Janya-Janaka Association

[arunk]

Thanks a lot. This does gel with what I have learned so far. Unless more evidence come to light or we figure out a new way of interpretation, someone - probably ramamatya or someone in his time. in his neighborhood assigned R1/G1/D1/N1 "incorrectly" as shuddhaswaras and that took hold - quite strongly in the south (nor surprising given our tradition to follow tradition ). Again, "incorrectly" because that scale (kanakangi) cannot be used as a starting point for Bharata's (and Sarngadeva's) 2-vina experiment - unless we are interpreting it all wrong. The only (current) scale that can fit the experiment is kharaharapriya/kafi. Also, give the sAman scale sharing its characteristics (?), the indicators are very favorable.

Arun

[Sangeet Rasik]

probably ramamatya or someone in his time. in his neighborhood assigned R1/G1/D1/N1 "incorrectly" as shuddhaswaras and that took hold - quite strongly in the south (nor surprising given our tradition to follow tradition ). Again, "incorrectly" because that scale (kanakangi) cannot be used as a starting point for Bharata's (and Sarngadeva's) 2-vina experiment

Yes, exactly. The 2-vina experiment requires the pitch ratio between two consecutive srutis to be constant. Kanakangi cannot be used. Bhatkhande states this, and does not claim originality for this finding. He cites two papers in the All India Music Conference (1916) proceedings, by VV Phadke and Pt. Abraham, which elucidate this clearly.

Indeed, the samavedic scale is also Kafi/Kharaharapriya and that is also another strong indicator that the ancient northern shuddha scale is the "correct" one corresponding to that given by Bharata, Sharangadeva, and Matanga.

Once the "incorrect" tuning was assigned, there was really no reliable way to "diagnose" it, since the 2-vina experiment was most likely a "gedanken" (thought) experiment intended to illustrate the principle of the "geometric" scale. The human ear and brain is unlikely to be able to diagnose such fine pitch ratios without an external aid or standard. There are no external aids/standards mentioned in any of the previous works.

SR

[arunk]

The 2-vina experiment requires the pitch ratio between two consecutive srutis to be constant. Kanakangi cannot be used.

Not necessarily - unless I am misreading what you are (or what Bhatkhande is) saying (?). What it requires is for
1. the ratio "3 sruthis" "2 sruthis" and "4 sruthis" to be same
2. (perhaps obviously ) the interval 2-sruthis < 3-sruthis < 4-sruthis
3. Of course the "deduced" scales to match the intervals of sadja-gramas (in terms of # of sruthis between sa-ri r-ga etc.).

If #3 is mapped to kanakangi, #2 would be violated per vina experiment.

But there have been a few different interpretations of the experiment itself. The above is based on what I understand (which of course isnt original either)

Arun

[Sangeet Rasik]

I think we are saying the same thing. The stipulation of a "geometric" scale is clearly not sufficient (and of course, the actual shrutis of bharatiya shastriya sangeet are not the irrational numbers that would be required in a strictly geometric interpretation). The shadjagrama constraints, i.e. # of srutis beween the swaras (tones) and the consonance relationships, are also there. Indeed assuming Kanakangi as the shuddha scale would violate the combined conditions. I think there was an "incorrect" interpretation of the number of shrutis before/after each swara, leading to the "incorrect" shuddha scale tuned in the southern works.

SR

[arunk]

Yes. I think things go south the minute 3 sruthis were assigned to today's R1 following the reasoning "rishabha closest to sadja must be the Shuddha-rishabha of Sadjagrama per Sastra" => "that rishabha must then have 3 sruthis(from sa) since the same Sastra says so". After that, (assuming our interpretation is right) there seems some "fudging" to make the total number still add to 22 (because again, Sastra dictated that too). This fudging obviously would have been required if (a swara close to) R2 was supposed to get 3 sruthis but the lower R1 got it instead !

Arun

[Sangeet Rasik]

SR, can you explain more on the gamaka relationship between Mohanam and Kalyani. We probably discussed this before.
Especially the gamaka of Mohanam on Ga which I like very much: The curve that goes to Pa and come back and settles down on Ga.

Yes, the G-P-G gamaka of mohanam is nothing but a "implied" version of the GmPmG gamaka of kalyani. Similarly S->D is an implied version of "SND". The best way to see this is to sing the gita "varavina" first in pure mohanam, then introduce a shade of pratimadhyama and kakali nishada in the kalyani manner. It feels entirely natural and does not change the bhava of the gita. Hey, "varavina" even includes the word "kalyani"! Doing the same thing with shankarabharanam and harikambhoji produces much less satisfying results. The shuddha madhyama is harder to integrate, and the kaishiki nishada even more so.

Secondly, is there any evidence of genealogical relationship between Mohanam and Kalyani in the sense Kalyani actually developed out of the old raga like Mohanam or it just so happens they happen to have the relationship you are talking about.

Very interesting question. The short answer is that they happen to now have such a relationship due to the development of Kalyani in CM (after Venkatamakhi) as a "super-raga". In the medieval works (both northern and southern) the raga Bhupali has been placed as a janya or the raga Kedara (having the scale of the 29th mela). Shankarabharanam is also listed in this same mela. Note Kedara and Shankara are both names of Shiva, it is possible that the two were used interchangeably. Kalyani on the other hand has been identified in the old works as synonymous with Iman (Yaman), a Persian/Turkish (?) scale.

It is telling that the oldest work of the ones I have listed in the earlier post, i.e. the Ragatarangini of Lochana (ca 1500) is the one that has the "same" swara assignments for Bhupali, Shankarabharanam, and Kalyani as the modern-day. It lists Bhupali and Shankarabharanam in the Kedara mela (modern 29th) and Kalyani has the swaras corresponding to the 65th melakarta. Thus the scale of Shankarabharanam is of northern origin. This tradition is followed for about 2 centuries in the northern works.

In the southern works, the treatment of Kalyani seems variable (supporting the contention that it was an unfamiliar raga in the south). Only Venkatamakhi (1640) brings things back on track, assigning Sankarabharanam to 29th and Kalyani to 65th. Even he disparages Kalyani, mentioning it as a raga "popular among Turks and unfit for gita and prabandha".

