knowledge of telugu

saramati · Post by **saramati** » 11 Jan 2009, 17:13

knowledge of telugu helps you understand the meaning of thyagarajar krithis. I feel our vocalists, in addition to practising the songs and their voice, must also learn telugu, so that they can render the krithis with full understanding of the meaning, and thereby the bhavam.

mridangamkid · Post by **mridangamkid** » 11 Jan 2009, 19:55

agreed

srikrishna · Post by **srikrishna** » 11 Jan 2009, 21:03

I have found that senior vidwans seem to be very careful when it comes to diction; although Telugu does not seem to be their native tongue, I feel that they understand the words very well. However, the recent bunch pay lip service to the saahityam. The subtleties of the language are such that the meaning can be completely different if you do not pay attention. I will provide some examples here:

(1) taara -- star, daara -- wife, dhaara - flow (aaragimpave - todi)
(2) madya - alcohol, madhya - in between (in a lot of kritis such as nannu brovu - lalita)
(3) pirudu - bottom, birudu - title (in a lot of syama sastry and tyagaraja kritis)
(4) tarani - sun, dharani - earth (eesa pahimaam - kalyani)
(5) kshiti - earth, chiti - pyre (sriguruguha - suddha saveri)

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 12 Jan 2009, 00:49

You cannot learn Vedas without learning Sanskrit (vedic); similarly
how can one learn CM without learning (at least the basics of) Telugu ?
Since I know Tamil very well (sanskrit too!) I can observe whether artistes do padacchedam appropriately and most often they do! But after learning the telugu kritis through the courtesy of our Govindan I observe how atrociously the vidavaans break the sahitya! Very clearly they learn to sing like parrots without knowing the sahitya and are willing to kill it in favour of 'music'. I keep wondering how the Telugu public tolerate such a 'murder' without protesting while if it were to occur in Tamil there would be riots in TN. I can appreciate vidvaans from Andhra hesitating to sing Tamil kritis out of respect for the language. Why is it that the Telugus are not protesting?

sahitya · Post by **sahitya** » 12 Jan 2009, 07:14

Being a vocalist, I have always been educated by my Guru(s) to sing correct diction. The singer is taught the meaning of the song when he or she learns it from their Guru! Thats the first thing a Guru does while teaching a krithi. Im sure many of you will agree on this.
I definitely think Gurus correct the students when they mispronounce any word be it telugu,tamil or sanskrit. Learning, teaching,singing concerts, whatever level the singer is in, its a learning experience. If you are corrected once, you automatically are curious to know the meaning of the word, take it to the next level, apply the corrections to other songs etc.. if this is true even for an upcoming musician, Im 200% sure, the musicians who are in the limelight will definitely know what they are singing! Esp. thyagaraja krithis are so beautiful that anyone who sings it will naturally be interested to learn the meaning of the krithis.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 12 Jan 2009, 08:09

Can we come up with the most common 100+ telugu words in Carnatic compositions along with their meaning ( contextual meanings where required )? That will be fun and also be very useful for lay rasikas to quickly get on board telugu sahitya.

gobilalitha · Post by **gobilalitha** » 12 Jan 2009, 08:41

we are aware that a very senior vidwan had found fault with thyagaraja swamigal's(tamilised pronunciation, having lived in Thanjavur)kritis gobilalitha

saramati · Post by **saramati** » 12 Jan 2009, 12:11

recently i heard malladi brothers render the thyagarajar krithi - nannu palimpa in mohanam ragam. Thesong could appreciated and enjoyed thoroughly soaked in the nuances of rick mohanm, because of their grip over the telugu language. I then realised that palimpa should be a single word, and not nannupa limpa.

saramati · Post by **saramati** » 12 Jan 2009, 12:12

sorry for the typing error. pl read it as rich mohanam

sridhar_ranga · Post by **sridhar_ranga** » 12 Jan 2009, 12:14

vasanthakokilam wrote:Can we come up with the most common 100+ telugu words in Carnatic compositions along with their meaning ( contextual meanings where required )? That will be fun and also be very useful for lay rasikas to quickly get on board telugu sahitya.

