakanti kriti that he had provided a link to, and has been discussing the mukhari kriti he seems have in mind.

[bhakthim dehi]

I don't know how you interpreted it to be atIta eDuppu. Very naturally, it falls into the commonly understood anAgata.

I am not convinced with my ability to identify an eduppu by audio alone. I might be wrong in saying it as anagataham. I had this doubt when I heard the recording and hence raised this query.

In any case, maybe you can share the notation you are looking at ? I tried to look for this composition in a book by Terazhundur Ranganathan and KMM-4 that I have, but couldn't find it.

The notation can be seen in the book Sankeertana Ratnavali. This can be accessed here:
http://musicresearchlibrary.net/omeka/items/show/648

Ps: Also, on another point/charge you raise that it sounds Hamsadhvani-ish, it actually increases the aesthetic quotient, as it were !

My query is not related to aesthetics. Is it advisable to use those phrases when the notations provided by the composer did not have those?

Anupallavi and Charanam do start in Panchama

Charanam, on close observation you can note, it starts from gandaram (actually madhyamam; but madhyamam to gandaram glide is very minimal), mgmp it is.

[Ranganayaki]

I am not convinced with my ability to identify an eduppu by audio alone. I might be wrong in saying it as anagataham. I had this doubt when I heard the recording and hence raised this query.

I did think it was a misinterpretation. Sri Akella says it is arai eduppu if I understand his description of Anagata. A half beat after samam. I don't think there is muchc to argue about, if he says that was his intention, and if that is how he notated it (and if he didn't forget which song we were discussing) then that is what it is, that is what he wrote and performed.

However I tried onnarai eduppu (1.5 beats after samam, which is six matras after the first beat - again not sure if everyone agrees with this use of the word Matra ) and I feel it works beautifully throughout the song. That is my interpretation, how I feel it falls naturally. But that is not Sri Akella's intention. My interpretation is justified also by the fact that the metronome does make two beats before he starts the song and he begins the song at the mid-point of the space between beat# 2 and beat# 3 of the metronome. But that is not what Sri Akella has done, if he says he began after the first kriya.

Charanam, on close observation you can note, it starts from gandaram (actually madhyamam; but madhyamam to gandaram glide is very minimal), mgmp it is.

I thought I may have missed what you are talking about, and I listened carefully several times. I cannot agree with you. He clearly begins at Pa. pmgm-P. You just cannot say that he begins with g. /**Ta*/***pa/ goes /--pm/gm-P/. The only way I can see what you mean is by speculating that in rewinding and forwarding through the song, you missed line 1 of the charanam. Because line 2 does begin exactly as you said, beginning with gandharam, with the gandharam interpreted by him as a glide from madhyamam. If you did not make that error, then I don't see how you can say that he begins with gandharam.

In fact the Anupallavi also begins with Panchama but but it is a very different interpretation of the panchama which shows a strong, dramatic glide from Nishadha. But it is considered as beginning from Panchama. There is no such glide in the Panchama of the charanam. You seem to be describing line2.

[Ranganayaki]

Even though Sri Akella is justifiably offended by the tone of Bhaktim's argument, I wish he would graciously offer a link to the Mukhari song, so this confusion can be cleared, and the discrepancy resolved. He does not need me telling him what swaras he used. My guess is that he offered a link to one of his many reworkings of songs, and simply forgot or misremembered which one it was.

Akella-garu, would you please share the Mukhari song you mentioned here ?

[shankarank]

However I tried onnarai eduppu (1.5 beats after samam, which is six matras after the first beat - again not sure if everyone agrees with this use of the word Matra ) and I feel it works beautifully throughout the song. That is my interpretation, how I feel it falls naturally. But that is not Sri Akella's intention. My interpretation is justified also by the fact that the metronome does make two beats before he starts the song and he begins the song at the mid-point of the space between beat# 2 and beat# 3 of the metronome. But that is not what Sri Akella has done, if he says he began after the first kriya.

- my version started from the 2nd half of the 1st Kriya which is called Anaagata eduppu.

He said first kriyA and not samam explicitly. You might not very well know what he meant actually, because he is known to question terminology

If this is not 1-1/2 really - the meaning of arudhi as we have established in our system in general, gets violated. sivakAma sundari is example of an atIta graha and but then sundari clearly lands on arudhi. Again whether something has to land on arudhi or stress on it can vary, but arudhi will need to be recognized.

