Insiders' perspectives on limitations of CM

adiaphor · Post by **adiaphor** » 06 Jan 2009, 06:40

Hi all! I write as someone who is deeply interested in the ways people strive to transform the traditions they're trained in, as well as dialogue among traditions. It's my opinion that fusion efforts tend to fail when musicians do it "just because they can", as opposed to finding in other traditions something that answers their needs as individuals...and which their own system cannot provide. I've found in CM certain things that answer my own needs, as an outsider coming from a very different background. What I'm interested in here is how CM aficionados and practitioners view the limitations of their own system, and how they might seek to remedy those limitations either by transforming CM internally or by explicitly borrowing from other genres. Have any of you had experiences as CM performers such that CM just cannot satisfy you, no matter how broadly and deeply you plumb it? What does it most lack that you most need?

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 06 Jan 2009, 12:49

Excellent questions. Are you me ?!

I am a dabbler in Carnatic musical instruments and an on-and-off avid listener of Western Classical Music. My favorite genres are baroque (Bach, Bach, Bach !) and romantic (Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms). For the purposes of this discussion it is adequate to regard the whole of WCM as a monolith.

Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses as well as degeneration of the original idiom due to sloppiness in practice. So when we speak of "limitations", we should distinguish between what I perceive as actual limitations of the genre itself from variations/defects in contemporary practice.

The great violin maestro L Shankar reaches me most effectively when I stand at these musical crossroads.

When I get time, I will come back to this thread and flesh out the following sub-headings. "If" I get time

.

Limitations of the Carnatic genre (no complaints, just natural observations)
=====================================================

Lack of variation in color
Lack of harmony

Variations/Defects in contemporary Carnatic practice (or "it doesn't have to be this way")
==============================================================

Too much melodic ornamentation (gamakas gone wild)
Too much rhythmic complexity (thathinginathom gone wild)
Disappearence of minimalist schools

Pure artistic expression compromised by factors extraneous to "art" such as:
a) too much intellect
b) too much so-called "bhava"
c) too much "bhakti"

rajeshnat · Post by **rajeshnat** » 06 Jan 2009, 12:57

Uday_Shankar wrote: Disappearence of minimalist schools

Uday,
Do you mean to say that few rare schools of music like Chitoor subramania pillai have disappeared, I did not get what you meant here, can you throw more light.?

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 06 Jan 2009, 13:14

rajesh,

In very different ways, flute Mali and D K Pattamal were the kind of minimalists I was thinking about. Certainly Chittoor Subramania Pillai too. In HM, Kumar Gandharva was one. Don't get me wrong. I love listening to "maximalists" of different varieties too.

As a parallel, in my thinking, in WCM, Mozart may be classified as a minimalist while a Tchaikovsky or Wagner may be classified as a "maximalist" !

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 06 Jan 2009, 13:39

Is there such a thing as too much bhava or bhakti?

adiaphor · Post by **adiaphor** » 07 Jan 2009, 00:01

Wow Uday, nice post. I really look forward to your expanded version. When you mention "Lack of variation in color", are you talking about timbre? Dynamics? One CM friend did tell me that he hadn't encountered any explicit manipulation of timbre in the system.

The theme of your "contemporary practice" points seems to be hyper-complexification of the music. As for intellect vs. bhava vs. bhakti, I find your listing all three intriguing since I would assume they balance each other out neatly. Does this mean that all three are often taken to extremes at the expense of the musical product? I'd also wonder what you mean by "art" if these three are extraneous to it...I would have assumed that "bhava" by itself approximates the essence of art pretty closely.

As for the idea of "excessive bhakti", I have to confess the use of this term has struck me as an idealization by CM aficionados. Devotion is a state of mind internal to the performer; what the audience perceives is emotional intensity simpliciter. I usually hear "bhakti" invoked in opposition to emotionally denatured music, to which "devotion" is far from the only antidote.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 07 Jan 2009, 02:03

adiaphor wrote:Have any of you had experiences as CM performers such that CM just cannot satisfy you, no matter how broadly and deeply you plumb it? What does it most lack that you most need?

I hesitated about posting what I am about to, especially after seeing Uday's post, but then decided that I have to practice what I preach (developing a thick skin!), so here goes.

The statement above gave me pause, becuase, IMO (and just mine), when this happens to a performer of art forms like CM or bharatanATyam (and other Indian art forms), it is time to call it a day and move on.....

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 07 Jan 2009, 09:52

rshankar...would definitely be interested in hearing more from you.

adiaphor, still too short on time and too muddled in my head but I will definitely come back, perhaps this weekend. I am very uncomfortable and clumsy writing about "touchy-feely" stuff.

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 07 Jan 2009, 10:13

bahudari · Post by **bahudari** » 07 Jan 2009, 11:13

I would say the teaching method should be more focused on learning by the ear. I am not generalizing it. But with limited exposure i've, generally teaching CM is more book oriented. Probably there are chances that a student can sing a short alapane without knowing the swara sthanas Or probably unable decipher the swara sthanas when a kriti is sung in a different pathanthram. Not sure whether it makes any sense in this thread.

svkashyap · Post by **svkashyap** » 07 Jan 2009, 11:18

@bahudari

I feel your point is more relevant to instrumentalists especially accompanying artists. Can elder members please comment on it?

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 07 Jan 2009, 12:01

CM "has become" totally artificial at the professional level. Its like machines manufacturing music on the assembly-line.

babaji · Post by **babaji** » 07 Jan 2009, 22:12

If one would ask me (we are are not asking you)....ahem i know that but still i would like to say something in this free world.

As far as something lacking in carnatic music is concerned i would'nt say the lack is there in the system as such but in the minds of certain singers and the majority of the listeners.that is the real lack.

Otherwise that cosmic nadam or sangeetham was always there.No theory to classify it.no geniuses to explain it.It was always there.

Once one fellow asked me "how are you able to appreciate this music because nobody can easily understand it" for which i replied "i don't understand it either but nevertheless it is pleasing me and i like it".this thing is what is lacking in people.
Trying to mug books and theory too much spoils the thing as earlier it did'nt want to possess all this.But mathematics is fun and very useful thing in this art.

they say its too much gimmicks or too much mathematics.but the reverse can be said as well if one uses them minimally.so what is that perfect combination..................