Let us do this in the languages thread! I have started a thread for people to post 100+ teleugu words + meanings to help in our understanding of telugu compositions here:

http://rasikas.org/forums/post103957.html#p103957

Thanks in advance.

saramati · Post by **saramati** » 12 Jan 2009, 12:19

similarly some of our vidwans also appear to have a predisposed bias against pronouncing sa in the sahityam All the sa are pronounced as sha.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 12 Jan 2009, 19:21

Not bias but ignorance, I guess.

Good idea, VK and thanks, sridhar_rang.

Govinda Rao's book of tyAgarAjA's krutis also has a glossary with oft occuring words.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 12 Jan 2009, 22:00

Here is my speculation.
The Tamil songs were tuned by Tamils who knew the meaning and did the padcchedams appropriately. For example P Sivan took care to compose the songs elegantly and took care to teach them without marring the sense of the language. Same is the case with Koteesvara Iyer. Again the songs of P Thooran, Ambujam Krishna, Bharathiyar, Sudhananda Bharathi, ... whose songs were tuned by Veteran Tamils who made sure that the import is conveyed appropriately.

In the case of Sanskrit, most of the early vidvaans knew the language and they mades sure that the words were not twisted or broken (but for some noted exceptions which usually will be noticed and corrected by the listeners many of whom knew sanskrit very well).

Kannada kritis are new-comers in TN and were tuned and sung and taught by vidvaans who made sure that the meaning was not mangled (I don't know for sure but have not heard complaints so far). Any way Purandara songs are age-old and have survived through karNa parampara.

In the case of Telugu, originally all the sishyas of Thyagaraja/SS knew (mother tongue) the language and had learned directly or through direct shishyas. But the later vidvaans in TN did not know the language (SSI/MMI/CVB/..) but learned from gurus who knew the language, but they have introduced modifications from musical perspective that are mostly inappropriate from the language perspective. They knew perhaps the over-all meaning of the kritis but not necessarily the pada artham. Even if they knew the artham they varied it to accommodate the music. For example take the famous 'sAmaja vara gamanA..'
The first word sAmaja (elephant) cannot be split. But they sing it as:
S,M,-MGS,(sA-maja..) (meaning 'that bone-marrow'

.
Even the next line sAdhu h^Rt (inside the heart of good people) is sung as:
S,M,-G,M, (sA-duh^rt)(almost meaning 'like the hearts of bad people'

These of course are sanskrit words which everybody knows but are mangled from the musical perspective. Then let alone the words of Telugu whose word-meaning the vidvaans do not know

It is obvious that the way T or SS is being sung today is quite different from the way the great ones sang in those days. We may have retained the raga but we seem to have lost the meaning of the words. The Telugu vidvaans sing retaining the pada integrity but that is post facto (or reconstructed) and may be different from the way the authors sang originally. Let us admit that T and SS are the products of TN and their music originated in TN and has been exported to other regions.

While addressing the folks of TN let me ask how could they talk big about the bhakti rasa in CM while singing T and SS when they do not understand the words of those saints ? If we admit that the 'bhakti rasa' is in the music of CM and not in its words then it does not make all that sense...

Ashwin · Post by **Ashwin** » 12 Jan 2009, 22:35

In teaching us tyAgarAjA's mA jAnaki (kAmbhOji), SRJ Mama noted that the arrangement of words in the anupallavi sAhitya, "rAja rAja vara rAjIvAkSha, vinu" may have been done deliberately to avoid "...kSha-vara..." and suggested that this is an indication of tyAgarAja's skill and attention to detail. In fact, in teaching us R. SrINivAsa aiyyengAr's nIkEla nAyaDa (dEvamanOhari), we have been taught to replace "...sArasAkSha vara..." in the caraNam sAhitya with "sArasAkSha" alone for the same reason...I guess it just goes to show how much there is to know, even beyond the words themselves.

Ashwin

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 13 Jan 2009, 22:15

It is desirable - yes - but I woulnd't be fanatical about it. I believe that some working knowledge of keywords, pronunciation and looking up the meaning of songs learnt should be adequate. During the course of one's career this will probably lead to a basic understanding of the language anyway. Same goes for Sanskrit, Kannda, Tamil etc.

saramati · Post by **saramati** » 13 Jan 2009, 23:08

vijay said "during the course of one's career this will probably lead to basic understanding of the language anyway...."

