Tonic, modulation, etc.

Miscellaneous topics on Carnatic music
Post Reply
Sramana
Posts: 39
Joined: 30 Apr 2006, 03:33

Post by Sramana »

Thanks, DrShrikaanth, for suggesting this continue as a new topic. And thanks everyone else for your patience with me. This discussion is very interesting. I think I have only two main points going right now; one concerns ragamalika, and one concerns srutibhedam.

1. Obviously, to take an insider's perspective, conventional ragamalika is a wonderful thing, just like a fixed sruti is 'adequate' to express anything a rasika wishes to express. My suggestion was more like: "IF an insider is interested in doing something more" with modulations, one could consider doing them faster, with more interlocking between ragas. This would indeed become more of a "purely formal" exploration of swaras and would not square with traditional ideas of exploring the bhava. BUT if you listen to e.g. Arabic improvisations and know the maqamat, I think they offer an example of how you can preserve bhava (to some extent, even if it is brief) and still transition quickly among different modes. Is this an interesting avenue of exploration to people here?

2. My concerns about srutibhedam a.k.a. "keeping the same ladder of absolute pitches but changing which one is the tonic", are best addressed by answering Kaapi:

"I am unable to follow what you are trying to say. Assuming a violin has been tuned to a particular sruthi and the artist plays
S G2 M1 P M1 and then plays
M1 N2 D2 M1 P M1
these notes remain the same unless one assumes that the M1 has become S during the second sequence. This assuption has to be made by the listener or a shifting drone has to provide the backdrop.
So, what is the performer's role in this ? "

How does "M1 become the new S"? This question is about the ultimate nature of "S" itself. And we're limited here by the fact that we're all using swara notation; "shifting the tonic" is probably different in detail from "shifting S". (?) I argue that if you play M1 N2 D2 M1 P M1 in such a way that the music begins *resolving* to M1, that note of *resolution* "becomes the new S"--can I argue that "S" is ultimately defined as the note of resolution? The listener would perceive this shift in the note of resolution, and for the performer it would presumably be deliberate (to answer kaapi's question about the performer's role). It's best to imagine this happening with no drone at all. If, having resolved to the former M1, the violinist then just ended the piece right there, you'd have a piece that started in one mode then modulated to another with a different tonic.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

Ramana,

Clarify one thing for me ( This is the unfortunate effect of switching threads in the middle ):

Are we in agreement that what you are talking about IS sruthibEda? or something else? ( drone or no drone ).

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

"shifting S". (?) I argue that if you play M1 N2 D2 M1 P M1 in such a way that the music begins *resolving* to M1, that note of *resolution* "becomes the new S"--can I argue that "S" is ultimately defined as the note of resolution?
Not that simple eh" It is extremely common for musicians to use a note different form S as nyAsa or resting not for prolonged periods during AlApane and swaraprastAra("Resolving" to a a swara that is not ShaDja). The choice of note depends on the rAga.

For e.g take SankarAbharaNa

G; G; | G,MGMG;| RGMGMG;|GMP,MG;|GMDPMG;| and so on.

This in no way gives the illusion of a new rAga even if one sings without a drone. That is because the concept of AdhAra ShaDja is very fundamental in IM. To actually create the illusion of another rAga is done by SrutibhEda or shifting of tonic whre the contrepont is provided by the violinist. The violinist holds the note steady on the new(Shifted) ShaDja as otherwise the AdhAra cannot be shifted from the minds of the listeners. Now this is also done in passing and not for prolonged periods as that will cause rasabhanga or spoil the nature of as ell as mood created by the original rAga.

Sramana
Posts: 39
Joined: 30 Apr 2006, 03:33

Post by Sramana »

I played around a bit with Sankarabharanam (on the qin of course :P ) and discovered that perhaps resolving to different notes has different effects.

For instance, using the phrase you described still leaves a very strong feeling "this is still G3; eventually resolve to S." BUT if, after lingering on G3, you suddenly hit D2, G3 easily can feel like a "P" to the new "S". Keeping the same ladder of absolute pitches as before, you'd now be singing Natabhairavi.

Also, resolving to R2 instead of G3 in Sankarabharanam can more easily feel like a modulation into Kharaharapriya. Everyone with a WM background knows that major thirds (e.g. the S/G3 relationship) are extremely beautiful harmonies, so perhaps resolving to G3 makes it easy to retain a feeling of harmony with S. Major seconds (S/R2) are more dissonant, allowing for a greater feeling of separation between the piches. And of course wherever you resolve your phrase, hitting something the interval of a fifth downward or a fourth upward (like D2 for G3) immediately feels like a strong S/P.