It is not known how exactly Bhupali was sung in the olden times. It could have had shades of pratimadhyama (note that the modern-day Kedar has both madhyamas). But by the 19th century and 20th century, it was clear in Hindustani music that Bhupali is a Kalyani janya and is sung as such. This realization has not explicitly dawned in Carnatic music (except for Venkatamakhi and some of his followers), even though the two ragas fuse seamlessly to produce ragas such as Mohanakalyani. On the other hand, Bilahari is not a fusion of Mohanam and Shankarabharanam - its structure is different.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

After that, (assuming our interpretation is right) there seems some "fudging" to make the total number still add to 22 (because again, Sastra dictated that too). This fudging obviously would have been required if (a swara close to) R2 was supposed to get 3 sruthis but the lower R1 got it instead ! Arun

I have been trying to get hold of the text of Swaramelakalanidhi by Ramamatya to see for myself. From what Bhatkhande mentions, there seems quite a bit of dubious analysis of the vikrita swaras by Ramamatya. For example Ramamatya claims that of the twelve vikritas mentioned by Sharangadeva, only seven are unique and the others are only double-names. Bhatkhande also mentions that Ramamatya is influenced by Kallinatha, another Vijayanagaran (ca. 1410) who wrote a commentary on Sharangadeva's work. But the "erroneous" shuddha scale used in the south seems to be a more widespread phenomenon (even temporarily spreading to northern areas). For example, Somanatha does not question Ramamatya's interpretation. And Venkatamakhin, even though he has nothing but the deepest contempt for Ramamatya, also happily adopts Kanakangi as the shuddha scale.

SR

[arunk]

I do have one work but it is in a xerox copy of pages. I need to scan them to PDFs. I will try to do so. (ramakriya - another member here had asked it a while ago and I didnt deliver).

Ramamatya basically "discovered" (or "invented" depending on one's point of view) the carnatic system i.e R2 <=> G1, R3 <=> G2, D2 <=> N1, D3 <=> N2. This is of course orthogonal to the mapping of kanakangi to the sadja-grama scale. And you are right in that this mapping is more prevalent than being confined only to South. The only interesting thing is that a couple of Northern works appeared to have got it right.

Arun

[Sangeet Rasik]

Thanks. It will be great if you can do so.

I think (but have not investigated deeply) the Kanakangi shuddha scale becoming prominent in the south was a result of the Vijayanagar Empire. This was the main bastion of Hindu learning in the 14th-17th century period. They set up essentially a "new base" of learning in music which could explain some of the differences with the previous works of the north. Vijayanagar had a whole galaxy of prominent musicologists (either "fulltime" or "parttime") such as Vidyaranya, Kallinatha, and his grandson Ramamatya. Somanatha and Pundarika also seem to have "grown up" in the Vijayanagar Empire. At that time, it was a vigorous tradition and explains why it could spread to northern areas as long as Vijayanagar existed. I would not be surprised if the Kanakangi shuddha scale predates Ramamatya in the Viajayanagar tradition.

I also think it was not just "a couple of northern works that got the shuddha scale right". This was more likely a continuous tradition - possibly unbroken since the Vedic age. To begin with, it may have been difficult for Bharata (or previous musicologists) to defend a scale different from the Samavedic scale as the "shuddha" or "fundamental" scale. The relative paucity of medieval northern works is more likely due to the upheaval of Hindu musical scholarship during the invasions from Central Asia in the middle ages. Even Lochana and Hrdayanarayana are "Eastern gangetic plain" authors. It is possible that many scholarly works of the 12th-14th centuries from Northwest India and the western Gangetic plain were obliterated or lost.

A note on Lochana: the date of 1500 CE mentioned in the previous post is somewhat overly conservative (even arbitrary). According to Bhatkhande, the astronomical details (mentioned by the author himself) lead to a date of 1082 Saka Era, i.e. 1160 CE. This is quite an early date, but some scholars dispute this. The reason being that Lochana quotes the work of one Vidyapati (also of Mithila). From a copper plate inscription, it is known that the king Shivasimha of Mithila made a land grant to one music scholar Vidyapati in 1399 CE. So if this is the same Vidyapati quoted by Lochana, then one may have to push the date of Ragatarangini to the 15th century (and conservatively to 1500 CE). But if this was a different Vidyapati then Ragatarangini might be a much older text!

SR

[ramakriya]

Yes, indeed. I have also noted this before. Other such CM/HM "pairs" with "inverted" (either fully or mostly) swaras are Shri/Shri, Hindolam/Hindol, Malahari/Malhar.

My theory is again linked to the "age of interpolation". There seems to have been a great tendency to: (1) interpolate and switch swaras of known ragas, (2) obscure the northern origins of many southern ragas, while at the same time (3) import a number of northern ragas and attempt to make them look different by process (1).

I speculate that the swaras of the existing raga Bhupali were switched to "shuddha" (in the CM sense) and called Bhupalam. Whereas the swaras of the original raga Bhupali were appropriated with a new name "Mohanam" that now sounds like it is a totally different raga. I am not implying that all this was done by the "same person". I am saying that people started singing the so-called Mohanam as a "new" raga while developing amnesia with respect to the already existing Bhupali.

Whatever the vagaries of the name changes, I was essentially referring to present-day Mohanam as the raga that is very close to Bhupali, and also including some Deshkar lakshanas. In all these cases, we immediately see the influence of Kalyan and secondarily Bilawal from the HM system, which appears as the influence of Kalyani and secondarily Sankarabharanam in CM. Perhaps it is more appropriate to refer to "Mohanam" as "Bhupali", indeed the ancient raga.

SR

Just thought of adding some points about Mohna's origins. Summarizing from Dr R Satyanarayana's Veena Lakshna Vimarshe.


1. The melody of mOhana (although called by different names) is documented to be in existence for more than a thousand years.

2. Till around the end of 15th century, it went by the name "Dombakriti' - and was considered a janya of rAga Bhinna Shadja and was close to another rAga called travaNA (I guess Travana is one of the Shadja grama rAgas). Dombakriti had ri and pa as varjya, and da was the amsha and nyasa svara. (Ref - works of Chalukya kings Someshwara & Jagadekamlla - who ruled from Kalyana in current day north Karnataka around 1100 AD)

3. Sharngadeva, perhaps a hundred years after the Chalukya rulers, claims Dombakriti to be born of travaNA. He describes it as a rAga with ri and pa as varjya and sa as amsha. He says Travana has da as amsa.