In 2 kALAI songs of tyAgaraja , we see things stopping short of arudhi and many times a kARvai goes over the saSabda kriya. If that is what we want to transpose to what we now call dEsAdi tALam, we can very well make all of them atItam instead.

Also remember dinamani vamsa - which is currently 2 kaLai Adi tALam, Vidushi SrImati R. VEdavalli sang it in old dEsadi tALa with a 1/2 anAgata graha from palm up ( which I understand is the start of Avarta). It was @ Arkay recently - Vid. Arun Prakash on Mridangam. There also the kArvai - where dina is somewhat elongated even though hrasva, goes over the saSabda kriya - again it may not be samam.

So unless the notated version ( yet to take a look and understand! - so pardon the lack of info!) has a different (slower?) gait , this is a plain modern dEsAdi tALam - based on how it is sung. If it is 1/2 after samam , we are into a completely new nonsensical territory. That is not possible in the way it is currently sung - I mean we cannot justify it based on a notation.

However, whether dEsAdi tALam across the board is atItam or 1-1/2 is pure convention - I would say!

[shankarank]

It is like a hurdles race, either you stop, rest on it and climb over it




, or take a nice jump with legs stretched , not hitting and falling over the arudhi!

[shankarank]

Arrrrggggh ! I did a followup troll on my own post - pushing to a new page-set. A picture or two is worth a 1000 words alright, but do read what I wrote in the first page-set of this thread!

posting.php?mode=reply&f=2&t=30626#pr330047

[Ranganayaki]

Dear Akella ji,


But, I stand with my views. The notations given by the composer has been changed!!

Not sure why this is an argument. Sri Akella has not denied making changes to the song and having new notations. In fact that was the premise of this exchange!!

What he said was that his audio and HIS notations tallied.

[Ranganayaki]

Dear brother-member, bhakthim dehi,

I have again verified with my notation and audio-file and found both my notation and the audio-file are absolutely correct and tallied. Please take them to three or four professional musicians, ask them to tally all of them and come back to me. amsharma.

Akella-Garu, the notation Bhaktim refers to are the original notations of the composer's. You have misunderstood that, and speak of YOUR notations and ask him to take your audio and notations to a professional to check, forgetting that you have not yet shared your personal notations!!!

[Ranganayaki]

I have few questions now as a student of Music.

1. What is the reason or what do you achieve by introducing these changes?
2. When the composer has clearly notated his krithis, we making changes like these are acceptable ?

1: Sri Akella has already explained himself in posts 5 and 7.

2: it is perfectly acceptable. He studied the kritis, didn't find them enjoyable, as he has explained, and has reworked them and he offers it to you to take it or leave it. He does not plagiarize, and acknowledges the original composer.

When a performer presents a song, they always bring in their personality, their interpretation and while they stick to the overall structure of the song, it is not strictly notation-based. Otherwise, we would have a music devoid of life, and a tradition devoid of fresh banis, or any individuality.

[Ranganayaki]

- as I did nowhere sing gpgrsr, or pgr in my audio-file they are not in the notation.

For the phrase manamulanu, you have sung pgr; it is gr in tara sthayi in notation. This is a beginning of the second avartanam, wherein the first avartanam ends with tara rishabham. In your version, there is an additional sangathi which ends with tara sadjam. And when you start the second avartanam, you have started with pgr.
for the phrase ledha, you have used gpgrsr and gpg,rsr; notation here reads as snsns (nishadham in mandhra sthayi). If you need more, I can give samples from chanranam too.

I raise this issue because, your version sounds more like Hamsadvani.

The issue of P-gr in "manamulanu" is a false issue. I don't think Sri Akella even realized what you were talking about, he was right in saying that he does not sing PGR.

You may have misinterpreted a rule governed by avarohana. It seems that you think that since the ma distinguishes this raga from Hamsadhwani, PGR is always disallowed. This is true when PGR are all in the same sthayee. Then PGR would be part of the descending scale and reminiscent of Hamsadhwani, a possible violation.

But in "manamulanu" , "ma--na--" is sung as p-grsnp, and to you, this seems to break the rule of "no PGR". But in that p-grsnp phrase, P is in madhyama sthayee, and grs are in Tara sthayee. So here, we are speaking of an ascent from a lower octave P to a higher octave G, while M is not even involved! It's a perfectly good prayoga for this raga.

Your use of the word avartanam is misplaced. There are dozens of avartanams that have preceded the spot you are referring to, so first avartanam doesn't make sense. It would be correct to say line1 or line2 of the charanam, if I understood you correctly.