Remember, I'm not talking about what CMusicians actually "do", just what one *can* do with a mode.

drshrikaanth
Posts: 4066
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 17:01

Post by drshrikaanth »

Also, resolving to R2 instead of G3 in Sankarabharanam can more easily feel like a modulation into Kharaharapriya. Everyone with a WM background knows that major thirds (e.g. the S/G3 relationship) are extremely beautiful harmonies, so perhaps resolving to G3 makes it easy to retain a feeling of harmony with S.
See R is not a strong note in SankarAbharaNa. So no artiste even with basic knowledge would attempt to halt for prononged periods on R.
Remember, I'm not talking about what CMusicians actually "do", just what one *can* do with a mode.
We are talking of rAgas here. Not modes. CM is rAga based, not mode-based. What you are asking is akin to asking WM artistes to give up harmony and to accept tonic S and pure melody.

Sramana
Posts: 39
Joined: 30 Apr 2006, 03:33

Post by Sramana »

OK, no need to talk of particular ragas then. I'm more interested in melas. Singing any treatment in mela 29, if you resolved to R2, you could easily establish that as S for mela 22. If you resolved to G3 and hit D2, you could use those as S and P for mela 20.

But even if we were to stick with Sankarabharanam, and artist could deliberately linger on R2 specifically in order to modulate. As soon as he put more than the usual emphasis on R2, the audience would realize that he's intending to change the mela by establishing R2 as the new S.

vasanthakokilam
Posts: 10956
Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01

Post by vasanthakokilam »

As soon as he put more than the usual emphasis on R2, the audience would realize that he's intending to change the mela by establishing R2 as the new S
If I remember right, that is the technique a singer uses ( or that is what the singer does ) with sruthibEda with some additional help from the Violinist. So if you agree with that, then does your question translate to, why CM musicians do not do sruthiBeda more often and as a mainstream technique?

Sramana
Posts: 39
Joined: 30 Apr 2006, 03:33

Post by Sramana »

Hah! I guess so. Much of my gist has been "CM is wonderful - now what if?" I've often thought to myself that if I were a CMusician, one thing I might miss most in the music would be modulations--with both fixed and moving tonic (i.e. faster/denser ragamalika transitions and srutibhedam respectively). These kinds of modulations, while done seldom and somewhat ponderously in CM, are part and parcel of certain other musical systems.

I guess in the end it works out to a fundamental/ultimate question about IM. Many IMusicians I've talked to about this said it hadn't occurred to them to 'wish for' more modulations, so obviously the music is very satisfying as is. But why is it that way? Maybe a silly question, but I'd like to hear some people's views.

I predict it's going to boil down to some version of your 'adequacy' argument--fixed-sa, one-raga for an hour is amazing, why do something else? Which is fine. But how reluctant are you experiment with something different, especially if you're a performer? Does audience expectation play a role in performer conservatism?

kaapi
Posts: 146
Joined: 05 Jun 2005, 14:32

Post by kaapi »

sramana,
If you think either the performers or the audience is die hard conservative then it is not true. As Ravi has pointed out in another thread the basic feature of CM or for that matter HM is to evoke rasa. It has been found over centuries that for the rasa to be evoked is not by singing or playing simple notes but by stringing them together in a particular fashion with certain nuances. For this to be displaced and something else to take its place it would need a performing genius of a tall order.

Vocalist
Posts: 1030
Joined: 19 Feb 2006, 18:53

Post by Vocalist »

*
I've kept an asterisk at this stage of the discussions deliberately. If I refer in this thread later this week to an asterisked message, this would be the one folks.

arunk
Posts: 3424
Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41

Post by arunk »

My 2 half-educated cents:

The role of the tonic is not merely as "ending" note nyAsa as DrS already pointed out.

IMHO, lingering on a note (even extra long) is not enough to give the perception of a tonic shift in cm i.e. as in sruthibedham. One way may be to emphasize it higher octave and perhaps more importantly avoid the tonic. But sruthi-bedham is not just a modal shift of tonic but also a shift in raga, which changes the intonation (gamakas) of the swaras as a result of the shift. The listener perception of shift in tonic would be only after the new raga is recognized, that is after the intonation is changed. Shifting without changing the intonation would do nothing - perhaps be neither here nor there.

Arun

Post Reply