Even now, we hear a few established singers sing by splitting the words which removes the beauty of the original meaning and hence, bhava. for egs. in vathapi ganapathim ,

varanaasyam is sometimes sung by a few as varanaa......, syamvara pra dham sri..

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 14 Jan 2009, 00:47

Saramathi my 2 np on this. The musical direction is very clear - the emphasis is on Syam, Dham in the lyrics above. If we weaken the emphasis to keep lyrics intact, musical values will suffer. I don't think too many people - even those unfamiliar with Sanksrit - would be unaware of how the split actually occurs but most would still emphasize Syam/Dham. I am sure it is possible to sing it in a manner that achieves a compromise but if I am forced to choose between the 2, I would go for music over lyrics any day.

Also I suspect that composers including MD and Thayagarja were not unaware of this contradiction - the Pnacharatnas are an example where the splitting is contrary to musical intuition in many places. I am always a little unsure about the intention of the composer as to how these were intended to be split. There was a thread on this earlier as well...

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 14 Jan 2009, 02:52

I don't believe the Trinity would ever have compromised the language in the interest of music or vice versa!

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 14 Jan 2009, 09:01

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 14 Jan 2009, 18:19

My worry is less on padacchedam than it is on siksha (pronunciation of each syllable perfectly), with special reference to the aspiration (pa vs pha etc) , voicing (ka vs ga etc) and differenciating between the sibilants (sa, Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Âºa, sha) correctly.

Lack of attention to phonetics mars both musical and linguistic values.

Not surprisingly siksha was usually the first vedanga traditionally.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 14 Jan 2009, 18:59

Mispronouncing gets me too. However, I mispronounce a few words because I picked them up from someone or other who had sung them in my childhood (usually a performer or teacher). It is worse now when I hear words mispronounced in my compostiions. Yet, knowing that it can happen (as I was guilty of it too), I try to ignore it (mention it of course, if I can). I still feel that with vocalists, music means more than the words which is another vehicle for them in bringing out the bhAvam in a song. Many rasikAs too aren't that particular about sAhityA and so it continues, this lack of attention to the lyrics.
One little experiment: listen to instrumental music of a super instrumentalist. Does its beauty reach you merely because of its musical aspect, or do the words and their impact on the player add to the effect?
If teachers are particular about the words and their meaning, that might help.
It is not easy, particularly when it comes to poetic pieces from yore. I have to look in the dictionary to discern some of the words, but it is worth my while because I am happier to sing the intent of the poet, understanding every word. Then there is the meaning behind the words you understand (which is another subject for discussion). That is why I like to look in the sAhityA Section every now and then, to learn, and to help with something I know...

Kameswari · Post by **Kameswari** » 19 Jan 2009, 19:57

Good site for lyrics of CM Krithis

http://www.sangeetasudha.org/

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 19 Jan 2009, 21:05

Meanings of words (and language) does not (and ought not) play a big role in classical music... it might play a big role in poetry or narration (katha kalakshepam).

In classical music (specifically classical music), sound is more important IMO than words/meaning. Sound (nAda/sabda) is much more than simply words or syllables.

To discriminate and recognize individual phonemes (sounds) as distinct as they are uttered is to give respect to the concept of nAdam. In this respect, sanskrit recognizes many distinct phonemes that many other languages dont. Thus the phonetic richness of the sanskrit language easily elevates the songs musically. Those who pronounce the sounds as they should be pronounced make it a pleasure to listen.

In philosophical circles the sound is equated to brahman -- nAda brahman or sabda brahman (raising it to an absolute status). The primacy of sound is recognized in one of the earliest upanishads, the Chandogya Upanishad affiliated to the Sama veda which explains the greatness of the monosyllable/bijakshara aum. It is not therefore possible IMO to produce good classical music by merely producing meaningful words. In converse, it is possible to produce good classical music even if the words are not particularly meaningfully uttered (case of many yesteryear singers).

Nada/sabda are tied to pronunciation and voice culture, which are sadly ignored by many today.

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 19 Jan 2009, 21:24

Although my knowledge of Sanskrit and the Sacred Texts is very limited, I couldn't agree more with Srkris...

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 19 Jan 2009, 21:46

While certainly sanskrit is phonetically rich language and the language itself has attractiveness, to argue that "the phonetic richness of the sanskrit language easily elevates the songs musically", because music is sound i.e. nadham, IMHO is stretching the argument to one's favor.