For the phrase "Ledha," your representation in swaras, "gpgrsr," of what Sri Akella sings is incorrect. He does not even touch pa for that phrase. He does not go beyond the gandharam, so no violation.

If it sounds like Hamsadhwani to you, it's because there are all these common swaras. But this piece does a great job of clearly presenting this raga, with its distinct identity. Now I only wish I could remember the name!! Rathna- something? I keep forgetting! I have to go back to the first page to find it, and I'm feeling too lazy!

[shankarank]

It is Rathnakanthi - without referring back a page. When MDR starts hamsadvani Alapana, you will be fooled it is some kalyANi for a while. So there is an effort to make kalyaNi the jananya (I leave my patriarchal conditioning out - as per RKSK's plea in his LecDem) rAgA for hamsadvani.

Of all things Ravikiran requested in his Lecdem, this one stands some merit!

[bhakthim dehi]

You just cannot say that he begins with g. /**Ta*/***pa/ goes /--pm/gm-P/.

I am aware of what I was saying. Just place the charanam beginning at the place of panchamam. You can definitely identify this as madhyamam. Much easier way, contrast this with the beginning of anupallavi. You can feel the difference.

Not sure why this is an argument. Sri Akella has not denied making changes to the song and having new notations. In fact that was the premise of this exchange!!

He said he made some modifications (post # 5)

So, I have made the necessary modifications and shaped into a nice composition to sing with music-sense and ease. Any person having the proper music-sense along with proper rhythmical-sense

They cannot be considered as modifications. Truly speaking, only 5-10 % of the notation was followed by him. Hence my question.
In fact I have raised two questions. He was contradicting his own posts rather than answering my questions clearly.

What he said was that his audio and HIS notations tallied.

How can he expect me to verify HIS notations with audio file when HIS notations were not provided? Also, why should I verify the audio file with HIS notations when I want to know the modifications that he made with the original notations?
Contarily, why should he compare his notations with his own audio file?

2: it is perfectly acceptable. He studied the kritis, didn't find them enjoyable, as he has explained, and has reworked them and he offers it to you to take it or leave it. He does not plagiarize, and acknowledges the original composer.

There is nothing wrong in finding a krithi not enjoyable.
As an ideal teacher, he should compose or tune another composition in Ratnakanthi, show it to others how beautifully that raga can be handled.
Changing a composition created by others is depriving his students and others to realise the original style of Thyagayyar (in this case). This is totally condemnable, at least to me.
If everyone starts doing the same, there is no need to attach any composition to any raga.

When a performer presents a song, they always bring in their personality, their interpretation and while they stick to the overall structure of the song, it is not strictly notation-based.

Yes, he imbibes the meaning of the composition and adds bhavam to the composition. Ideally, he must recite what he learnt ( in this case notations). He can always embellish the compositions with gamakas. He has no right to change anything further. If he respects the composer, he will not do that. Rather, if he is of the impression that he is Sangeetha Saragna, let him not sing the compositions by other composers; let him compose and sing only his compositions.

Otherwise, we would have a music devoid of life, and a tradition devoid of fresh banis, or any individuality.

Bani is not changing a composition. I can cite several examples, where the musicians strictly adhere to the versions that they have learnt, and also have their own style.
Do you mean the composer's are not fit to impart life to their compositions ? If you feel only the present day musicians add life to their music, ask the musicians to create their own compositions with life; why to struggle with lifeless compositions.
You have lot of other ways to show individuality.

[bhakthim dehi]

You may have misinterpreted a rule governed by avarohana. It seems that you think that since the ma distinguishes this raga from Hamsadhwani, PGR is always disallowed. This is true when PGR are all in the same sthayee. Then PGR would be part of the descending scale and reminiscent of Hamsadhwani, a possible violation.

I never said pgr is not to be used. I didnt mention anything abouit the lakshana of Ratnakanthi. He was constantly arguing that he didnt change and that made me to give these examples.

For the phrase "Ledha," your representation in swaras, "gpgrsr," of what Sri Akella sings is incorrect. He does not even touch pa for that phrase. He does not go beyond the gandharam, so no violation.

Yes. Pa is not at its place. It is not gmgrsr or ggrsr. It can only be called as gpgrsr, though the shruthi of pa is slightly less. When he repeats for the last time, it is gpggrsr.

Your use of the word avartanam is misplaced. There are dozens of avartanams that have preceded the spot you are referring to, so first avartanam doesn't make sense. It would be correct to say line1 or line2 of the charanam, if I understood you correctly.