4. Later works have tried to give the distinction between travaNa and Dombakriti in terms of graha, amsha and nyasa ; but these two rAgas were quite close to each other.

5. In 15th century (~1430AD) , Kallinatha is the first one to say Dombakri also goes by the name Bhoopali. Kumbhakarna, in his work Sangitaraja says Dombakri is also called Bhoopali, because it was sung(?)/told (?) by 'the king' (bhoopAla). We have no clue who this king is.

6. Around the same time, due to normalization of grAma rAgas, the varjya svaras ri-pa moved to new normalized locations - ma and ni, thus forming the base of current mOhana's svara sanchAra. .LakshanakAras like Ramamatya, Pandarika Vitthala etc give the same lakshaNa for Bhoopali.

8.Sometime around here (15th century) Bhoopali started splitting into two. One with shuddha ri and shuddha dha got the name bhoopAla. and the one with panchashruti ri and panchashruti da was started to be identified as bhUpAli

9. In 17th century, a new name, viz- mOhana started to be applied to the same old bhUpAli with pancha shruti ri and dha. Dr R.S notes that the first occurrence of the name is in a work called "Raga Ratnakara" of Gandharva Raja, which was written a few decades before Tulaja's Sangeeta Saramrta.

Although not directly related to the janaka- janya question, I though this history would be of some interest

-Ramakriya

[vasanthakokilam]

Thanks SR for the historical background. I am still having some difficulties piecing together the various threads of the reasoning. Bear with me on these follow up questions.

Yes, the G-P-G gamaka of mohanam is nothing but a "implied" version of the GmPmG gamaka of kalyani. Similarly S->D is an implied version of "SND".

I just do not get this. Believe me, I tried this. May be I am not artistic enough to see this. Those two provide completely different rasas and melodic feel.

Very interesting question. The short answer is that they happen to now have such a relationship due to the development of Kalyani in CM (after Venkatamakhi) as a "super-raga".

Why do you attribute that to the development of kalyani in CM as a super raga? My confusion is, I thought you are saying it is the HM folks who attribute the relationship of Mohanam to Kalyani ( yaman ).... May be I am missing the point that Venkatamakhi treated bhupali as a janya of Kalyani. Is that true?

Now, my major disconnect is this... As you stated, Bhupali had been under the 29th both in southern and northern works. (Kedara mela ). And we do not know how Bhupali was sung in those times. In the 19th and 20th centuries, HM started treating Bhupali in the family of Kalyani. That is fine. But how did that come about when all the evidence you provided points to the opposite?

Also, what do you mean when you wrote 'In HM, Bhupali is sung as a kalyani Janya'? Are you referring to the gamaka explanation you provided before? But then I sense many essential differences between how an HM musician sings Bhupali vs how a CM mohanam is sung in terms of the gamakas ( based on how I hear them and how I perceive them ).
Are the differences not significant enough then?

This realization has not explicitly dawned in Carnatic music (except for Venkatamakhi and some of his followers),

I am confused again by the Venkatamakhi exception. Does Venkatamakhi opine that Bhupali should be under 65. May be this is something I missed in your post.

Finally, I do not see that you have a lot of data to come to a strong enough conclusion that CM should follow HM in attributing Mohanam as a Kalyani Janya...

the two ragas fuse seamlessly to produce ragas such as Mohanakalyani. On the other hand, Bilahari is not a fusion of Mohanam and Shankarabharanam - its structure is different.

I think I sort of understand it. Can you elaborate?

[Sangeet Rasik]

Ramakriya,

Just thought of adding some points about Mohna's origins. Summarizing from Dr R Satyanarayana's Veena Lakshna Vimarshe.

Thanks for this excellent reconstruction. Let me add the few more points that I was going to make regarding bhupali etc.

5. In 15th century (~1430AD) , Kallinatha is the first one to say Dombakri also goes by the name Bhoopali. Kumbhakarna, in his work Sangitaraja says Dombakri is also called Bhoopali, because it was sung(?)/told (?) by 'the king' (bhoopAla). We have no clue who this king is.

In the Northern texts, the name Bhupali seems well-established. Lochana (who may be as old as 1160 CE) mentions this raga and its scale is SR2G3PD2S.

8.Sometime around here (15th century) Bhoopali started splitting into two. One with shuddha ri and shuddha dha got the name bhoopAla. and the one with panchashruti ri and panchashruti da was started to be identified as bhUpAli

Yes, this was my feeling as well. I speculate that there was an idea of creating raga "couples" with somehow "opposite" or "male/female" characteristics. I think this "split" first occurred in north india and was also followed in south india. In hindustani bhUpAl (or bhupAl todi as it is called these days) and bhUpAli are well-known. Note, the gandhara is also different, not just the rishabha and dhaivata.

Also, Sharangadeva mentions the ragas malhAra and malhArI in the same breath. The hindustani raga malhAra (or shuddha malhAr as it is called these days) has the scale of SR2M1PD2S (same as devakriya), whereas the carnatic raga "malahari" has SR1M1PD1S (and also has acquired a gandhara in the avarohana).

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

VK,

I just do not get this. Believe me, I tried this. May be I am not artistic enough to see this. Those two provide completely different rasas and melodic feel.

Did you try the "experiment" I suggested ? I think at this point is difficult to argue against the similarity of the G-P-G and GmPmG lakshanas, it is an established fact. They provide the similar rasa and melodic appeal. The best way is to demonstrate musically, and it has been done, for example, here:

http://www.parrikar.org/music/bhoop/jha ... rspeak.ram

May be I am missing the point that Venkatamakhi treated bhupali as a janya of Kalyani. Is that true?

Yes, Mudduvenkatamakhi (author of Ragalakshana and grandson of Venkatamakhi) clearly assigns Mohanam as a janya of 65th melakarta (which he calls Shantakalyani).

Now, my major disconnect is this... As you stated, Bhupali had been under the 29th both in southern and northern works. (Kedara mela ). And we do not know how Bhupali was sung in those times. In the 19th and 20th centuries, HM started treating Bhupali in the family of Kalyani. That is fine. But how did that come about when all the evidence you provided points to the opposite?