Raga alapanas have great ability to move listeners. They use limited syllables. Instrumental music (even abstract) by itself can have a extremely deep effect - basically you have limited to no phonetic variation. Now one could always argue that "sure, but a line sanskrit with 30 different syllables would be even better"

- IMO that would be another strechelon of an argument.

Now I am NOT saying that one need not pay attention to words. I am also NOT saying that a song with mangled pronunciation is as good as proper (it may to people who dont understand meaning

) - but to say the phonemes elevate music because of some metaphysical connection to music at the basic sound level is IMO a very misguided argument.

Ultimately the power of music is in the voiced portion of sound.

Arun

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 19 Jan 2009, 22:30

Thanks for the reference.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 25 Jan 2009, 16:30

While certainly sanskrit is phonetically rich language and the language itself has attractiveness, to argue that "the phonetic richness of the sanskrit language easily elevates the songs musically", because music is sound i.e. nadham, IMHO is stretching the argument to one's favor.

I am not arguing that Sanskrit is attractive or repulsive, I am not even talking here about Sanskrit except as a passing reference regarding phonetics.

I am talking about the primacy of sound in music, rather than words or their meaning. Languages that recognize several distinct sounds and respect phonetics are IMO more musical since they respect the idea of sound/sabda/nAda being prime.

Raga alapanas have great ability to move listeners. They use limited syllables. Instrumental music (even abstract) by itself can have a extremely deep effect - basically you have limited to no phonetic variation. Now one could always argue that "sure, but a line sanskrit with 30 different syllables would be even better" smile - IMO that would be another strechelon of an argument.

Its not syllables that I am talking about, but sounds (phonemes). Say you play sa ri ga ma pa da ni on the violin, what you play is just the sounds, not the exact syllables. A violin cannot say "sa", but can produce the sound represented by sa.

Now I am NOT saying that one need not pay attention to words. I am also NOT saying that a song with mangled pronunciation is as good as proper (it may to people who dont understand meaning smile ) - but to say the phonemes elevate music because of some metaphysical connection to music at the basic sound level is IMO a very misguided argument.

I am not sure what you are driving at. I guess you didnt understand that even I was talking about words not being of prime importance in music as opposed to sounds.

coolkarni · Post by **coolkarni** » 25 Jan 2009, 18:08

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Jan 2009, 19:22

Maybe I did misunderstand you but I do not think so.

> Languages that recognize several distinct sounds and respect phonetics are IMO more musical since they
> respect the idea of sound/sabda/nAda being prime
And I disagree. This doesn't have much to music. Let me explain how I see it. What is musical is a sub-set of all the possible sounds around. My point is when you play something (say abstract) on violin (or other instruments) all those distinctions vanish - yet what is "left" can be immensely moving/uplifting. To me this indicates those distinct sounds of the phonemes do not add much to music.

Arun

money · Post by **money** » 28 Jan 2009, 20:18

I am surprised that no one points to the greatness and catholocity of Tamilians. more so the Thanjavur Tamilians.They sing the kritis of Thyagaraja with so much passion and acceptance even though it is not in their mother tongue.They do not know their meaning, it is sung in an alien tongue. He has not sung even one song in the local language, to show he belongs to the regfion.Yet they have accepted the greatness of Thyagaraja and as one of their own inspite the limitaions of understanding.
The first reaction to an unknown thing would be reject it and poke fun at it.But these people not only learnt it , but feel proud to know the kritis and sing it with abandon.It doesnt matter they do not know the meaning, it doesnt matter it was composed in an alien language, it doesnt matter they distort the meaning, but they have given it a pedestal to stand on and proclaim it as the greatest in the history of CM.Pray where else can you see such an open mindedness?
It is a moot point who would have known about the saint if he were born in say AP. Annamacharya, a long forgotten saint, was dusted and taken perhaps to offer him as the real telugu composer. Thyagaraja was most of the time accepted only as an aravavadu in the neighbouring region.
Hats of to the Tamilians who recognised the greatness of the bard and gave him due recognition by singing his kritis.Their ignorance of the nuances of telugu is a small flaw which cannot be held against them.
How many musicians from other regions patronise Papanasam Sivan, respected as the Tamil Tyagayya?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 28 Jan 2009, 20:53

Point well taken.
Hats off indeed to those liberal minded CM performers as well as the numerous rasikas of CM across the country and all over the world!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 25 Feb 2009, 10:26

arunk wrote: > Languages that recognize several distinct sounds and respect phonetics are IMO more musical since they
> respect the idea of sound/sabda/nAda being prime
And I disagree. This doesn't have much to music. Let me explain how I see it. What is musical is a sub-set of all the possible sounds around. My point is when you play something (say abstract) on violin (or other instruments) all those distinctions vanish - yet what is "left" can be immensely moving/uplifting. To me this indicates those distinct sounds of the phonemes do not add much to music.