I used the word avartanam with respect to the sahityam.
Can you please explain what does the word avartanam means to you?

[bhakthim dehi]

If it sounds like Hamsadhwani to you, it's because there are all these common swaras.

Its not because they have common svaras; its because the graha and nyasa svaras were not identified and used properly.

This is not a phrase based ragam. This abides to arohanam-avarohanam and it will definitely resemble Hamsadvani as they share all the svaras except madhyamam. But, my point is this should not resemble Hamsadvani throughout the composition. Better option is to follow the rules as laid down by the composer as he might have referred some other texts or on all possibilities, it might have been his creation too. In either case, composer is better aware of the rules.
If you just follow the notation, this raga has a different structure, though it resembles Hamsadvani here and there ( which cannot be avoided and the composer was much aware of this as we have a composition of the same composer in Hamsadvani).

But this piece does a great job of clearly presenting this raga, with its distinct identity. Now I only wish I could remember the name!! Rathna- something? I keep forgetting! I have to go back to the first page to find it, and I'm feeling too lazy!

If the notation was followed, you could have remembered the name well !!

[Ranganayaki]

It is Rathnakanthi - without referring back a page.

Yes, thank you (sorry for my late response). 3 minutes after reading your response, I couldn't remember it again!!! But I decided to connect the name to Nalinakanthi, also a raga close to Hamsadhwani in swaras, like this one, and also quite different from it like this one, and I haven't forgotten it in all these days!!! I've actually been checking !!

[Ranganayaki]

But, my point is this should not resemble Hamsadvani throughout the composition. Better option is to follow the rules as laid down by the composer as he might have referred some other texts or on all possibilities, it might have been his creation too. In either case, composer is better aware of the rules.

In my view, it does not resemble Hamsadhwani throughout, the pratimadhyamam makes its presence felt quite well!

But this piece does a great job of clearly presenting this raga, with its distinct identity. Now I only wish I could remember the name!! Rathna- something? I keep forgetting! I have to go back to the first page to find it, and I'm feeling too lazy!

If the notation was followed, you could have remembered the name well !!
[/quote]

You think that's how memory works - an arbitrary name for a raga can be remembered because of notations!!

[Ranganayaki]

You just cannot say that he begins with g. /**Ta*/***pa/ goes /--pm/gm-P/.

I am aware of what I was saying. Just place the charanam beginning at the place of panchamam. You can definitely identify this as madhyamam. Much easier way, contrast this with the beginning of anupallavi. You can feel the difference.

This makes no sense.

. So, I have made the necessary modifications and shaped into a nice composition to sing with music-sense and ease. Any person having the proper music-sense along with proper rhythmical-sense

They cannot be considered as modifications. Truly speaking, only 5-10 % of the notation was followed by him.

What is the exact percentage you allow? A song does not become better with 5-10 percent modification! That level of modification is routinely done even without having to write new notations.

What he said was that his audio and HIS notations tallied.
How can he expect me to verify HIS notations with audio file when HIS notations were not provided?

I already made those points to him for you in an earlier post.

.
There is nothing wrong in finding a krithi not enjoyable.
As an ideal teacher, he should compose or tune another composition in Ratnakanthi, show it to others how beautifully that raga can be handled.

Why do you take it upon yourself to dictate to others what they should do? And what is your authority?

Changing a composition created by others is depriving his students and others to realise the original style of Thyagayyar (in this case). This is totally condemnable, at least to me.

You are pretty judgemental, for a layman!!

Yes, he imbibes the meaning of the composition and adds bhavam to the composition. Ideally, he must recite what he learnt ( in this case notations). He can always embellish the compositions with gamakas. He has no right to change anything further. If he respects the composer, he will not do that.

Now you are letting yourself sound like a musicologist! What's your authority in dictating these terms? Where did you glean these ideas? Do you have a quote?

Rather, if he is of the impression that he is Sangeetha Saragna, let him not sing the compositions by other composers; let him compose and sing only his compositions.

A rather mean-spirited comment towards someone who graciously shared his work with you (at your request) and addressed you as brother, as he does to all. Your tone in addressing him and speaking of him throughout this conversation (except when you made your initial request to him) has been unnecessarily confrontational.

. Bani is not changing a composition. I can cite several examples, where the musicians strictly adhere to the versions that they have learnt, and also have their own style.

I don't read Telugu and can't tell how much of the song was changed. If it is true that only 5 percent has been retained, it's not a question of Bani, I think. But that doesn't change anything to my answer.

