Vaikam Jayachandran , Satish dhawan Auditorium, IISc Campus

[eppramod]

Vocal : Vaikam Jayachandran

Violin : Aditi Krishnaprasad

Mrudangam : Palakkad Harinarayanan

Venue : Satish dhawan Auditorium, IISc Campus Bangalore (organised together BHERI and Sanskrit club IISc)
Date : 13/11/2010

Songlist:

01 SlOkam ( vakratuNDa) – sAvEri

sarasUDA ( varNAm) – sAvEri – Kottavasal Venkataramana Iyer ( S )

02 bhajAmahE srI vinAyakam – hamsadhwani – Tulaseevanam ( S )

03 saraswathI namOstutE – saraswati – GNB ( A,S )

04 kanchadalAyadAkshi – kamalA manOhari – Dikshitar ( S )

05 srI chandraSEkharam smarAmi – viTapi – TaraNi Narayanan Namboodiri ( A )

06 namO namastE gIrvANi – Keeravani – Dikshitar ( A,N,S )

neraval & swara @ ‘ sumanOpAsita kalyANI ‘

07 nAda tanumaniSam – chittaranjani – Thyagaraja ( S )

08 durusugA kripAjuci – sAvEri – Shyama Shastri ( A,N,S,T )

neraval & swara @ ‘ parama pAvani kripAvani vinutapadasarOja praNatArthi haru rANI’

09 thEruvateppO nenjE – khamAs – Neelakanta Shivan ( O )

10 srI mAdhavA vAsudEva – behAg – Papanasam Shivan

11 mangaLam – saurAshtram – Thyagaraja

I attended this concert.Overall a good one.
Hall was very good and the concert lasted a little over 2 and a half hours.

A little more detailed description of the concert can be found in our "braindrain"'s blog.

http://kpjayan.wordpress.com/

Regards,
Pramod

[ksrimech]

06 namO namastE gIrvANi – Keeravani – Dikshitar ( A,N,S )

neraval & swara @ ‘ sumanOpAsita kalyANI ‘

gIrvaNi's equivalent rAgAnga rAgam is not kIravANi. It is gavAmbhOdi. The equivalent rAgAnga rAgam for kIravANi is kIraNAvaLi.

Just read the blog post. The author also confirms the change of the raga by the artiste.

[prashant]

It is extremely disappointing to hear of a Dikshitar krithi being re-tuned like this!

[mankuthimma]

Sanjay Has sung it in gavAmbhOdi.

[arunsri]

There are enough and more kritis in Keeravaani if this artiste wanted to sing a krithi in that raaga, Why re tune something, and show your ignorance.

Someone has rightly said - 'It is better to remain quiet rather than open your mouth and reveal your foolishness' Such re-tuning by who-ever reveals ONLY this, lack of respect to the composition and the composer. If the tunesmith can re-tune something in keeravani, he/she/it can also compose, right!

[arunsri]

Another fall out of this kind of an exercise is that, people who are just being introduced to music and not so knowledgeable but serious listeners will make a note that there is a MD kriti in Keeravani going by these starting words.... .This artiste will teach a few of his students, some others will learn for a recording and sing it in other fora, thereby making this a very authentic version. Only when one hears the real version (seldom sung), will they even know that such a change has taken place.... So in a few years time - this kriti will end up being in keeravani, and Poor MD - who composed in 72 asampUrNa mELa paddhathi will lose one more kriti (mAyE being the earlier one) to re-tuning.

[prashant]

Don't forget the beautiful shri gaNEshAt param which has been criminally retuned in something called 'vINavAdani' despite one of MD's best efforts in embedding this difficult raga name into the song ['mAtaHNga vadanA dumA rudra darshitAt bhUta bhautika...'].

[arunsri]

Prashant

I did not remember the ragam, hence chose not to post about it. Also, madhurAmbAm bhajarE is retuned to bhavapriya by Yesudas from mELa 46!!

Anyway, who has the time to go into the details of the sahitya before re-tuning! The point is, if you are so great - trying to re-tune, have the guts, compose a song in a tune of your choice and see if it is accepted by folks. If so, great! You have NO RIGHT absolutely to retune someone's creation, akin to your kid being re-named by someone else, just because he/she is incapable of pronouncing the name/not liking the name.