NONE there is no such thing as normal or medium or anything in this art or for that matter anything.it just happens.when i was small boy my own parents who (soo called purists) forbid anything that was not real classical music in their likes such as maharajapuram santhanam,M.S.subhalakshmi,D.K.pattamal,Semmangudi srinivasa iyer and others were astounded when i could produce with astouding likeness the subtle variations in swaras the brigas and almost difficult passages with ease in the likes of G.N.B ,Kalyanaraman,seshagopalan ,T.K.rangachari and others i would reply"whats so tough about it it just came naturally i a small boy without any knowledge am able to appreciate it why not you".i believe this is the real lack.

i accept Manodharma is a recent word.but today we are trying to putting a birdcage of a limit to manodharma by pointing our fingers and quoting authority as if we slept, ate with those who created this music.

i would also warn anybody do not listen to those who say that this is real kalyani and this is real kharakarapriya and real shankarabharanam.because they just created it to create hype and popularity for certain musicians who thought cunningly to create sensationalism around them.
these people speak like they have actually seen and realised rag ragini devatas all the time.

Truth is that Thyagaraja or dikshitar were first enlightened souls before becoming musicians.so they had the right to say "sangeetha gnyanamu bhakti vina sanmargamu galade manasa".now i am asking before purandaradasa said mayamalavagowla to be the raga taught and studied first, is it a thing that nobody before knowing all these things ever composed any songs or music for that matter.did'nt jayadeva compose,did'nt oothhukkadu compose.now i know they will say sarngadeva already did it and matanga already did it.then i will go even further.did'nt alwars and nayanmars compose songs in various ragas.i will go even backward.was'nt sama veda eternal as they say.so therefore i don't believe when they say that a certain artist is creating limitations rather i would say the listener or you are creting this limitation.

@UDAY SHANKAR
"Limitations of the Carnatic genre (no complaints, just natural observations)
=====================================================

Lack of variation in color
Lack of harmony"

truthfully speaking carnatic music actually has harmony its called thribinnam if you look up to sarangadevas work in the chapter murchannas you will find the word Tribhinnim(harmony) in it.
i don't know whether it came from the west first or it went all the way to the west from here.all i can say is it is forgotten in carnatic classical music.

As for variation in color well i don't see any colours its what the mind perceives.

And as for bhava well i don't want to be overly erratic but i have to say that bhava is basically any expression.so anything a person sings with his/her expression can be called bhava laden.the same goes for bhakti and also for intellect.

I have said a lot of things pertaining to this post and if people felt a lot was not well i am not going to be sorry or apologise to anybody as i know my opinion is factual.but whether one takes it seriously or casually is their interest.

"Human beings are a bunch of sheep.i used to be in that flock of sheep, but i ran away so its no surprise that everyone else thinks i'm insane or, at the least, abnormal. and i think the same about them. Only one of us can be right."Anonymous

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 07 Jan 2009, 23:36

Darn...long post lost to an unfortunate combination of keystrokes...let me strip away to the gist - as a fundamental/instrinsic weakness, I can't think of any. I am yet to come across any form of music that comes anywhere near the sophistication of CM, period. If that sounds jingoistic, I would like to remind readers of the utter contempt I reserve for certain other forms of Indian art - cinema for example, especially Tamil cinema, comes to mind immediately

Uday's complaint against intellectualism is actually the basis of my own respect for carnatic music and IMO, defines classicism in a way that western "classical" music cannot (I may be wrong on this one and am happy to be corrected) although I acknowledge his point about allowing the intellect to stifle artistic expression.

It is, however, worth noting that the Indian system is unique in that an intellectual conception, such as a raga, is also an aesthetic construct.
Western classical music is, as far as I understand, driven purely by the aesthetics of harmonic music - thus any intellectual framework is a derivative or a codification of aesthetically appealing experiences. In Indian music, on the other hand, complex structures of melody and rhythm have propelled aesthetic development through sheer force of the intellect. An example is the melakartha scheme (Ramki may recall our conversation at the Amethyst!) where an exercise in combinatorics has led to development of original melodies such as Charukeshi, Chakravakam and several other "WIP" ragas such as Dharmavathi

. There are also several examples in the rhythm department - the consonant tuning of the mrudangam itself maybe a case in point. Kanakkus and Pallavis, more certainly so. Finally, I find it mind-bogging that the intensely emotional outpourings of Thyagaraja or Shyama Shastri also conform to very precise, indeed scholarly, definitions of rhythm and melody. It is this rare combination of the intellectual, the aesthetic and the spiritual that, IMHO, places CM in splendid isolation.

To a lesser extent, this is also true of HM which is purer in terms of execution or practice but has not benefited from the intellectual rigor of the South Indian mind. However the theoretical base of the two systems is so similar that the open minded Hindustani ustad can profit from practically all of the considerable research of his Dravidian counterpart. Similarly deficiencies that have crept into the practice of CM can be rectified by imbibing the puritanical spirit of the North Indians in matters such as sruthi suddham, as Coolji has pointed out in his post.

Coming to the other deficiencies pointed out by the others (for I must admit that I was not able to come up with an "original" flaw), the lack of harmony (which is a term I have never completely understood - I am hoping Anil's CD will change that and do hope it will be out soon!) is, from what little I know, a peculiarity of the system itself and a similar charge about lack of melody can be conversely levied against the western system. I must concede, however , that my appreciation of western classical music was, to the extent it lasted, based almost completely on the appeal of the underlying refrains rather than the harmonics involved - for example I enjoyed compositions such as Beethoven's Number 5, Mozart's Number 40, The Swan Lake etc. primarily because of their catchy tunes. Since these are also among the more popular compositions in the West, I am left wondering whether our ear for melody is really, as sometimes claimed, a uniquely Indian socio-psychological trait. Or perhaps there is a certain harmonic content in these tunes that the lay ear enjoys without being able to discern. Help!

Colour - is this meant in a chromatic sense? In this case it really lies beyond the pale of my understanding...In a general sense, however, I see Indian music as more "colourful" than the rather formal presentations of western composers.