The only point of that was to fix the scale of the raga, for the discussion with keerthi on revagupti etc. There is no way to fix the raga lakshanas of these ragas with reliability that far back in time. For that matter, the old mela raga Kedar is itself now a janya of Kalyan. What I meant was that the understanding and evolution of the ragas was ongoing, and at some point it was realized that the raga bhupali is subsumed by the lakshanas of the raga kalyan (which had by the time developed into a "super-raga").

But then I sense many essential differences between how an HM musician sings Bhupali vs how a CM mohanam is sung in terms of the gamakas ( based on how I hear them and how I perceive them ).Are the differences not significant enough then?

There are a few differences. We had a discussion on this before. Mohanam is a slightly more expansive raga than HM Bhupali, because some of the prayogas include the lakshanas of Deshkar.

I should state that there has been a tendency in CM to try as much as possible to remove the association of Bhupali with Kalyani - a misguided attempt based upon an incorrect assignment of its "melakarta raga" to shankarabharanam (at least one can understand this one) or harikambhoji (this is bizarre). These attempts produce just a "scale-traversal" landscape with no raga in sight.

I am confused again by the Venkatamakhi exception. Does Venkatamakhi opine that Bhupali should be under 65. May be this is something I missed in your post.

Yes, Mudduvenkatamakhin has formally made this statement. Even by Venkatamakhi's time, it was probably quite well known. The thing to remember that works such as chaturdandiprakashika, while containing a lot of useful information, were already obsolete in terms of the current practice at the time. Or perhaps the author did not intend to cover all topics exhaustively. For instance, CDP does not deal with already well-known compositional forms such as the kriti. It does not mention ragas such as Bhupali and many others which were well-known in India at the time.

Finally, I do not see that you have a lot of data to come to a strong enough conclusion that CM should follow HM in attributing Mohanam as a Kalyani Janya...

Let me be clear - I said in this same thread that Mohanam is primarily a "janya" (in terms of the lakshanas, not in terms of historical evolution) of Kalyani (due to the heritage of Bhupali) and secondarily of Shankarabharanam (due to some incorporation of Deshkar). The question of "CM following HM" does not arise. The raga is quite obviously in Kalyani territory.

I think I have a minimal understanding of what you are saying here. Can you elaborate?

Since ragas such as Bhupali and Mohanam are primarily Kalyani "janyas", ragas such as Mohanakalyani, Bhup Kalyan/Shuddh Kalyan can be naturally formed with no confusing prayogas, but then need a couple of adjustments to ensure that they sound "distinct enough" from Mohanam/Bhupali/Kalyani.

On the other hand,if one takes the lakshanas of Mohanam and Shankarabharanam and attempts to combine them into a hypothetical raga named Mohana-shankarabharanam, it is tough going. This would be a "confused" raga, since for example the G(M2)P(M2)G prayoga of Mohanam would create confusion with the M1-based prayogas of Shankarabharanam. I have spent quite a lot of time attempting it in the past, and it does not sound cohesive despite my best efforts. The only option is to make some major alternations to end up with ragas like Bilahari and Garudadhvani. These are Shankarabharanam territory and the lakshanas of Mohanam/Bhupali do not fit in here (except for trivial "scale-traversal" or "gamaka-less" type of prayogas).

SR

[vasanthakokilam]

OK, much appreciated SR, for the info as well as the patience in dealing with my questions as I try to understand this.

>Did you try the "experiment" I suggested ?

Yes, but when I introduced a slight trace of Pratimadhyama, it changed things enough for me to not sound like CM Mohanam. May be my trace amount was too big an amount to be called trace. I then tried a meend like gamaka sliding through M2 without really intoning M2. That was better but that is not how CM folks sing Mohanam, it sounded very much HMish. I categorize that as more Bhupali (within my own limitations as a player ) than Mohanam as we hear in it CM. But that experiment did prepare me to appreciate the info in that delightful speech by Sri. Ramashreya Jha, in the link you referred me to.

In addition, I read through the Parikkar treatment. I listened to Sri. Jha's speech quite a few times. Though I do not understand much Hindi, that is not at all an impediment to understand what he is conveying.

>I think at this point is difficult to argue against the similarity of the G-P-G and GmPmG lakshanas, it is an established fact

BTW, my intent is not to argue and change that established fact about Bhupali, definitely not ( who am I to even think of attempting that ). But my intent is to really understand what this is about. Towards that attempt, you did the right thing by referring me to that audio link.

Let me summarize where I am on this: I have absorbed the material. Given the way way BhUpAli is sung, I get it that it exhibits the kalyani anga. Fine, no problem. In one of the links at the Parikkar site in the BhupAli section there is one by Lata Mangeshkar chanting Ch. 15 Bagavad Geetha. It is quite Kalyanish in one place. So it is clear. I actually did not know P->R is a possibility in Bhoopali and that definitely sounds like Kalyani. I also understand in what way Deshkar is different from Bhoopali. Giridhara Gopala is Deshkar and not BhupAli, got it!!

I also see that Mohanam has elements of Deshkar, pretty much directly reflected.

I also see that Mohanam's second quadrant ( pUrvAngA ) prayogas are similar to Kalyani with M2 removed. In that sense, I see that nannu pAlimpa's Ga centrism ( approx as in..G P, G, R, S,, S, D P, D S R G,,, ) is similar to kalyani.

One last little stumbling block I have is this: Mohanam second quadrant ( pUrvAngA ) singing is not like the way bhUpAli is sung. I heard the various renditions of bhUpAli at the Parikkar site. To me, the meend-heavy gamakas employed in bhUpAli is not the same as it is done in Mohanam. The meend used in HM very much evokes the kalyani bhava whereas the CM way of singing Mohanam second quadrant is not that way. And the Pa-(Ga)Ri sounds very much bhupAlish..

Let us grant that the pUrvAnga dominant prayOgAs of bhUpAli and Mohanam are the same ( agreeing not to quibble about minor differences, if any ). To me the way the swaras are executed in bhUpAli is what gives it the distinct kalyANi feel and not just the swaras.