[rshankar]

It is extremely disappointing to hear of a Dikshitar krithi being re-tuned like this!

If the rAga mudra was also changed to 'namO namastE kIr(a)vANi' - then the lovely meaning that Sri MD so carefully endowed the pallavi with - 'salutations to sarasvati (gIrvANi), enshrined in the confluence of nAda, bindu and kalA' would be lost and become mundane and meaningless, for kIravANi is the speech of the parrot.

[Jigyaasa]

Also, madhurAmbAm bhajarE is retuned to bhavapriya by Yesudas from mELa 46!!

That isn't the only thing he's done. As Prashant pointed out, shrIgaNEshAtparam is being sung in vINAvAdini and he's one of the people who does this. It irks me to think how long I was under the impression that vINAvadini was actually ArdradEshi because this was the only song I'd heard in either rAgA.

[PUNARVASU]

It is extremely disappointing to hear of a Dikshitar krithi being re-tuned like this!

How can a musician take such a liberty with the compositions of the great composers?
As pointed out by arunsri this trend is not correct; after a period of time, people will forget the original ragam of the compositions. This is a 'dis-service' to the great composers. What can one do to stop such a trend?

[ksrimech]

They should be awarded sangeetha kolainidhi! ]

[Enna_Solven]

Ah, that explains why I have many songs in my collection in different ragas. what about tALa? Everyone uses a different tALa. No quality control?

Sri Rama Padama should it be amrutavahini or Amrutavarshini (Sikkil Sisters)
Are Vivardhani and Gurjari same ragam?
Gnamosagarada in gamanasrama? (SSI, MMI, KJY. I have two versions of SSI one in each rAgA?!)
Is there a ragam called kanakasri (MLV - Baro Krishanyya)

[PUNARVASU]

Sri rama padama is Amritavahini.

[braindrain]

If the rAga mudra was also changed to 'namO namastE kIr(a)vANi' - then the lovely meaning that Sri MD so carefully endowed the pallavi with - 'salutations to sarasvati (gIrvANi), enshrined in the confluence of nAda, bindu and kalA' would be lost and become mundane and meaningless, for kIravANi is the speech of the parrot.

He sang it as 'gIrvANi' and not kIravANi.

[rajeshnat]

He sang it as 'gIrvANi' and not kIravANi.

Pramod,
You can also edit the first post to remove references of KiravAni . He has also not retuned MD's krithi. :$

[braindrain]

Rajesh,
He sang the kriti 'naO namastE gIrvANi' in kIravANi. The word 'gIrvANi' was not pronounced as kIrvANi, is what I meant.

[narayan]

Is there any evidence that Vaikam Jayachandran has re-tuned the song in question? I know a few songs taught to me by 'respectable' people which appear to have been re-tuned by someone or other at some point. Nagumomu in Abheri leads this list. I certainly didn't mean to disrespect anyone and of course my ignorance of the original was exposed in some cases. I do suspect that by now, a lot of people know about the Nadatanumanisham and other re-tunings and still sing the more popular version, because ... In my own case, I haven't slept too well after finding out that Sahana is a 22 mela janyam for Dikshitar! But one moves on, most of the time.

In this context, extrapolating that the artiste has mutilated lyrics is going a little farther than the evidence warrants!

My request to those who know the alternate and maybe more authentic versions of songs is to sing/play them and popularize them so that they become known to people (like me, at least). I don't see what else one can really do.

[tyagarajadasa]

I cannot understand this kind of debate at all....Who are we incriminating after all? Are we trying to say that people like SSI and MMI (or may be their teachers) were stupids to have sung mAyE like that or mInAkshi mEmudam dEhi in pUrvi kalyani (and not gamakakriyA ) and that a BOOK that was written by MD's grandson is to be adhered to as vEda vAk?

I don't care what a few pages say.....to me, my Guru's words and traditional parampara are important, not notations in a book. That book did not teach me SRGMPDNS, neither did it teach me to perform. It is not that I do not have respect for MD. I learnt compositions from my Guru, why change it because a book says some thing different? I am NOT one creepy guy who is going to change my Guru's version of shrI kamalAmbikAyA in sahAna because this book claims it is a janyam of the 22nd melakartA. I am not even saying that sahAna belonging to 22nd meLam is wrong. In fact, i am so glad that there exists so much diversity in our music!