On minimalism which adequately captures Uday's other points on bhakti, bhava, intellect and ornamentations, I certainly see a trend in which the diktats of the market is leading to an erosion of faith in the value of restraint (I am guilty of this myself, at times!). However it is not clear how Mali fits into this scheme of things - I have not heard as much of him as I know Uday has, but wasn't he known for his extensive raga elaboration besides occasional laya trips?

Several interesting viewpoints have emerged - I hope to see this thread evolve and particularly look forward to Uday's "more detailed" post!

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 08 Jan 2009, 00:16

Vijay, as usual, an awesome post....

rshankar wrote:
adiaphor wrote:Have any of you had experiences as CM performers such that CM just cannot satisfy you, no matter how broadly and deeply you plumb it? What does it most lack that you most need?
I hesitated about posting what I am about to, especially after seeing Uday's post, but then decided that I have to practice what I preach (developing a thick skin!), so here goes.

The statement above gave me pause, becuase, IMO (and just mine), when this happens to a performer of art forms like CM or bharatanATyam (and other Indian art forms), it is time to call it a day and move on.....

Uday_Shankar wrote:rshankar...would definitely be interested in hearing more from you.

Since I am nowhere near Vijay's league in terms of expressing my point succintly and eloquently, please bear with me

.

I made the point above based purely on my response to CM - it has nothing to do with appreciation for the technical virtuosity of the performance, or the intellect behind the presentation. By and large, to me, it is a process by which an epxerience (hopefully a happy, and contended one) is communicated to me by the performer, and I react insticntively to it (gut reaction if you will). I understand that this is very unlike the vast majority of members in this forum, whose technical knowledge is so profound that I feel like an imposter in their company.

So, to me, if the performer is not satisfied with their art, no matter how broadly and deeply they plumb it, it is that very same emptiness that will be communicated to me, which is certainly not what I am interested in. The same thing seems to be amplified in classical dance as well - to me, there is nothing more disturbing than to watch a 'doubting' dancer. This visceral reaction to art is also what determines what 'kind' of music and dance I enjoy and appreciate.

These are the ideas and reactions that prompted me to say that should that situation arise, these artists who are not satisfied with their art, would be better of hanging up their spurs, so to speak.

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 08 Jan 2009, 00:34

On second thoughts Ravi, bombastic and grandiloquent might be better descriptions of my post - the minimalist in Uday will not be pleased

Your point is abolutely valid however - art should primarily appeal to the heart and debates on technical merits are meaningless when one has stopped enjoying his/her art - whether as a rasika or as a performer...it is time, then, to move on.

I know some people who were passionately involved in CM but just got plain bored somewhere down the line...some complain about declining standards - perhaps in some cases this is really true...others are honest enough to accept that they've simply lost interest. I hope I don't join them one day...

babaji · Post by **babaji** » 08 Jan 2009, 00:53

@rshankar
"So, to me, if the performer is not satisfied with their art, no matter how broadly and deeply they plumb it, it is that very same emptiness that will be communicated to me, which is certainly not what I am interested in. The same thing seems to be amplified in classical dance as well - to me, there is nothing more disturbing than to watch a 'doubting' dancer. This visceral reaction to art is also what determines what 'kind' of music and dance I enjoy and appreciate.

These are the ideas and reactions that prompted me to say that should that situation arise, these artists who are not satisfied with their art, would be better of hanging up their spurs, so to speak."

But the truth is no matter the artist is overjoyed or in awe of his/her own music people nevertheless are going to say foul things about him/her or they just don't care because their knowledge of carnatic music is purely driven by their X'S and Y'S poster boys of carnatic music so thereby they will only listen to what they say and sing and will not give a damn for any other artist innovating or presenting anything new even if it is 5000 year old tradition.its meaningless to them because they suffice their knowledge with X AND Y vidwans and vidushis.

Hence before we come to a conclusion we better listen with an open mind without the previous theoritical knowledge that we possess and begin our listening anew with new people and then we will i hope get the meaning of carnatic music.because nowdayas people seem to stick with one thats all.

Like i said the child without any theoritical knowledge loves the complicated music its exposed to.its only the adult mind that confuses itself with whats and what nots.

@vijay
"arn...long post lost to an unfortunate combination of keystrokes" so isee that we both have been writing together hahaha no wonder.i lost my post at first as well

we speak as if we know the art but let me ask who are we to say that the artist if not confident with his/her own art would be better off hanging their spurs, unless we encourage them and motivate them these things just don't happen.we encourage only the poster boys from whom alone we think music is flowing like necter.but the fact is due to knowledge available everywhere anybody can speak like you and me so therefore its meaningless to accuse an artist who can sing and you who cannot.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 08 Jan 2009, 03:39

Babaji,

I think you may be missing the point of this thread...If I understand the OP, this was created to discuss perceived deficiencies in CM - and how one responds to it, both as a performer, as well as a rasika - and probably as a way to rationalize the genre of fusion music as well. As a self-confessed, very imperfect rasika who knows very little of the art, I felt that if the artist did not feel connected with the music, then, to me, that artist better find something else to do. It has NOTHING to do with how someone may wrongly or rightly criticize their music.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 08 Jan 2009, 03:40

vijay wrote: I hope I don't join them one day...

Me too

gn.sn42 · Post by **gn.sn42** » 08 Jan 2009, 04:00

vijay wrote: It is, however, worth noting that the Indian system is unique in that an intellectual conception, such as a raga, is also an aesthetic construct.
Western classical music is, as far as I understand, driven purely by the aesthetics of harmonic music - thus any intellectual framework is a derivative or a codification of aesthetically appealing experiences. In Indian music, on the other hand, complex structures of melody and rhythm have propelled aesthetic development through sheer force of the intellect. An example is the melakartha scheme (Ramki may recall our conversation at the Amethyst!) where an exercise in combinatorics has led to development of original melodies such as Charukeshi, Chakravakam and several other "WIP" ragas such as Dharmavathi .
...
It is this rare combination of the intellectual, the aesthetic and the spiritual that, IMHO, places CM in splendid isolation.