Given that such meend-heavy execution of pUrvAnga swaras is not there in Mohanam:

1) Why can't we consider Mohanam and BhupAli to be separate ragas ( even without considering the Deshkar aspects of Mohanam ). In this sense, if someone sings Mohanam pUrvAnga with a lot of Meend, one can say 'Hey, you are singing bhUpAli and not Mohanam". Fundamentally, given that gamakas are an integral part of the raga definition, why would this be frown worthy? I see some HM ragas that differ even less so and still gets a new raga status. ( OK, do not ask me to quote an example, this is the overall impression I get after reading the info at Parikkar's site ).
2) In support of the above, there is a discussion at Parikkar's site about different schools of thought about if BhoopKalyan is really any different from BhUpAli. The reasoning seems to be, if bhUpAli itself is representing PM2G adequately even if it is not intoned explicitly, why a separate bhUpkalyAn. Since Mohanam, as is currently practiced in CM, does not exhibit that in its pUrvAngA, to me that seems to be enough reason to consider it to be a separate raga from bhUpAli.
3) If there is some semblance of truth in the above, what does that say about Mohanam's relationship to Kalyani? ( granting that BhupAli's relationship to kalyani is well established ). I can still see it as belonging to the kalyani family even if I consider it to be a separate raga from bhUpAli because of the Prayoga similarity sans-M2 in the pUrvAngA and the tonal center being G3, its G-D-P prayogas, Pa being dominant in the ascent and R being an important dhIrga swara.

[Sangeet Rasik]

Excellent post, VK. My response is as follows:

I then tried a meend like gamaka sliding through M2 without really intoning M2. That was better but that is not how CM folks sing Mohanam, it sounded very much HMish.

Yes, this is the right way. Bhupali (and indeed Mohanam) should be sung with Kalyani "in the background", in my opinion. This is the main beauty of the raga.

Now, it is well known that one can admit different ragas with the same pentatonic scale and with quite different aesthetic rationale, e.g. SR2M1PN2S can become Madhyamavati, Megh, Madhmad Sarang; SR2M1PD2S can correspond to Shuddha Malhar, Shuddha Saveri/Devakriya, Shuddha Kedar, Durga; and similarly why not let Mohanam be counted as a distinct raga in SR2G3PD2S along with Bhupali and Deshkar ? This question must be considered carefully before making the statements that I have made above.

The answer is, yes it could be, but in my opinion it is not warranted in this case, for three reasons:

1) the similarities between Bhupali and Mohanam are too strong to separate them. All the prayogas of the "simple and straightforward" Mohanam are there in Bhupali.

2) indeed all the attempts to "remove" the Kalyani anga from Bhupali to produce a distinct Mohanam end up with something that is relatively quite a dull raga (as I mentioned in my previous post) which does not have much more than a scale. See the end of my post for more opinion on this.

3) Unlike the different ragas which have developed in the other pentatonic scales mentioned above, the historical record shows that Mohanam did not develop "independently" from Bhupali - it is a "successor" that however does not possess the same attractiveness as the original raga. In contrast, ragas like Madhyamavati, Megh, and Madhmad Sarang developed "independently" from different ideas - Madhyamavati from Shri, Megh being an idea in itself, and Madhmad from the Sarang anga.

In my mind, Mohanam is (or "ought to be capable of being") intrinsically much more expansive than what is "currently" sung in CM, and it sounds so much more interesting if treated as containing both Bhupali and Deshkar prayogas. As I mentioned, the current form of Mohanam sung in CM is related to a more recent interpolation that incorrectly placed it with Sankarabharanam and even Harikambhoji, whereas earlier it was not considered so.

I can still see it as belonging to the kalyani family even if I consider it to be a separate raga from bhUpAli because of the Prayoga similarity sans-M2 in the pUrvAngA and the tonal center being G3, its G-D-P prayogas, Pa being dominant in the ascent and R being an important dhIrga swara.

Yes, indeed - the discussion is not so much about "bhupali = mohanam"but mainly about their fundamentals shared with Kalyani.

To me, the meend-heavy gamakas employed in bhUpAli is not the same as it is done in Mohanam. The meend used in HM very much evokes the kalyani bhava whereas the CM way of singing Mohanam second quadrant is not that way. And the Pa-(Ga)Ri sounds very much bhupAlish..

In that same website on Bhupali, I also came across some time ago this dhrupad alap of Pt. Ram Chatur Mallick:

http://www.parrikar.org/music/bhoop/mal ... nomtom.ram

I have been trying to get the entire recording but without success (can Mankuthimma help, if he is reading this ??). What a wonderful raga Pt. Mallick has delineated in the space of 2 minutes ! While the more "flat"/"scale-based" prayogas are also there, those kalyani-derived meends truly bring the raga "alive" and make it truly "emotional", and deeply impress the mind and the heart. Observe how he develops the raga around P, G, R, and D between 0:40 and 1:05, and then again the bhava of the raga "wells up" in the treatment betwen 1:18-1:28. For several nights I could not sleep without repeatedly listening to this clip - with a surround sound system it fills an entire room. This treatment by Pt. Mallick has the ring of authenticity and reinforces a proud tradition of a great and ancient raga.

Afterwards, I listened (again) to several Mohanam alapanas as sung by CM stalwarts (all highly capable such as DKP, MDR, and GNB):

http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/Homepages/shivk ... dex.html#m

These did not create the same deep impression. It seemed as though the raga was pared down and stripped of its grandeur in an effort to get away from the kalyani influence, and was mainly moving around on the pentatonic scale. At some points it was sounding like bilahari.

I feel it is a pity that current CM practice has lost out on the "original" flavor of this raga.

SR

[mankuthimma]

Yes . I am indeed reading all this stuff. I have been getting some answers to my doubts over why Mohana is not featured often as a raga for RTP . Even in the huge database that I can access , I see very little of this raga being treated elaborately - in RTPs.
Though the names you refer here make me break into cold sweat
It is highly unlikely That I may find Jha Saab's rendering. What I can do is to list out the various Bhupali's I have and maybe you can pick an artist that may come close to your expectations.
Would you be interested in a BGAK version where he is very very talkative - it is a bit of a freewheeling rendering in an intimate setting . I will get back on these tomorrow.


http://www.esnips.com/doc/af5cdc6e-bb2a ... natha-Iyer

Something I have handy . A fine 70 second bit which I treasure very much.I always keep wondering how the rest of the reciatl would have panned out.