. Do you mean the composer's are not fit to impart life to their compositions ?

You actually got that meaning from my posts? You don't use rigor in gleaning my meaning, but you are not generous when someone else doesn't use rigid rigor in interpreting a song. You are kinder to yourself than to Sri

Do you mean the composer's are not fit to impart life to their compositions ? If you feel only the present day musicians add life to their music, ask the musicians to create their own compositions with life; why to struggle with lifeless compositions.

Since you have a freewheeling way in deciding what my words mean, I don't think I need to respond to this comment. You ought to apply the same rigor (that you expect of others in music) to attributing meaning to words. Just be consistent.

[Ranganayaki]

You may have misinterpreted a rule governed by avarohana. It seems that you think that since the ma distinguishes this raga from Hamsadhwani, PGR is always disallowed. This is true when PGR are all in the same sthayee. Then PGR would be part of the descending scale and reminiscent of Hamsadhwani, a possible violation.

I never said pgr is not to be used. I didnt mention anything abouit the lakshana of Ratnakanthi. He was constantly arguing that he didnt change and that made me to give these examples.

Makes no sense.

For the phrase "Ledha," your representation in swaras, "gpgrsr," of what Sri Akella sings is incorrect. He does not even touch pa for that phrase. He does not go beyond the gandharam, so no violation.

Yes. Pa is not at its place. It is not gmgrsr or ggrsr. It can only be called as gpgrsr, though the shruthi of pa is slightly less. When he repeats for the last time, it is gpggrsr

Meaningless. And as I said he does not go beyond the gandgaram.

Your use of the word avartanam is misplaced. There are dozens of avartanams that have preceded the spot you are referring to, so first avartanam doesn't make sense. It would be correct to say line1 or line2 of the charanam, if I understood you correctly.

I used the word avartanam with respect to the sahityam.
Can you please explain what does the word avartanam means to you?

Avartanam is not a word used in connection with sahitya. It is related only to tala. If you don't know that, I wonder what you are doing dictating terms to Sri Akella. May be you should learn a little before you criticize.

[Ranganayaki]

Conservative, egoistic and selfish Tamizhians who wants to share their knowledge by both teaching and publishing books has taught me this. If any Andhra musician has written any other book, saying this as Anagatham , please inform us, the egoistic and selfish group.

I understand your hurt at Sri Akella's unfortunate and unnecessary words about Tamilians, but could be magnanimous and ignore his words, not only because he is elderly and does a lot to serve the cause of Carnatic music, but also just because you can.

However you are wrong in implying that this is a Tamil group. Tamilians may be a majority here, but there are people of many languages and culture present here, and they are not members of a Tamil group, they are equal members of a music group.

[bhakthim dehi]

The discussion which was started on the musical aspect changed into a personal confrontation by you. I can sense a state of immaturity in your posts. I feel like talking to a school kid or a teen.

In my view, it does not resemble Hamsadhwani throughout, the pratimadhyamam makes its presence felt quite well!

Its just your view. Even, if your hearing skills improve, you will not accept otherwise.

You think that's how memory works - an arbitrary name for a raga can be remembered because of notations!!

You always remember odd sounding compositions by name of the raga.
I am really astonished to see silly responses like this from you, though this is not the first time.

This makes no sense.

I never said pgr is not to be used. I didnt mention anything abouit the lakshana of Ratnakanthi. He was constantly arguing that he didnt change and that made me to give these examples.

Makes no sense.

This can make sense only if you start analysing music. If you listen music like "engathu mamavum katcheriku ponaar", this will be the response.

Why do you take it upon yourself to dictate to others what they should do? And what is your authority?

Is he not an ideal teacher?
I forgot your level of mental maturity. I should have made it clear that its just a suggestion.

Now you are letting yourself sound like a musicologist! What's your authority in dictating these terms? Where did you glean these ideas? Do you have a quote?

Trying to talk about musicology in a forum like this is obscene in your standards?
I was totally ignorant of your mental maturity. Else I could have made it clear that its just a suggestion.

A rather mean-spirited comment towards someone who graciously shared his work with you (at your request) and addressed you as brother, as he does to all.

A sensible teacher always wishes his 'work' to be reviewed by his peers. He has done that. Whys use the term gracious here? Perhaps, you dont have the habit of sharing.

If me asking for clarification is a 'mean-spirited' one, let it be.

Your tone in addressing him and speaking of him throughout this conversation (except when you made your initial request to him) has been unnecessarily confrontational.