I would disagree. The melakarta scheme is equally derivative - it was an attempt to provide structure to an aesthetic that had already evolved. As it found acceptance, practitioners naturally use this structure as the basis for future work. Most language grammars, for example, are first developed as a way to set down what people's speech is like; and if this is accepted, the grammar is taught to students and becomes central to the language.

Also, you've thrown "spiritual" in there without actually discussing it. WM and other musics do have extensive spiritual or religious histories, so that by itself shouldn't be considered unique.

vijay wrote: the intellectual rigor of the South Indian mind.

Please.

adiaphor · Post by **adiaphor** » 08 Jan 2009, 04:40

Coolkarni - I am a little unsure what you mean in your discussion of CM musicians using HM ragas. Are you pointing toward a fundamental misunderstanding of the way manodharma takes place in HM, leading to superficial rendition of HM ragas? (Which may indicate that crossover between these two systems is not to be taken lightly.)

Vijay - I have a couple things to say in response to your post. I have long had a deep appreciation for the rigor and general capacities of CM, but I am very hesitant to rank musics on a unified scale of "sophistication". If there's anything my experience with different traditions has taught me, it's that the wonders of particular musics are generally best appreciated from within, rather than from without. Sophistications are also of different kinds. I have defended Indian melodic sophistication against someone (Indian, incidentally) who considered the piano the supreme instrument, and I have also had my brains blown out by western musicians heavily into harmonic theory who talked like it was the most staggeringly creative and wondrous force in the universe.

One thing one often hears from IM aficionados is that Western classical music has simplistic melodies--technically this is correct, at least in the "high classical period" from about 1750 to 1825. But there are enormous quantities of Western art music in many genres that possess more melodic sophistication than, say, Mozart, and anyway the past three hundred years of Western music have not really been about melody anyway. I am very much an outsider to Western art music, but I've generally been impressed by how serious and vast an art it seems to be. Incidentally, I wonder how IM aficionados would respond to more melodically-driven, but still highly polyphonic, European music from earlier centuries, especially medieval. Todd McComb, perhaps the most articulate Western CM fan on the net, seems to have an almost equal appreciation for 15th-century music.

About insider vs. outsider status...as an outsider to CM, I have my own "guesses" as to what I might find deficient about it if I were a performer/rasika. Namely a fixed tonic, insufficient modulation, and insufficient microtonality. At which point I cheerfully mention that Middle Eastern (Arab and Turkish especially) classical music remedies all of these lacks; I like the rhetorical figure this cuts, though it's also factual. But no insider to CM has had the same response. The idea of movable tonic in particular strikes most CMers as unintelligible.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 08 Jan 2009, 06:50

'fixed tonic' is a foundational aspect of the system. If that is a deficiency, we have to accept it and move on since that is what the system itself is based on. I am having difficulty comprehending how the concept of a raga and the emotion and imagery that we learn to associate with it can co-exist in a movable tonic system or a no-tonic system.

What do you mean by "insufficient modulation?"

adiaphor · Post by **adiaphor** » 08 Jan 2009, 06:58

I find it very intriguing when some Indian musicians perform without the drone present. The ones that spring to mind are Imrat Khan and occasionally Ravikiran. Ravikiran's performance of Satatam Tavaka on his "Tributes" CD is fascinating to me because, to an ear not trained to understand the contours of Kharaharapriya, he seems to be adopting different pitches as phrase-enders. Settling on different pitches over the course of a melody is characteristic of most modal-melodic music from west of India, but I assume "the mind of Ravikiran" was still thinking as though the drone was present. Maybe I should ask him...ah facebook.

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 08 Jan 2009, 07:10

adiaphor · Post by **adiaphor** » 08 Jan 2009, 10:43

VK - "insufficient modulation"...remember again this is just my "hunch" were I to be a CM performer. The intended contrast is with Middle Eastern classical, which modulates frequently into different maqamat (ragas, roughly) in the course of a single song or improv. The modulations can be anywhere from blaringly obvious to ingeniously subtle, and there may be many of them in a tight space. The only remotely CM thing I can think of that approximates this is that famous, rather insane 1980 ragamalika from L. Shankar, towards the end where the raga transitions come so fast that it's no longer trying to be anything like a traditional ragamalika. (At first I was going to reference the part where he does korapu with himself, but the modulations there are much more reminiscent of Western techniques.) I've always found this aspect of the Arab-Turkish traditions felicitous, and wondered if I would ever yearn for it if I were "stuck" in the zero-modulation Indian framework. I don't suppose anybody here ever feels "stuck" in a world with no modulations...? Ragamalika hardly counts in my book since it's exactly that: just a garland of self-complete raga treatments strung together. Modulation can do much more powerful things.

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 08 Jan 2009, 12:25

GSN - I agree with you that the Melakartha Scheme was the result of "providing structure to an aesthetic" as you put it...I was talking about what happened next - when a Thyagaraja used ideas emerging from the system into unique melodic concepts. It is debatable whether he would have picked on Charukeshi or Vagadeeshwari if he did not have the benefit of the melakartha scheme...I reiterate, debatable, but not unthinkable. This tradition has only gained momentum since Venkatamakhin's days with the Trinity's works and texts such as the Sampradaya Pradarshini providing a formidable theoretical framework for raga lakshanas...thus, creative impulses directed towards the development of a melody need to beware of treading on the territories of other ragas. Although this cannot be entirely avoided and I tend to be a little skeptical of the absoluteness/inviolability of raga lakshanas, it is nevertheless an example of the intellect driving aesthetics...there may, however, be parallels in other forms of music that I am not aware of...

Adiaphor - it would be interesting to find out which form of music you are not an "outsider" to since WCM and CM have already been crossed out! Hindustani, perhaps? Responding to your point, it might seem odious to compare forms of music but a relative evaluation of merits and de-merits can be educative. In fact your original post seeks a commentary on "deficiencies"

Rishikesh · Post by **Rishikesh** » 08 Jan 2009, 12:45

Limitations in CM:

I have been listening to so many CM performers and I feel there are no limitations. Many of us would agree that exploration possibilities exist. There are still areas wherein the exploration has not even started. Anything is possible whether it is to do with fixed tonic or modulation. Any music whether it is Western, Indonesian, Japanese or Chinese, Arabic or Turkish we can still find a distant connection to our CM. We only need to have an open mind and encourage explorations in our own system. Even if we consider the basic melakarta ragas(w/o considering the janya ragas) there are many which rasikas might not have explored from the listening pleasure point of view. I understand that about 50% of the melakartha ragas out of 72 are vivadi ragas which CM artists are not allowed to explore in to since the normal rasikas prefer rakti ragas like thodi, sankarabaranam, etc

Somebody may pls correct me if I am wrong.