[mankuthimma]

http://www.mediafire.com/?8fak8m2u546i6

A Few tracks in this folder that may be useful.Let me know If I am correct in choosing the tracks.I can post some more.

[vasanthakokilam]

SR, Thanks again. It looks like we have narrowed down the conversation to that one little point which I am glad you addressed head-on, namely, whether BhupAli=Mohanam, though that was not the main thrust of the janaka-janya association.

A few points.

1. First on one definitional aspects ( beware, I may be preaching to the converted here.. ). When I said I can see mohanam belonging to kalyani anga even without the Meend gamaka in the purvanga, I meant it in the definitional sense. That is how HM folks classify things. So, by definition, it is true. But I am reluctant to say I understand it fully without the Meend gamaka. As a comparision, if you take the whole set of ragas in the kAnaDa family, they all have a aesthetic similarity and relatability to the kAnaDa ragAngA ( in fact a few are too similar to even afford different raga names for my tastes ). So I see why the various ragas in the kAnaDa family belong in that family even if the CM style Parent child melakartha janaka-janya relationship may not hold in that purely syntactical sense. It is the rAgAnga parent-child relationship that matters.

But I do not sense a similar aesthetic similarity between CM Mohanam and Kalyani. I do see that between bhUpAli and Kalyani. Definitely. So in a way, what I agree to is a bit Non-HMish in spirit since even there I am agreeing to it from a CM syntactical perspective and not from the HM aesthetic perspective. All I see is: "take the Kalyani Prayogas, take the M2 and N3 out and you get Mohanam prayogas". Contrast that to: "take the kalyani scale and take out the M2 and N3 and you get the Mohanam scale". The difference between the two is stark and clear: the first one is not purely syntactical as in the second one which is the CM parent-child relationship. There is some semantics involved with the first one since we are talking of prayogas and not just scales. But Mohanam->Kalyani does not rise to the same level of aesthetic similarity to the ragas in the kAnaDa family or to the bhUpAli->Kalyani grouping

2. I listened to the Pt. Mallick piece. Great manOdharmA and I liked it very much. I need to listen to that a few more times to see if I can appreciate it to the level you do.

3. I have to disagree with the following statement strongly: "indeed all the attempts to "remove" the Kalyani anga from Bhupali to produce a distinct Mohanam end up with something that is relatively quite a dull raga (as I mentioned in my previous post) which does not have much more than a scale.". Till now I did not know what you included in that Mohanam, but given you are pretty much including all the Mohanams of the past 80-100 years ( considering MDR->Tiger->however many decades ), I have to disagree with you from a rasika perspective. Yes, it does not sound like bhupAli, fine, but calling it a "dull raga" and "not much moree than a scale" is something I can not go with. I guess here is where personal preferences come into play and we will have to leave it at that.

M.S. and Radha Viswanathan combo on nannu pAlimpa is my all time favorite and I have sometimes listened to the same thing dozens of times in a week during my long drive time. And the same with MDR's and MLV's mohnam. We do not need to necessarily argue or debate this point, now that I know you have stated your references to CM Mohanam. The reason I put this point in is, it just does not matter to me if the current day Mohanam does not rise to the aesthetic level you expect from HM exposition of bhUpAli. But I do not want to lose what I cherish. ( I am using 'I' intentionally, I am not speaking for the whole CM community ).

4. If you want someone to sing bhupAli in CM, great, I am all for it, let us just call it bhUpAli and not Mohanam. bhUpAli RTP will be awesome. We do not need to disparage the current day Mohanam to get that. I personally do not care if Mohanam has been "diluted" in the 20th century ( and earlier ) to make what it is now, there by losing out on a great lineage. Mainly because I love the current day CM Mohanam.

5. If all you are saying is that CM has lost bhUpAli as a side effect, I am with you on that 100%. That is a pity.

[Sangeet Rasik]

VK,

1. First on one definitional aspects ( beware, I may be preaching to the converted here.. ). When I said I can see mohanam belonging to kalyani anga even without the Meend gamaka in the purvanga, I meant it in the definitional sense. That is how HM folks classify things. So, by definition, it is true.

I am glad we agree on this!:-)

But I am reluctant to say I understand it fully without the Meend gamaka.

I am with you. The understanding did not come quickly to me either, but over a period of time. Being on this fine forum here, and receiving further information on historical aspects from Keerthi, Ramakriya, and others in the fray, has certainly put a few final bricks in place for me.

Parent child melakartha janaka-janya relationship may not hold in that purely syntactical sense. It is the rAgAnga parent-child relationship that matters.

Yes, exactly.

All I see is: "take the Kalyani Prayogas, take the M2 and N3 out and you get Mohanam prayogas". Contrast that to: "take the kalyani scale and take out the M2 and N3 and you get the Mohanam scale".

The first one is not what I am saying, and the second is only true in a trivial (scale-definition) sense. I have said that M2 and N3 never truly disappear whether in Mohanam or Bhupali - perhaps only a matter of degree. In HM the "meends" passing through M2 and N3 provide broad paintstrokes, if you will, to create a substantial raga-landscape. Even if you take that out entirely and use a very clipped version as in Mohanam (hence my "relatively dull raga" comment), it can never go away entirely and often comes up in CM gamakas. Trying to dodge Kalyani becomes an unproductive pursuit.

But Mohanam->Kalyani does not rise to the same level of aesthetic similarity to the ragas in the kAnaDa family or to the bhUpAli->Kalyani grouping.

I have to disagree. I think your viewpoint may be more correct if seen only from the perspective of the composers following this "clipped" version. From my experience, it also has to do with the fact that the ragas come out in full detail only in vilambit-kala compositions and hence it is harder to see the Kalyani substratum in some of the CM compositions.

But I think that there is enough evidence from, e.g. MD's compositions. For example, "kadambari priyayai" (a vilambit composition) very clearly shows the Kalyani base of Mohanam when sung in a slow speed. Same with "narasimhaagaccha" (though there is a tendency to sing it at a faster speed and thereby the Kalyani base gets obscured). It is very hard to sing these compositions with integrity, without admitting the Kalyani anga. Similarly, the "muraharanagadhara....." portion of the latter kriti seems strongly influenced by the "nom tom" alapana style in Bhupali dhrupads (exemplified by the clip posted earlier). Even recent "tuners" of Swati Tirunal's compositions cannot deny the kalyani anga. If you have listened to SSI/MSS's gamaka on "vitatadandakAranyaka" you know what I am referring to.