Arun

This discussion made me go back to fundamentals and think things through.

If you say ( or sing ) the phoneme /l/ at frequency F and the phoneme /m/ at same frequency F, why do they sound different? They are produced using different parts/configurations of the mouth, throat and nose system and the position of the tongue against the palettes. In that sense, it is like the same frequency coming from different instruments. This leads me in the direction that the phonemes provide the harmonic color to the music.

(Now I am impressed about this if this is actually what is going on. Singing one word of sahitya is equivalent to quickly swapping in and out of as many instruments as the number of phonemes in that word. Wow!!)

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Feb 2009, 20:47

Why do two instruments playing the exact same pitch (not octave apart) sound different? Not every dynamic of a sound is pitch (as in fundamental frequency) related - there is also attack, decay, sustain, in speed there is also formants w.r.t vowels. But, as we speak various phonemes, the pitch DOES alter a bit -- but not enough to be of musical value (IMO) - not every pitch variation is "musical" to us (although what is musical is indeed subjective).

Various phonemes definitely add to the dynamics of a sound, the question is whether they add any significant value to the musical aspect of the sound as humans perceive? That too does it do so from mostly an acoustic perspective? Or does it really do so from other perspectives - you add meaning to lyrics, our natural affinity to speech itself as something "tangible", out attachment/affinity to certain languages etc. - then you are mixing in other perspectives.

Some may think yes a variety/diversity in phonemes does add musical value - I just disagree. The fact that abstract instrumental music is hugely satisfying is evidence (enough) for me. I think all extra value that we perceive from those words from those "other perspectives". Like I mentioned elsewhere - we tend to think the acoustic components of the words themselves have emotions, when in fact everything comes from the meaning of the word and how it influences us subconsciously. To take Sanskrit again, most of us find Sanskrit to be deep and devotional - even if we don't understand the language. I think most if not all of this is cultural influence rather than the acoustics of the language.

Arun

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 25 Feb 2009, 21:50

Arun: I am in complete agreement with you on the last parts about the devotional relevance of anything said in sanskrit. It is like looking at a 1st grade greek book and getting the impression that it is some complex higher dimensional math text book

I am not sure if the statement 'abstract music is highly satisfying' says anything about 'if human uttered phonemes add to the musical content or not'.

I am with you that 'not every dynamic is pitch related' Music or nadham is also something more than pitch and so are phonemes.

But do you disagree entirely that different phones sung at the same pitch have different harmonics and that contributes to that tonal color? I do not really know one way or the other. But I strongly suspect that harmonics play a part given the different 'instruments' involved in produces the different phonemes.

Another point to reflect is: Think about sign language. They also have equivalent concepts to phonemes but it is a bit on the abstract side. So I am wondering if that sheds any light on comparing instrumental music that plays a sahitya based compostion that people recognize instantly vs the corresponding vocal rendition.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 25 Feb 2009, 22:48

Yes different phonemes certainly do affect the dynamics of sound - not necessarily harmonics in every case, but pitch can alter (but not exhibiting a significant range like in what is perceived as music).

But the question is whether this effect is significant to music? Is it because of some universal law in that "phonemes offer more diversity in sound dynamics; music is sound at the metaphysical level; hence more variety in phonemes must mean better music"? This is what I am disagreeing as there is enough evidence to indicate it is not that significant (IMO).

I think it is near impossible to separate the extra baggage we associate with language from acoustic component. Just plain speech can move people - doesnt make it music (atleast to most of us

). Take CM itself - the raga Alapana takes out most of the phoneme differences yet it is one of the most cherished component. In fact many people view it as music in its "pure" form (of course their view).