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 08 Jan 2009, 12:51

More than 50% - in fact 40 out of the 72 melas are vivadhis!

babaji · Post by **babaji** » 08 Jan 2009, 15:08

rshankar wrote:Babaji,

I think you may be missing the point of this thread...If I understand the OP, this was created to discuss perceived deficiencies in CM - and how one responds to it, both as a performer, as well as a rasika - and probably as a way to rationalize the genre of fusion music as well. As a self-confessed, very imperfect rasika who knows very little of the art, I felt that if the artist did not feel connected with the music, then, to me, that artist better find something else to do. It has NOTHING to do with how someone may wrongly or rightly criticize their music.

Ravi shanakar i believe i have already answered this question in my first post as the limitation is not in the music but limitation is in the listener or the rasika.
If you would be kind enough to go through my first post in this topic you will definitely find the relevance

As far as fusion music is concerned any two or more systems of music or i can also say styles of music meeting together can also be called fusion music.there can be no rationalizing in fusion music.but i have this to say those artists who create fusion music today give us only 25-50% of what they have been listening to and influenced by.
therefore if one has to listen to good fusion music i believe one must search for that on their own.I have found several gems in this way.
With regard to criticizing music well it does exist.i believe critic is what decides whether the music is good or bad.so if i had included it i believe i had done it with a purpose to provide the intention that what we listen to is not everything but everything we listen to is the real thing. i.e, without going through everything we will not be able to forecast the limitations in our music i believe a really thorough approach has to be dealt here.

so i rest my case that the limitation is not in the music but in the rasika or listener.Like how elders say taste is not in the food but in our tongue.

babaji · Post by **babaji** » 08 Jan 2009, 15:29

i don't see how one can connect with the music.it is what the artist does how do you know it how can you see how he's connecting with his music?

Okay then let me say if i were to think like you, connecting music means the audience must appreciate and acknowledge the music given by the artists.

another way is that the artist connects with music so well that he is lost in a trance and enters samadhi.

I have not perceived the latter but the former has happened.we have numerous account of how rasikas say that he connected his music with us so we enjoyed.i will have to disagree on this because its human instinct.

For example i give you a scenario where there are a bus load of people in a bus but they are blind and they give us music by playing it in megaphones.you don't pay any attention to it but the next second a bomb goes off 10 feet away from you you turn immediately and realize it.so if i have to put it short it is what the mind forces the person to listen to at that moment of time.

I don't understand how a blind person can really know what bhava means because he has not seen anything and therefore he need not know bhava in this case i am talking of expressions not feelings.likewise a deaf cannot know what is music as he cannot hear anything.

So going to a concert and expecting that the artist is supposed to provide bhava,intellect,sruthi suddham according to you at that moment is just impossible.and by listening to that music you cannot come to a conclusion that THE SYSTEM HAS A LACK.IN THE WORDS OF T.R.SUBRAMANYAM "MUSIC IS A HAPPENING, IT MUST HAPPEN"so nobody can connect to the music with an intention that is the magic of music.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 08 Jan 2009, 16:56

Ragamalika hardly counts in my book since it's exactly that: just a garland of self-complete raga treatments strung together. Modulation can do much more powerful things.

OK, that is what I figured you are referring to but wanted to make sure.

For a Raga music, being primary focussed on Raga is its thing. There are other powerful things, no doubt, but then it is no-longer a raga music by definition. So, though it is fair to think in terms of powerful modulations, removing such 'dificiency' from Indian classical music pretty much means robbing itsef of its identity. A different system emerges. I do not think a practising indian musician would consider raga music a limitation since that is he/she practises.

It is possible I may not be catching on to the core of what you are saying.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 08 Jan 2009, 19:49

This topic is too heavy to read while in the midst of a jet lag, with ears clogged up due to cold etc. - but to me the limitations are
(a) not much variation in theme. There is basically bhakthi monopoly (not 100% but > 90%).
(b) Creativity isn't completely unfettered (but this is a catch-22 due to our "attachment to tradition" - oxymoronic from a Hindu philosophy perspective

Arun

babaji · Post by **babaji** » 08 Jan 2009, 23:00

Arunk to a certain extent has hit jackpot.Its attachment to some so called tradition that has actually curbed the true elements of manodharma sangeetham. and due to that our system seems like it lacks.And however hinduism had nothing to do with it.

Coolkarniji with regard to your post on CM musicians trying to copy and present HM in their concerts i believe you are referring to Tiruchur brothers who sang an RTP in rag jog recently.However to tell you the truth i was'nt present to listen to it.or you are reffering to something else.it does'nt matter.

If you have heard of the Late PT.Balaram pathak a sitar maestro based in calcutta.He was the first to introduce ragas like latangi,charukesi,amrt varshini,asaweri and ahiri to the north indian audience.Now if they can take carnatic ragas then why can't our musicians borrow from the same.

As far as i am concerned both our music systems are the same except for a few differences which are not technically big.The bifurcation arrived only after the Mughal era until then our system was only one.Inclusion of hindustani music in our repertoire is in no way going to remove our real musical identities.We have wikipedia anyway to tell us the history and geography of our music system anyway.so broadly speaking limitations need not exist.

With regard to western music many have used words like polyphonic,harmonic and other fancy words.but the truth is sarangadeva has mentioned about harmony in his book sangita ratnakara.so it is still a mystery why our composers did'nt try their hand at it especially dikshitar whio was really exposed to western classical music and also composed the nottu swaras and on top of it he was a vainika.Strange very strange.

gn.sn42 · Post by **gn.sn42** » 09 Jan 2009, 00:40

vijay,

I entirely agree that the melakarta framework is valuable - I was simply pointing out that it was based on actual musical practice. We find this soft of thing in various fields - I mentioned language grammars - where the theoretical framework arises out of popular usage, and once accepted, spurs more elaborate creations. Another example is the periodic table of elements - once it was accepted, its "holes" could be examined to identify new elements. Similarly, in other forms of music, certain structures and conventions develop; and creativity is inspired by the restrictions and rules of those structures. Comparisons are difficult, and rankings are impossible, but most classical music systems have well-established theories - this is probably a central element in what makes a music "classical".