Even further back in time, Mudduvenkatamakhi's appendix to CDP clearly assigns Mohanam as a Kalyani janya. And the gita "varavina" is also another clear example of kalyani anga. Again, the historical record also shows that Mohanam did not develop "independently" from Bhupali but rather went through a rather unwarranted "diminution" in its scope sometime in the 18th(?) century. This was a period when it is well-known that many CM ragas underwent distortions and interpolations. If it had developed as an independent idea, I would have been more ready to look at the two as different ragas. That being said, the prayogas of Mohanam are admissible in Bhupali and Deshkar - hence Mohanam is more like a subset, not a separate raga! That is the key difference from the example of multiple ragas in the other pentatonic scales.

4. If you want someone to sing bhupAli in CM, great, I am all for it, let us just call it bhUpAli and not Mohanam. bhUpAli RTP will be awesome. We do not need to disparage the current day Mohanam to get that. I personally do not care if Mohanam has been "diluted" in the 20th century ( and earlier ) to make what it is now, there by losing out on a great lineage. Mainly because I love the current day CM Mohanam.

I don't think there is much interest in "reworking" existing compositions in Mohanam, so there is no need for anyone to fear "losing" it. But the main point is that Mohanam really has much more content to it, and it is directly coming from the old ragas Bhupali (and Deshkar to an extent) and most importantly it is necessary to understand the deep association with Kalyani. That is very hard to deny after examining the raga and its history in detail. Creating new compositions, RTPs, etc in this broader version of the raga will elevate it to another level. In other words, the "present-day" Mohanam is more the subset, but not the highlight or "superset" raga. At the same time, those who want to sing the "clipped" version can still do so.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Manku,

Something I have handy . A fine 70 second bit which I treasure very much.I always keep wondering how the rest of the reciatl would have panned out.

Thanks! A very fine (though indeed regrettably short) clip of unusual clarity.

BTW the dhrupad clip was not by Jha but by RC Mallick (of Darbhanga). Would be delighted to get any and all audios that you can post from your collection!

Thanks again,
SR

[vasanthakokilam]

SR, Understood what you are saying. First a point of closure on one thing you wrote

Creating new compositions, RTPs, etc in this broader version of the raga will elevate it to another level. In other words, the "present-day" Mohanam is more the subset, but not the highlight or "superset" raga. At the same time, those who want to sing the "clipped" version can still do so

That works for me.

( One question in this regard: What about nannu pAlimpa? Is that a clipped Mohanam or not so clipped? )

Regarding M2 and N3 being present in non-meend contexts, from an experiential/listening/playing perspective, I do not sense M2 coming in the G-P-G and N3 coming in P-S-D gamakas. I am still grappling with this statement. "Even if you take that(meend) out entirely and use a very clipped version as in Mohanam, it can never go away entirely".. When I play P-D, I am attempting to play in a smooth curve, P-S-D.. Is this from some harmonics/physics perspective that N3 shows up there and it is unavoidable? Let me ask it this way: If N3 is there, why not N2? ( Given it is a smooth curve crossing all those points ). Same thing with G-P-G. That is a smooth curve and I do not intentionally go anywhere near M2. ( On the flute with regular fingering it is a hard swara to play ). Same question again, why M2 and not M1 in that smooth arc... I know you have been saying this consistently, so you are probably getting bugged at me going back to square one on this.

And then you wrote this...

Even recent "tuners" of Swati Tirunal's compositions cannot deny the kalyani anga. If you have listened to SSI/MSS's gamaka on "vitatadandakAranyaka" you know what I am referring to.

Which makes it more interesting.. Are you saying that the gamakas in that entire Mohanam section is kalyanish? Or just that one line? In any case, I am back to square one.. I hear it as proper CM Mohanam and not HMish or bhupAlish. May be this is a great example that will shed some light for me. Is there M2 and N3 there, below the surface? That beautiful gamaka on Ga at the beginning of the swara section... What is going on there? I love it and I thought that is a more than usual exaggerated G-P-G gamaka that is usually not heard in other mohanams with that kind of a big arc. Are you saying there is M2 there? ( MSS has even a bigger arc than SSI. MLV does not sing that Ga like that at all, it is much flatter ).


Thanks.

[mankuthimma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKsfKx6CarA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67t858XxLQw

[mankuthimma]

I have been trying to get the entire recording but without success (can Mankuthimma help, if he is reading this ??). What a wonderful raga Pt. Mallick has delineated in the space of 2 minutes ! While the more "flat"/"scale-based" prayogas are also there, those kalyani-derived meends truly bring the raga "alive" and make it truly "emotional", and deeply impress the mind and the heart. Observe how he develops the raga around P, G, R, and D between 0:40 and 1:05, and then again the bhava of the raga "wells up" in the treatment betwen 1:18-1:28. For several nights I could not sleep without repeatedly listening to this clip - with a surround sound system it fills an entire room. This treatment by Pt. Mallick has the ring of authenticity and reinforces a proud tradition of a great and ancient raga.

The wait is over !!!!!
The needle in the haystack has been found .
Turn up those volumes on your surround system . I have the full track . There is a second voice too making it a gorgeous track.

http://www.mediafire.com/?rq0g3fdcldza4lh

I am quite elated at being able to put the archive to good use . In future ( Sr and everyone else ) please drop a mail through rasikas or directly at chennairasika@gmail.com to make sure that I do not miss the opportunity , to be of use.

[Sangeet Rasik]

Manku,

Awesome!! Thanks a lot for digging up this track. I am eager to download it in entirety.

The link does not work, however....perhaps a problem with the mediafire website ? I will try again in a while.

Yes, there should be a second voice too (I noticed a "cough"/throat-clearing" in the background of the 2-minute clip). I will try to identify.