I accept that it is wrong to change some one else's compositions; but my doubt is that not ONE person living now has heard Dikshitar or Tyagaraja swami. Whatever Shri. Subbarama Dikshitar heard, he has recorded in a book, but what is the guarantee that he did not change anything to make things consistent and scientific? For example, may be Dikshitar never intended to include that rAga mudra Shri. Prashant says. Do we know for sure? May be we are over-interpreting (reading toooo much between the lines?) Have we heard it or do we have a written document from Dikshitar himself? Why should only this book be correct? Isn't a book supposed to be only a reference?

Then how is it that people who have learnt from the lineage of the Tanjavur quartet sing so many of Dikshitar's kritis differently? Just because they did not write it down, does it mean that their pAthAntaram is wrong or are we questioning their studentship under MD?
Moreover, when Dikshitar composed, did he personally write down his thoughts? May be he taught differently to different disciples? At least Sambamurthy's book on Tyagaraja swami says that perhaps Swamigal did that.....Who knows for sure, MD must have done that too?

What is wrong in saying AbhEri and pantuvarALi? These supposedly high-fi, high-tech "MD supporters" will frown (karNATaka dEvagAndhAri and kAmavardhani apparently ). I feel the scientific community is trying to extend its importance to "references" and nomenclature in our music....Like u know my kid brother asked why say alpha, beta, theta? Why not say just a,b,c? Any answers folks?? :devil:

Is this what our music about?? Debating about names of raagams and their forms? Aren't we all grateful to one person who dared to insert N3 in khamas? I don't care whether MMI gives a N3 and M2 in mohanam....or Brindamma singing G2 in the suruTTi (is it suraTi? ) padam so long as these are from authentic pAThAntarams (learnt from a Guru belonging to a solid karNa parampara, not from notation) . So what if some one sings ninnE bhajana in gambhIra nATTai or gnAnamosaga rAdA in pUrvi kalyANi..... so long as it brings out the appropriate bhAvam, why should I care?

Finally, my point is that we must see first see how this gentleman has learnt this kriti, whether the pAThAntaram is authentic; before we get into discussions like this...OK, if he has learnt from notation, and elders have not sung it before, fine....he is wrong! But first let us ensure that no?

P.S. I do not mean any offence to anybody or any book. It is just that I cannot seem to understand, at this young, inexperienced age as to why elders need to worry about what books say in our music. My simple question is, can a book replace a Guru? If SSI, MMI, Dhananmmal and others had restricted themselves to what books say, would we have got such beautiful pAthAntarams? Just close your eyes and hear that G2 in koNTegAdu or that N3 in cani tODi; one will understand the natural flow and beauty of the bhAvam. Please, please, please let us not pull our music to levels where things can be learnt from books without help from Guru.

Can calling panthuvarali hurt the rAga devata? (In fact Ponniah Pillai, a disciple of Dikshitar says nIdu sombu pantuvarALi-anucu nE pADiti mari; in his kriti "nIdu pAdamE"; How can we explain this??)
So long as there is suswaram and more importantly bhavam, why should we care at all? Our music is surely beyond all this debate? ; In tyAgarAja swAmi's own words:
vAdamula dIraka, bhramasevArulu juCi..ninnE nere namminAnurA! O rAmayyA!
Let our Gods decide whether they like some one's version of a kriti or not!

(now why would I care whether this was actually sung in panthuvarali with sangatis above G or kAmavardhani....OMG-> how can people miss out the philosophy of our music and fall for trivial debates! Is this why our composers have composed kritis?They surely did not have such debates amongst themselves?)

[prashant]

I will reply in detai lto tyagarajadasa's interesting post. Just two points:

1. I think N3 in khamAs adds no aesthetic value whatsoever. sujana jIvana, sItApatE, the MD krithis, marulukonnAdirA etc flow just fine without N3. Similarly, whoever has sung N3 in CanitODi, it may sound good, but it's completely unnecessary. There are enough avenues for manodharma without inflicting bodily harm on krithis.