As an aside, you mention a huge body of research in CM - what are some good sources for this? I have come across some sources - this forum, other online articles, lec-dems, books by Vidya Shankar and KG Vijayakrishnan (the exceptional The Grammar of Carnatic Music - thanks to vainika in this forum), the frustrating Sambamoorthys - but would appreciate more information. (As a response to the OP, one limitation of CM is the lack of accessible books on theory to the English-speaking layman.)

Another limitation of CM is the jingoism of its fans!

I would hesitate to rank things like rhythm, vocal athleticism, improvisation, and so on. On this forum, we are all appreciative of CM; however, we should recognize and learn about the characteristics of other music systems - the modal possibilities of Arabic maqam, the rhythmic complexities of Turkish usul, the comprehensive theoretical and educational framework of the Persian radif, and the variety of improvisational musics around the world (examples other than jazz? The above West Asian traditions, Senegalese drumming, Indonesian gamelan, American rap, etc.).

adiaphor · Post by **adiaphor** » 09 Jan 2009, 04:52

Vijay - your point about comparing the formal aspects of different musics is well-taken. The problem is that "sophistication" may not be a well-defined concept. When we talk about "sophistication" in the arts, what we're basically talking about is "intelligence", i.e. something the art-form does which strikes us as a good use of resources, surprising, flexible, etc. Among other distinctions, sophistication can reside either in a big formal toolbox OR in smart use made of a small formal toolbox. If melodic sophistication is thought to reside in a big formal toolbox for systematic improvisation, IM might indeed easily beat all competition. But if sophistication instead resides in coming up with consistently surprising melodies within a very limited framework, try some pentatonic traditions like those from China. If sophistication involves the number of scales that can be used in a single cogent musical idea, then IM "fails" utterly since it has chosen to go to the other extreme--using just one scale for periods of up to an hour or more. From a Middle Eastern perspective, IM has "thrown in its lot" with non-modulating music but has therefore become extremely sophisticated at using single scales. From an IM perspective, meanwhile, Chinese music has "thrown in its lot" with pentatonicity but has therefore become extremely sophisicated at using simple scales.

Aside from formal analysis, the "point" of different musics differ. No matter the intelligence of a given system from a purely formal point of view, the ideological content of the music, its "meaning" and the effects it has on the audience, need also be considered as part of the overall package. What I am pressing for is that the recognition of "sophistication", while perhaps not entirely subjective, requires keeping track of a lot of variables.

About resting points in ragas: my point (poorly expressed) was that, without the drone present, resting definitively enough on Ri essentially makes it into a new, temporary tonic. The question of sa/tonic might be complicated enough that it should be discussed elsewhere. I'm probably also misusing the technical (WCM) sense of the word "tonic". I think "temporary sa", however odd that might sound, is what I'm after.

On microtonality, I have to confess that to my ear microtonal manipulations are less audible in CM than in HM. Though that might be because HM is more comfortable prolonging "dissonant" sounds. In any case, Arab-Turkish just blows away the competition on the sheer number of intervals they permit in scalar construction. The Turkish scale is theoretically constructed of eighth- or ninth-steps (my math is bad enough that I can't tell you how many divisions of the octave that makes), and while I don't know how this translates into modal practice, the modal practice itself seems to feature a dizzying array of intervals. Some of the vocal greats particularly from Iraq continue to leave me befuddled with their 1/3-flat pitches etc. Incidentally this is a style of octave-division that seems to go all the way back to Ancient Greece--I tried to study ancient Greek scales for a time but was left too slack-jawed by the exotic interval-sequences they preferred. (Even modern West Asian music doesn't use back-to-back quarter tones.)

But yet again one can't assume that more permissible microtones means more "sophistication" in the use of microtonality. Hence I don't mean in any way to argue that the Middle East is stronger here--just that it's an avenue worth exploring for Indian ears. In general I suspect that there is huge room for exploration between those two major music systems. In general I am tired (propaganda alert) of musicians all over the world assuming that WM is their only desirable/possible dialogue partner.

gn.sn42 - nice point about formal codification originally coming OUT OF bodies of practice, but then influencing future practice as a reference point. I'm a big fan of formal codification in this respect--it is a spur to creativity. Some systems of music I feel have been severely limited in their scope by a disinclination to codify formal theory--Chinese for instance.

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 09 Jan 2009, 12:25

GSN I think we are getting around to the same point...as for research papers, I wasn't necessarily referring to PhD theses although there's a lot of that as well. By research I mean all the treatises going back to Sarngdeva including such landmarks as the Venkatamakhin, the Samppradaya Pradarshini and the entire body of the Trinity's works which can be looked at as an encycopedia of raga lakshanas. I don't want to pretend that I've read all of these - so I may not be of much help to you there since you seem quite knowledgeable yourself. I am sure other forum members may be able to help - maybe we should open a separate thread for important research work in Indian music.

Adiaphor - I think I am unable to absorb/respond to your points adequately because of my limitations as far as other musical forms are concerned. My only dalliance with musical theory has been in the carnatic/Indian context. I think I have a long way to go before I can participate in a meaningful dialogue - alas, I suspect one lifetime not be enough even to understand the complexities of CM! However if you can point out some online/other sources that can help me get acquainted with other major musical forms - Chines, Turkish, Arab, Persian etc., I would be grateful.

On microtonality however I would be very surprised if the division of the octave can get any finer than has been achieved by the Indians (although as I pointed out in my previous post, divisions beyond 12 tend run up against the limitations of the human ear - but 22 is the number that is usually thrown around). I am unable to follow you when you refer to 8th/9th step 1/3rd step etc. I would be grateful if someone could clarify how many divisions of the octave that implies.

Also there is nothing to show that HM is superior/inferior to CM in this aspect. As I've pointed out, the theory is much the same. Shruthi sense of Hindustani musicians is generally superior because of their training methods but even this is clouded because of their predominantly straight note structure.