SR

[mankuthimma]

http://www.esnips.com/doc/6435a009-f5e3 ... ck_bhopali

[Sangeet Rasik]

VK,

Regarding M2 and N3 being present in non-meend contexts, from an experiential/listening/playing perspective, I do not sense M2 coming in the G-P-G and N3 coming in P-S-D gamakas.....When I play P-D, I am attempting to play in a smooth curve, P-S-D.. Is this from some harmonics/physics perspective that N3 shows up there and it is unavoidable? Let me ask it this way: If N3 is there, why not N2? ( Given it is a smooth curve crossing all those points ). Same thing with G-P-G. That is a smooth curve and I do not intentionally go anywhere near M2. ( On the flute with regular fingering it is a hard swara to play ). Same question again, why M2 and not M1 in that smooth arc... I know you have been saying this consistently, so you are probably getting bugged at me going back to square one on this.

Not bugged at all, and I understand the origin of your doubts. It is all about microtonal and semitonal subtleties. The G-P-G gamaka can be executed to reveal the M2, and it can be executed differently to reveal the M1. In some ragas it can reveal both. The actual arcs are "smooth" but they are not linear. These aspects are very fully developed by the Dhrupad vocalists and carried over into later forms. Perhaps the loss of this knowledge (or alteratively a switchover to a different paradigm) led to the divergence between HM and CM.

Which makes it more interesting.. Are you saying that the gamakas in that entire Mohanam section is kalyanish? Or just that one line? In any case, I am back to square one.. I hear it as proper CM Mohanam and not HMish or bhupAlish. May be this is a great example that will shed some light for me. Is there M2 and N3 there, below the surface? That beautiful gamaka on Ga at the beginning of the swara section... What is going on there? I love it and I thought that is a more than usual exaggerated G-P-G gamaka that is usually not heard in other mohanams with that kind of a big arc. Are you saying there is M2 there? ( MSS has even a bigger arc than SSI. MLV does not sing that Ga like that at all, it is much flatter ).

Yes, M2 and N3 are there below the surface. In my opinion, these aspects cannot be over-analyzed in writing but can only be imbibed through continued listening and reflection. For example, the detailed dhrupad posted by Mankuthimma shows how a number of the Mohanam prayogas are well covered in Bhupali.

I also will mention that HM Kalyan and CM Kalyani, while essentially the same raga, are developed somewhat differently in style by HM and CM - but that does not mean they are separate ragas. Digging deeper, one finds the differences are superficial. Similarly, Mohanam and Bhupali are two, somewhat different, angles of the same form.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

http://www.esnips.com/doc/6435a009-f5e3 ... ck_bhopali

Manku,

Great! Many thanks. This is truly an outstanding recording. The vocalization of the Mallicks and command over the raga is indeed impressive. My only (small) complaint is that the words of the dhrupad (appears to be a Sanskrit composition) are not clear. It seems to start with "kanjalochana kamala....". Bhatkhande has not notated this composition in HSP, so I will try to look for it elsewhere.

Indeed, the other voice is Pt. Abhay Narayan Mallick. I heard him once at Siri Fort back in the mid-1990s. I was very impressed with his Raga Bhimpalasi, "shambho hara re gangadhara re".

SR

[mankuthimma]

Added 4 tracks of a lengthy Dhrupad Recital by Uday Bhawalkar . The end of one and start of the next is not seamless .That is the way I got it from a Dharwar contact long ago. Nevertheless it is a beauty and could be of some significance , in this thread

http://www.esnips.com/web/chennairasika-music

Scroll down to see a Mohana by Somu also _ Edaree Joochithivo

[Suji Ram]

MK,
Just hearing the HM bhupali of the tracks you posted.
Wonderful note by note progression.....has a lulling effect..calmness
One can actually learn to play along..
Thanks

[mankuthimma]

The Four Part Dhrupad One ?
No wonder . It is indeed a top notch one.
More to follow as the discussion progresses

[mankuthimma]

http://www.mediafire.com/file/mjzja67lz ... Mohana.mp3

A very Bhupali-ish Mohana from a duet by TNK-Chandru .
See how Chandru's strokes takes him from the likeable to the loveable

[Sangeet Rasik]

http://www.mediafire.com/file/mjzja67lz ... Mohana.mp3

A very Bhupali-ish Mohana from a duet by TNK-Chandru .
See how Chandru's strokes takes him from the likeable to the loveable

Manku,

Thanks for the excellent uploads. I will be continuing the discussion after listening to all of them. As for the recording above, it seems very similar to another one by Lalgudi Jayaraman and family. The latter is commercially available for a while now.

SR

[mankuthimma]

SR
This one is definitely a TNK-Chandru Duet .
I have the whole concert.In fact a few of such duets .

[Suji Ram]

MK,
We do need a LGJ, TNK, MSG mix here too for mohanam.

[mankuthimma]

Not difficult at all .
Mohana , Shanmukhapriya , Todi , Bilahari , Sindhu Bhairavi , Nalinakanthi , Hindola ...
High Octane , Highly individualistic Stamp on these ragas.
Will wait for the right threads.

[vasanthakokilam]

alternatively a switchover to a different paradigm) led to the divergence between HM and CM.

The switchover to a different but related paradigm appeals to me as a reasonable explanation for the HM-CM divergence. Pandit. Jha says, as quoted by Parikkar 'uccharaNa bheda se raga bheda'.. The lessening of the meend or a different type of meend in CM, especially when compared to khayal genre along with the introduction of oscillations on either side of the note seem to figure in that shift in uccharaNa, contributing to that different sound of CM. Dhrupad sounds closer to CM.

Here is one way this thread has made me observe things or pay attention to facets, along the lines Thima mentioned.
I was listening to the kalyani ata thala varnam ( vanajakshi ) by TNS earlier today.. The master was in fine form in that recording, also singing the varnam at a slower tempo. The mukthayiswarams have remarkable affiliation to the Mohanam vibe even in the presence of M2 and N3. I had not noticed that before.
And at the end of the pUrvAngA TNS winds back to the pallavi line and that transition had remarkable similarity to G P G.. R.. S !!

[hariniraghavan]

Was it in the adi or ata tala varnam?
Harini.

[vasanthakokilam]

ata thala varnam

[Christian Kenit Ram]

Lec dem by CN Ravikiran

" Ragas and Relationships "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r4SK2kc7Q4

Ex : Mohanam , Atana , Begada ...

He would like to reassign many ragas to different melas than they are listed in the old books ( where they are mostly assigned to the lowest number mela )

Btw , some of the contents of his lecture have already been mentioned in this thread .