2. Dikshitar has included the raga mudra in pretty much every rAgA he has composed, with a few exceptions like tODi and some others I don't recall. When he can go to great trouble to embed names like ArdradEshi, bilahari, bEgaDA, navarauj, gIrvAni is just 'under-arm bowling' for him. OF COURSE he intended to embed the rAgA mudra there! My point to this artiste is - take the trouble to understand what gIrvANi is, and try to sing it that way. If we continue to try this, then let me retune evari mATa in simhEndramadhyamam, or nannu pAlimpa in bhUpALa, or for that matter, koNTEgAdu in kadanakutuhala. I am sure I can find 'traditional parampara' for it. Who gives a fig for the umpteen authentic textual references, and research work of senior artistes, to preserve these krithis in their original ragas, to preserve the ragas themselves [Abheri vs. karnATaka dEvagAndhAri etc]?

More later.

[tyagarajadasa]

Dear Shri. Prashant,

Before i invite any more lashings from elders in this forum, let me reiterate my question :
Why debate about N3 in khamas? So long as one can sing both ways, why worry? That is, so long as one can sing sujana jIvana without N3 and brOcEva with it, I see no harm...Again, that small N3 in cani tODi may not be necessary, but its addition does not harm the composition, nay; it only enhances it ! Note that I am not saying that the version without N3 is bad, it is super too! That is what I am stressing at: This diversity is perhaps what is most interesting about our music. When our composers never felt the need to fight over this (i know they did not have rasikas.org for this purpose!) why should we? Cool down folks, is all that I am saying!

I am also not saying that one can go on and create his own tunes for compositions; what I am saying is that if our elders have kept certain versions intact (SSI did have access to SSP, no?), then why change them? Today this book will say something, tomorrow some other book would. My desperate question is: Whom should I trust? My teacher or a book?? Can we get definitive answers to this question at all???

So I am suggesting, WHY DEBATE AT ALL at such issues? Like I said before, let us leave it to the Gods to decide whether they like our versions or not and not question each other about what is right and wrong.....My "hypothesis" is that we will go no where. Those who want to follow lakshanas in books, go ahead, do so, but pl don't question the need for and the authenticity of traditional karna parampara! You owe that to the teachers who have taught you and recordings you heard to learn so many more things than a book....

My position about this whole gIrvANi issue is that we must first have evidence that this person has not learnt it from an authentic source (My definition of authentic is a bit different; pl read previous post!); if he has indeed made it up himself, then no excuses! I am indeed assuming here that people do not lie about such things and are dignified enough about such issues (hope i am not naive!) ; so retuning evari mATa, etc. is out of question. Lastly, I was refering to the kriti "shrI gaNEshAt param" when I said "reading toooo much between the lines"

[narayan]

tyagarajadasa,
Your heartfelt post is reflective of many dilemmas that we face. One, who to trust? Second, whether competing aesthetic views can co-exist without definitively bringing down other views. I hope they can.
The only point I differ from you is "why debate?". Speaking for myself, I have learnt much from people willing to articulate their views and hope that this tradition continues (whether in rasikas.org or elsewhere) in our art and other aspects of life as well.

[eppramod]

Is there any evidence that Vaikam Jayachandran has re-tuned the song in question?

As far as i have understood he has learned this kriti this way from his Guru.

And Keeravani he sang was definitely enjoyable to me at least.

Pramod

[mankuthimma]

A perfect case for starting the culture of using nomenclatures like Misra Keervani... Misra Kamas ... in Carnatic Music

[prashant]

I cannot understand this kind of debate at all....Who are we incriminating after all? Are we trying to say that people like SSI and MMI (or may be their teachers) were stupids to have sung mAyE like that or mInAkshi mEmudam dEhi in pUrvi kalyani (and not gamakakriyA ) and that a BOOK that was written by MD's grandson is to be adhered to as vEda vAk?

No one is saying they were 'stupid'. Their greatness is beyond question. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there exists an authentic aural and textual reference for mAyE in tarangiNi with D1 that predates SSI and MMI. With all due respect to SSI and MMI, two of my favorite musicians, that is not excusable. Can you then explain why SSI would sing the tarangiNi passage in sAnandam kamalAmanOhari correctly in the 'original' tarangiNi and mAyE in 'sudhAtarangiNi'? My point is simply this, just because something sounds good, does not make it right. pATAntaram is a most valid concept and is the cornerstone of our music. If everyone sang every krithi the same way, our music would become formulaic. However, the definition of pATAntaram has limits and does not extend to deliberately tinkering with codified raga lakshanas to make something sound more 'pleasing' to the ear.