I am curious about how the Chinese use simple pentatonic scales to come up with sophisticated melodies. I do not wish to sound jingoistic and I have the greatest respect for Chinese culture but their music does not seem to be very sophisticated even if we stretch the definition of the term. Perhaps my comment is akin to a westerner passing a judgment on Indian music after listening to Himesh Reshmaiyya! However I would like to know - maybe with the help of some clips (small please - my connection if very poor!) - what is special about it.

I have also heard the term "Maqam" in Arabic music and its similarity with ragas. Can someone explain using Indian terminology, what these mean and what exactly is the correspondence with scales/ragas?

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 09 Jan 2009, 13:55

BTW I managed to dig out some info on Maqams from http://www.maqamworld.com which I found easy to understand with audio samples
Overall the melodic theory is quite similar to Indian music. The main differences are:

Not as structured as the Indian approach - the classfication is certainly not as logical overall, although it has some strengths - it can be seen as a "pidi/pakkad" based approach to ragas which is just how the purists insist they should be developed! I suspect the development of maqams would be a lot more restricited than ragas esepcially south Indian ones.

Formal status to quarter tones which are not so recognized in Indian music although understood - in this regard it is can be seen as more inclusive. It is interesting to read about this just after I had dismissed the merit of going beyond 12 notes based on Dr. Vijayakrishnan's lecture! Tchah!! The Arabs may have some things to teach us here and I suspect a stint in Arabia would do wonders for Swara Gananam!

On modulation - as far as I could see it is nothing but getting Maqams through a set of rules on how constituent ajnas*are structured. It is something like taking the first half of Sankarabharanam and the second half of Mayamalavagowla and combining them into a raga - which is basically Sarasangi. In the Arabic context this is done by combining Ajam (Uttarangam of Shanakrabharanam) and Hijaz Ajnas (Purvangam of MMG) to get Maqam Shawq Afza which is nothing but Sarasangi. Seen in this context, it is certainly a part of the Indian tradition - only Indians work from an octave perspective and the Arabs from a Pidi/Pakkad/Ajnas perspective

I haven't yet gotten around to reading about rhythm yet. Will do soon....I am happy to be corrected on all of the points above - this is based on a very preliminary reading

*it is interesting how closely this word is related to angas which means much the same thing in Indian music - being of Sankritic non musical origin there is a case to believe that the Arabs borrowed some music along with maths from the Indians!)

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 09 Jan 2009, 19:42

The discussion seemed to have turned its focus on viewing the presence of some musical aspect in form X that is absent in form Y as a "hole" that can be filled in Y - thus somehow wanting a form like Y to be "all inclusive". To me, this seems similar to Akbar's attempt with religion. In this context, it seems that borrowing for the sake of borrowing ends up with something that has little resemblance to the original. That is still ok - but my point is that you may end up creating a new musical form Z rather than an enhanced, improved Y. What should also be considered is if what is to be borrowed compatible to the musical form Y - or is it oil added to water? So this not mean that forms shouldn't borrow from each other at all. For examples, a lecdem from Anil Srinivasan this season indicated to me that there is a way to weave harmony around a cm melody in a way to retain much of cm's musical identity (a nebulous term indeed) in that piece.

Arun

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 09 Jan 2009, 20:50

Arun you have a point - but Arab music and Indian music are both melodic so it is not exactly oil and water. Think of a Hindustani Raga adapted/adopted by a CM artiste (which was very much the flavour of this season) - there may be scope for some cross-pollination. I have done some more reading from the site mentioned above and it is fascinating how similar how the two systems are (although I've yet to hear a word of the music itself). Thanks for bringing this to my attention Adiaphor!

Adiaphor also has a point when he says there is not enough direct interaction between non-western musical schools (I suppose this is true of all arts/sciences) even though there may be more of a connect between the Arabic and Indian systems than say the Indian and Western ones.

I have finished classifying the Maqams as per the carnatic system - of the 35 Makhams listed in the site:

13 of them correspond to the carnatic melas Thodi, Mayamalavagowla, Sankarabharanam, Kiravani, Sarasangi, Natabhairavi, Chakravakam, Simhendramadhyamam, Shubha Pantuvarali and Hemavathi. Surprisingly Kalyani is not there

4 of them can be derived from the 12 notes in Indian music but do not follow the Melakartha scheme (2 madhyamas, no panchama etc.)

The others are "foreign" to our system because they explicitly use notes that are at quarter-tone intervals. You can play these scales on the site and see for yourself - yuo can certainly recognize it - it has a vivadhi like feel - maybe this is the true vivadhi and not how we understand it! The system has a total of 24 tones as against 22 that are recognized but not defined in the Indian system.

I also went through the time signatures and there too you have all the five nadais as per the Indian system as well as 11 and 13. Although how they are used would determine the complexity of the rhythm rather the mere number.

In all I think the Arabic system is certainly worth studying by musical scholars - especially from the point of swara gnanam. I can tell you that I almost lost the ability to tell even the standard 12 notes apart after I heard some of the scales!

I would enourage other members to go through the site and give their feedback.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 09 Jan 2009, 21:29

while this subjective, to me "both are melodic and hence compatible" may be somewhat simplistic - of course no harm in trying, and no reason to be summarily dismissive.

The borrowal from HM to CM added new combinations of the same (actually sub-set since it didnt include vivadi) swaras . Hence this is not that different from what was new that was brought to light by the mela system. Bringing in new sthanams is a more seismic event - but then again not that different from what was brought about by venkatamakhin i.e. again what was brought about by the mela system

Actually what SKR did with dvi-madhyama raga was an even lesser seismic event - but it gained no traction. That again I think could be tied to what I claimed as "creativity is not unfettered". Even vivadi swaras have found it tough among many circles due to our over-attachment to tradition (and to link many man created stuff to the divine and thus "sanctify" it - to give reason to strongly discourage change).

But the point that should be asked is what hole/limitation in CM does bringing in quarter tones fill?Is it just because it is unexplored in the CM context (and hence explorable)? That is like the rock climber's answer "because it is there"? While again, this itself isn't reason to be dismissive, I wonder if it is good enough a reason to be a "value add" of the musical form.