Its all how you take my replies. You cannot always expect others to talk in a way that pleases you.

You should expect you will get any kind of reviews when you pot in an open forum. You should have maturity to accept things, rather than denying blatantly.

Again, I was ignorant to overestimate your level of maturity.

Meaningless. And as I said he does not go beyond the gandgaram.

Should I have to teach panchamam comes after gandaram.

Having realised your level of maturity, I will make it more clear. When you go from sa to ni, panchamam comes after gandaram.

Avartanam is not a word used in connection with sahitya. It is related only to tala. If you don't know that, I wonder what you are doing dictating terms to Sri Akella. May be you should learn a little before you criticize.

This clearly shows you know nothing about the sahitya aspects of music. I cannot teach you here. You should first know the basics by yourself before commenting on others.

This will happen by itself once you grow up mentally.

I understand your hurt at Sri Akella's unfortunate and unnecessary words about Tamilians, but could be magnanimous and ignore his words, not only because he is elderly and does a lot to serve the cause of Carnatic music, but also just because you can.

Since I respect him, I just showed I was hurt.
On the other hand, being old gives licence to say anything that one wishes?
Has he not learnt anything from Tamizh musicians?
He might not like many. But can he give a statement like this blaming a community in a cosmopolitan forum like this?
I can expect comments like this form you, but not from a person like akella ji.

However you are wrong in implying that this is a Tamil group. Tamilians may be a majority here, but there are people of many languages and culture present here, and they are not members of a Tamil group, they are equal members of a music group.

I never implied anything like that. Instead of doing statistics and finding which population is in majority, try to analyse music. More importantly, be mature enough to not take things personally.

Rather, if he is of the impression that he is Sangeetha Saragna, let him not sing the compositions by other composers; let him compose and sing only his compositions.

A rather mean-spirited comment towards someone who graciously shared his work with you (at your request) and addressed you as brother, as he does to all. Your tone in addressing him and speaking of him throughout this conversation (except when you made your initial request to him) has been unnecessarily confrontational.

Whether you believe me or not, this I didnt adress towrads him. I just gave that as a general statement.


I do not involve myself in making any personal comments unless directed at me. Perhaps, this is the first time.
As I said, I argue for/against a point under discussion and not against the person.
If you dont have the maturity to take it up, dont enter into a discussion with me.

I very well know this is going to become a personal affair, which I want to avoid. I know you will respond. But, I can understand the mentality of a school kid am mature enough to take that. So, you will get no more responses from me.

More importantly, dont be a spokesperson to others.

Better grow up, try to analyse music and come back to me in some other thread. Will that happen ?

[shankarank]

Bhaktim dEhi, that is the modern touchy feely liberal, that has formed their own conception of how a discussion should proceed and what is acceptable way of saying things. The new Caste system, yeah they are the true casteists!

As regards to the approach to "pa" that you take issue with, it may be a case of Veena Dhannamal telling Musiri - iyaruuku sa-pa-sa varAdu polErukku - i.e. Musiri could not hit, sa-pa-sa in pAhi Sri girirAja sutE without some embelishment

[Ranganayaki]

Why do you take it upon yourself to dictate to others what they should do? And what is your authority?

Is he not an ideal teacher?

I was asking how come you feel you ought to tell him what he should do, and your response to that is about his authority!

A sensible teacher always wishes his 'work' to be reviewed by his peers. He has done that. Whys use the term gracious here? Perhaps, you dont have the habit of sharing.

I think neither you nor I can consider ourselves his peers in the area of music. We are just rasikas and consumers. He serves.

This clearly shows you know nothing about the sahitya aspects of music. I cannot teach you here. You should first know the basics by yourself before commenting on others.

I know I have a lot to learn and I am always happy to be corrected. I'm quite sure of what I said regarding the term "avartanam." It is a term related to tala, not sahitya. But if you are sure, you are welcome to teach me here or by email, anytime, whenever you have the time.

On the other hand, being old gives licence to say anything that one wishes?
Has he not learnt anything from Tamizh musicians?
He might not like many. But can he give a statement like this blaming a community in a cosmopolitan forum like this?
I can expect comments like this form you, but not from a person like akella ji.

No, being elderly certainly does not give anyone the right to say whatever they please. But we can always forgive, and ignore an occasional mistake.

Regarding growing up, I'm with you, there is no end to the growing up I can do, and miraculously, I feel I AM growing up!! I would love to be far more mature than I am and I agree - I have a long way to go!!