I accept that it is wrong to change some one else's compositions; but my doubt is that not ONE person living now has heard Dikshitar or Tyagaraja swami. Whatever Shri. Subbarama Dikshitar heard, he has recorded in a book, but what is the guarantee that he did not change anything to make things consistent and scientific? For example, may be Dikshitar never intended to include that rAga mudra Shri. Prashant says. Do we know for sure? May be we are over-interpreting (reading toooo much between the lines?) Have we heard it or do we have a written document from Dikshitar himself? Why should only this book be correct? Isn't a book supposed to be only a reference?

I've already responded to this before. Do we , for example, have a written document from Tyagaraja that he composed kaddanuvAriki in tODi? If you take a straw poll of eminent music scholars [of which I am most definitely not one], you will find that the authenticity of the SSP is pretty much a given. Also, the SSP contains enough riddles that people are still scratching their heads over - therefore I do not buy the argument that Subbarama Dikshitar changed things to 'make things consistent and scientific'.

Then how is it that people who have learnt from the lineage of the Tanjavur quartet sing so many of Dikshitar's kritis differently? Just because they did not write it down, does it mean that their pAthAntaram is wrong or are we questioning their studentship under MD?
Moreover, when Dikshitar composed, did he personally write down his thoughts? May be he taught differently to different disciples? At least Sambamurthy's book on Tyagaraja swami says that perhaps Swamigal did that.....Who knows for sure, MD must have done that too?

I am not informed about this topic and would like to learn. Can you provide some examples of those who learnt from the lineage of the Tanjavur quartet singing MD's krithis differently? I

The microscopic attention to detail [grammar, prosody, sthala purana, raga mudra embedding] in MD's compositions seem to indicate a high degree of order and structure in his thought process. I would think it highly unlikely that he would teach different versions of compositions to different disciples.

What is wrong in saying AbhEri and pantuvarALi? These supposedly high-fi, high-tech "MD supporters" will frown (karNATaka dEvagAndhAri and kAmavardhani apparently ). I feel the scientific community is trying to extend its importance to "references" and nomenclature in our music....Like u know my kid brother asked why say alpha, beta, theta? Why not say just a,b,c? Any answers folks?? :devil:

The evidence is easily available. If you choose to ignore it, that's your choice. Abheri is Abheri. Devagandharam is Devagandharam.

Aren't we all grateful to one person who dared to insert N3 in khamas?

If I can include myself in 'all': No, we are not.

So what if some one sings ninnE bhajana in gambhIra nATTai or gnAnamosaga rAdA in pUrvi kalyANi..... so long as it brings out the appropriate bhAvam, why should I care?

What is 'appropriate bhavam'. Who defines it? Not you or me. The composer does. If they tuned these songs in nATa or shaDvidhamArgiNi, who in the world are we to impose our definition of 'appropriate bhavam' on them?

Finally, my point is that we must see first see how this gentleman has learnt this kriti, whether the pAThAntaram is authentic; before we get into discussions like this...OK, if he has learnt from notation, and elders have not sung it before, fine....he is wrong! But first let us ensure that no?

Carnatic music is a highly aesthetic art form. Curiosity and an analytical mind are helpful in this pursuit, most especially so if one wants to sing concerts. One cannot just sing anything. Dikshitar has composed in kiraNAvaLi, the 'asampurNa equivalent' of kIravANi. It does not take an Einstein to figure out that when a panCa bhUta kiraNAvaLim exists, namO namastE gIrvANi is unlikely to be in kIravANi. A performing musician has to perform some basic analysis of his output, and exercise some quality and output control, just like anyone in any profession.

P.S. I do not mean any offence to anybody or any book. It is just that I cannot seem to understand, at this young, inexperienced age as to why elders need to worry about what books say in our music. My simple question is, can a book replace a Guru? If SSI, MMI, Dhananmmal and others had restricted themselves to what books say, would we have got such beautiful pAthAntarams? Just close your eyes and hear that G2 in koNTegAdu or that N3 in cani tODi; one will understand the natural flow and beauty of the bhAvam. Please, please, please let us not pull our music to levels where things can be learnt from books without help from Guru.