In the end, I do agree that musical appreciation itself is not about just acoustics. But - firstly, I think it has a lot more to do with the acoustics than the words themselves. Secondly, when you bring in words, IMO, the extra value is associated more with the other associations we make consciously and sub-consciously with the words, rather than the acoustical features of the phonemes. So, when you take all these together, IMO the effect of the phonemes on the (strictly acoustic) dynamics of music is negligible.

Arun

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 25 Feb 2009, 23:36

arasi wrote:Does its beauty reach you merely because of its musical aspect

Yes, thank you Arasi

.

I don't know a word of Telugu, don't make much effort to understand the meanings of Tyagaraja kritis but you must believe me when I say that I love them dearly and am moved to tears when they are sung by some Tamil-speaking musician who probably mispronounces every word in it.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 26 Feb 2009, 02:35

Culture and what you are exposed to over several years also contributes to this 'nada brahmam' effect in us. An Italian who has grown up listening to Puccini may find the sounds in his operas divine, while we may find them hard to sit through.
It may be an accident of history that Telugu acquired its dominant status in CM. Imagine if Tyagaraja was a Tulu speaker, we may all be enjoying great kritis in Tulu today. And then trying to rationalize that Tulu sounds lead to 'nada brahmam'.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 26 Feb 2009, 20:45

Uday
The parallel is advaita. One seeks to attain the ultimate brahmam who is featureless; but we attempt to climb the ladder through one particular faith viz., shaivism, vaishnavism, islam, christianity etc., It will be nice if one can realize the goal directly without a ladder! Similarly we are trying to reach the nadabrahmam through different ladders. Thyagarja fashioned one through Telugu, as Dikshitar fashioned one in Sanskrit, Purandara in Kannada and P Sivan in Tamil etc., but our goal is to reach nadabrahmam directly. You seem to have found one skipping the language barrier! Congratulations! Tell us how to do it!

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 26 Feb 2009, 23:51

money wrote:I am surprised that no one points to the greatness and catholocity of Tamilians. more so the Thanjavur Tamilians.

Sign of true genuine unadulterated greatness of all us "Thanjavur Tamils" here, wherever we are from and whatever language we may speak.

And "catholocity"? That sounds like something out of a dictionary from the pre inquisition days

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 27 Feb 2009, 00:16

sureshvv: The non-religious usage "liberality of sentiments or views" ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholicity ) is legitimate today, notwithstanding the immediate association with the catholic religion.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 27 Feb 2009, 02:08

Yep. History is defined by the people who write it

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 12 May 2010, 08:15

http://www.livemint.com/2010/05/0721412 ... l.html?h=B

munirao2001 · Post by **munirao2001** » 12 May 2010, 11:51

1) Apa sruthi and Apa sabda are both to be avoided/eliminated, vocalists in particular. Vaggeyakaras are both kavi and geyakaras and any one aspect of their creative composition is wrongly treated, is not acceptable and to be abhorred. They choose the right melody to express the bhavam encapsulated in the chosen sahithyam/word. Best musical content can only come out of the correct expression of the sahithyam/word and its bhavam, while rendering the compositions. No doubt, peaks of manodharma strength and creativity rightfully belong to raga alapana, which is bereft of sahithyam/word. Performers, including the instrumentalists must strive for total understanding and correct learning of the compositions, including the vital aspect of the sahithyam and it is not difficult. They need the discipline and love for the sahithya aspect.

2) It is undeniable fact that blemishes in the sahithyam/words were present in the past masters renditions and they are present in the living masterâ€™s renditions. Some of the Great Maestros took specific care and efforts in learning and understanding of the sahithyam, e.g.MSS Amma.

3) It is not only the compositions in Telugu/Thyagaraja suffer, but also compositions in other languages also.

4) While the performers, vocalists in particular should plan/avoid the blemishes and treatment with utmost care and imagination, they are permitted for the split of words only where the high quality of melody content otherwise suffers - either the swaram(s) or laya aspects.

5) When the playback singers of film music can take efforts and care for the lyric, it is not difficult for the KM performers and practitioners.

6) Gurus and rasikas rejection of these blemishes strongly will only remedy this perennial problem and make the KM performers and practitioners to pay their total attention to this critical aspect.

rasikas.org

knowledge of telugu

Re: knowledge of telugu

Re: knowledge of telugu