Arun

adiaphor · Post by **adiaphor** » 09 Jan 2009, 21:44

Divisions of the octave: I'm not sure exactly what audibility threshold is being referred to here, but Arab-Turkish music doesn't simply run all these small intervals together. Generally there are 7 pitches in the octave, and the question is simply how one "fine-tunes" these pitches. The most famous example I'll translate into CM lingo as "neutral ri", "neutral ga", etc. Maqam Rast is what happens when you start with Sankarabharanam and substitute neutral intervals for the high ga and ni. The fine-tuning of all the pitches in a scale can be very subtle but still quite audible because the intervals between the pitches are still roughly what they are in "normal" scales.

Modulation: it doesn't have to do with *construction* of the octave but with switching from one maqam to the next. I've spent some time on maqamworld as well and I don't recall this practice being a focus there. Switching from one maqam to the next does not simply involve keeping the same ladder of pitches and choosing a new "sa" (as with srutibhedam), but is better thought of as much faster and more integrated ragamalika. i.e....raga transitions that are coherent enough, and part of the same "idea", that it's not a malika at all.

The single form of "ajnas" is "jins", which looks much less inviting as a borrowed Sanskrit word.

I agree that my own presentation of "hunches" has somewhat changed the nature of this thread. Apologies, but perhaps a thread with two themes is better than a thread with one!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 09 Jan 2009, 21:55

There was a thread from a while back on maqam and its relevance to Indian Music. I can not locate that thread now.

adiaphor: If the topic of this thread is to compare and contrast maqam vs raga, I am all for it.
It is quite fascinating. A fundamental understanding of the two will be very useful.

But in the initial stages, I did not warm up to the general theme of the conversation which went something like this:
If (A) and (NOT A) are two things, (NOT A) is deficient just because it is not A.

But now I understand where you are going with this which is just fine.

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 09 Jan 2009, 22:49

Adiaphor after going through modulation again, I agree that it is not the same thing as the construction of a scale. But I think between raga-malika and modal shifts (graha/sruthi bedham), it is covered in Indian music although practised in a restrained manner because of the impact on raga bhava.

Hmm so my little addition to history's footnotes goes up in smoke

...jins could still be a corruption of ang and there is enough similarity between the 2 systems to suggest give and take at some point - as was indeed the case in other branches of science/art...but I agree that it is a rather premature conclusion to draw

On intervals I did notice that in some maqams - Bastanikar for instance the interval between the tonic and the preceding note is only a quarter tone although generally the objective seems to be to "tone" down fine intervals such as S-R1 and N3-S

gn.sn42 · Post by **gn.sn42** » 09 Jan 2009, 23:50

vijay, I don't think we disagree at all, except that you're mistaken in thinking I'm knowledgeable.

vasanthakokilam, this might be the thread that discussed maqams (among other things) earlier:
http://rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php? ... ities.html

There are several links there that might be of interest to the current discussion. However, I'm finding it hard to get English-language resources on the subject. The online articles at maqamworld and elsewhere hint at a much bigger and more structured body of work - if anyone knows of good English introductions to this, please post!

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 11 Jan 2009, 19:28

Thanks for the link GSN. I think VK has already captured much of what I posted above!

vidya · Post by **vidya** » 12 Jan 2009, 05:44

From the perspective of contemporary music I'd add the following as limitations:

1.Musical compositions composed largely for one voice

What I refer to here is not taking into account the key strengths of instruments and for multiple voices in musical compositions ( I do not mean harmony here) .This dimension has been there but used very rarely by one or two composers of the past but this is something the carnatic genre can certainly add to its rich feature set. (Examples: Some compositions like Sarasiruasanapriye being part of the vainika sampradaya and a few others generally being considered suitable for nagasvaram and the Swara sahitya concept (as rendered in duo by Brinda-Mukta).
2.Stagnation of compositional genre structures
The theme issue has already been beaten to death but what I am talking about is the lack of structural experimentation in compositions over the last 100 years. It is almost as if the krti, varnam and tillana genre and the current P-AP-C and its minor variants have become the end-point of evolution. I think the reason for this is the 'bounded creativity' Arun talks about.
3.Lack of or death of an operatic form
There have been folk theater, compositions modelled on operas (but not quite). Yet there really is no classical operatic form in practice today and even the ones are gradually being phased out. Whereas the opera is a living 'classical' tradition in China, Far East and the West. Given that we have operatic compositions(or close enough) like Pallaki Seva prabhandam or Nauka Caritramu they certainly can deserve a come back.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 12 Jan 2009, 07:24

Hi Adiaphor,

I am somewhat ill and slightly jet-lagged but I wonÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t get another opportunity anytime soon so here goes"¦

IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m not going to strictly follow the "outline"

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 12 Jan 2009, 10:55

Wow! What great observations, all! Keep them coming...

Rishikesh · Post by **Rishikesh** » 12 Jan 2009, 11:47

General:

There are two categories of rasikas. One, who like to listen to pleasing melodious cm immersed in tradition and (debatable?) bhava(sticking to the ragas normally presented with the usual phrases heard from time immemorial). Krithi renditions should be perfect as taught with regular sangathis in place, without any frills or attachments. Ofcourse, the voice should be perfectly aligned to the sruti. The second one, do not bother about the "voice problems". They mainly listen to cm with an expectation that something different(new ideas/phrases) would come out, ideas boldly presented by the uninhibited artists. The second category may include some of the artists themselves.

The human voice is not free of problems, especially during margazhi matham. It is unfair to expect an artist to always sing as the rasika expects. To an extent, we as rasikas, should not bind the artist to traditional singing. The artist should be allowed to experiment and explore to give out the best. As long as it is pleasing to the ears there should be no criticism. When TNS or BMK experiment with grhabedhams and sruti bedhams we do enjoy and feel the heavenly bliss. It is true that only when an artist with an involvement enjoys his own music that the rasika gets the best.

If I may be permitted to include one more category, this one can be labelled as "Die Hard Fans".

I do not know whether the above is relevant to the thread but I thought I would include the same.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 12 Jan 2009, 11:59

Sometimes, you will find rasikAs who belong to both the categories.