You are completely missing the point. No one is saying books can replace a Guru. They never can, and are not intended to. Books are a storehouse of references and accumulated information. The knowledge in them is distilled into an ethos, a style, a bANi if you will, by a principled and dedicated Guru. Just because SSI, MMI and Dhanammal found some things aesthetic and incorporated them into their renditions, everyone does not have to consider them 'beautiful pATAntarams'. I am sure they had reasons that they found valid for doing what they did, but that does not take away from the fact that they changed raga swaroopas that existed far before they were even born. They were path-breaking musicians, but I find no value in these specific contributions. To me, singing N3 in Cani tODi is something I find nothing natural about. I will defend to my death your right to find these additions beautiful, your right to sing and appreciate them, and your right to be moved by them. Just don't expect me to feel as passionately about them, because each of these misplaced experiments closes another door to our rich history. Carnatic music is one of the world's great systems and offers unparalleled scope for creativity. It is up to a musician's sense of aesthetics to choose between genuine, heartfelt, original expression and musical meddling.

[VK RAMAN]

It is up to a musician's sense of aesthetics to choose between genuine, heartfelt, original expression and musical meddling - well said Prashant.

[ksrimech]

I agree with prashant. Very well answered.

Let me play a cover drive in between all the discussions. kAmavardhini or kASirAmakriyA can never become pantuvarALi. With that happening, all the rules of kaTapayAdisamkhyA get flushed down the drain! Are tODi and hanumatODi, SankarAbharaNam and dhIraSankarAbharaNam, kalyANi and mEchakalyANi (or SantakalyANi) different mELakarthAs or janyAms of one another? In the same way, only SubhapantuvarALi or SivapantuvarALi can be pantuvarALi. IMHO, who ever did this change (& when ever they did the change!) did disservice to all the yeoman service of our past masters like vEnkaTamakhin, gOvindAchArya and subburAma dIkSitar. Hopefully, in the name of janaranjakam, karnATaka sangIta grammar is not forgotten! Probably nobody cares about this or they are simply going to say "how does it matter?". Also, pUrvikalyaNi and gamakakriyA are exactly identical!

[rajeshnat]

tyagarajadasa
The debate of taking up "precedence of what is taught to what was composed " may be a valid point till the mid 20th century as the knowledge of songs was more hearsay. But now with internet penetration, musicians and gurus can take a conscious choice of only learning/teaching the exact raga , the authenticity is fairly well proven though there could be very very few exceptions.

Having said that say Vaikkam Jayachandran is a musician who must have learnt atleast few decades back this number(he being a student of TMT) so he falls in the bracket of pre 20th century, but you being a young musician who is a post internet era musician can take a conscious choice of taking "precedence of what is composed to what is taught".

Also remember you also have to measure a krithis stickiness over a period of 200 to 300 years .Few krithis having multiple paddantharams are far less valued than most of the krithis which have single paddantharam all measured long term. I agree with Prashanth

[Jigyaasa]

So long as one can sing both ways, why worry?...

That is what I am stressing at: This diversity is perhaps what is most interesting about our music. When our composers never felt the need to fight over this (i know they did not have rasikas.org for this purpose!) why should we? Cool down folks, is all that I am saying!

...WHY DEBATE AT ALL at such issues? ...

My "hypothesis" is that we will go no where. Those who want to follow lakshanas in books, go ahead, do so, but pl don't question the need for and the authenticity of traditional karna parampara! You owe that to the teachers who have taught you and recordings you heard to learn so many more things than a book....

Lastly, I was refering to the kriti "shrI gaNEshAt param" when I said "reading toooo much between the lines"

As far as Dikshitar goes, it's MOSTLY about reading between the lines. I suppose that's why someone rightly said that Thyagraja kritis are drAkshApAkam (can be relished like raisins; just put them into your mouth and you can experience the taste immediately), Shyama Shastri kritis as kadalIpAkam (like eating a banana; you have to remove the peel) and Dikshitar kritis as nArikElapAkam (like drinking tender coconut; you need to get through several layers). His kritis are a study in figures of speech and all kinds of literary devices. The incorporation of ArdradEshi without sounding pretentious is pure genius. It is MEANT to be "read between the lines" unlike some contemporary compositions where they just put in the name of the raga BLUNTLY. This seems to be the level of perception at which you want to appreciate your Carnatic music. That's where the difference between laymen and scholars comes into the picture. The typical "Does it sound good? Yes, that's enough."-attitude (that MAY work for bhajans and abhangs). Well there's a LOT more to the edifice that is Carnatic music and people have EVERY RIGHT; nay, SHOULD be debating about such things in order to preserve the authenticity of the treasures that have been bequeathed to us.

If someone you truly respect and admire decided to remodel a gold necklace that's been in your family for generations by adding some copper just because he/she liked the color combination, would you be okay with it? It's still a necklace, right? It still looks good, right?

NO :@

It's EXACTLY the same with kritis of the Trinity or any other composer of the past. Just because your guru (PLEASE NOTE, WHEN I SAY YOUR GURU, I MEAN ANYONE IN GENERAL NOT "YOURS". So please don't take offence) decides to call shuddha dhanyAsi and udayaravichandrikA synonymous or sing mari mari ninne in sAramati or even better, nagumOmu in karnATaka dEvagAndhAri (yes, IT IS DIFFERENT FROM AbhEri, whether you accept it or not) because it's difficult to sing d1 and maybe doesn't sound as janaranjakam as the version with d2, DOES NOT mean that any of these things is JUSTIFIABLE. It's as simple as the difference between blind faith and verifying things on one's own. Also, not all gurus are of the same caliber or show the same commitment to maintaining the composer's bhava-rAga-tALa. And as they say, to err is human. Maybe that's why you say we should leave it to the Gods because as they also say, to forgive is divine. Well you can't ask a person who you murdered (musically, by mutilating his composition) to forgive you. I rest my case.

Also, pUrvikalyaNi and gamakakriyA are exactly identical!

Not true. gamakriyA allows the pa-da-sa usage which is found in EkAmranAtham for example but not in pUrvIkalyANi.

[tyagarajadasa]

@ Prashant,

First of all, thank you for clarifying so many issues. Like narayan rightly pointed out, these always trouble many people. I don't say that I am troubled, I am clear about what I want to sing and how....

Your reply perhaps consolidates whatever I was expecting! On a weird plane of thought, I am wondering whether the debate is about what is better : what u hear or what you see....But like u say, let us make a choice. What I want to add to this is: One must make a choice but should refrain from asserting hat he/she is right or other choices are wrong....

Points about appropriate bhAvam, aesthetics, etc. due to some "untheoretical phrases" and gamakams, etc. are personal choices. They will differ from person to person; so i think the solution is to either retain them or not; depending on the allowances of one's bANi......

I agree with you on the fact that if everyone sings the same, things will become formulaic.

As far as examples of pAThAntarams of Ponniah Pillai, from according to my, who is a disciple of Smt. T Brinda; the latter and her family members have learnt many kritis from Ponniah Pillai, the grandson of the Quartet Ponniah.... Their pAthAntarams seem very different for eg. shrI mAtrbhUtam, cEtashri, etc. (I am not sure that they actually learnt these particular from Ponniah Pillai). Even mahAgaNapatim vandE is quite different?

Finally, as I see, things are very much dependent on choice.... Perhaps Ponniah Pillai made a choice of using pantuvarALi and not kAmavardhani (despite the strikingly similar measure and fit of the two words!) I feel that's how it should be....Your last statement is the cherry on top of the icing on a tasty cake! Thank you once again!

@ Jigyaasa and narayan:

I get your point Indeed, some amount of debating is rqd...But we cannot make definitive, conclusion on such topics, right? I mean, stick to your choice is not a conclusion, is it?

@Jigyaasa,

Perhaps you sensed a wrong tone in my posts....I am only saying that this viewpoint may also not be wrong....The question of me justifying mine or my Guru's views does not arise at all, because I am not trying to prove that anyone is wrong or right.

BTW, I am NOT at all a supporter of "the chalta hai" attitude....I am talking about heavy weight music like that of Dhanammal's family and SSI and MMI...And Dhanammal's music is perhaps the least of the janaranjakam kind....
why should we talk about bhajans and abhangs??

Regarding jargons, my only question was "Why have them"; and I guess it is again my choice....

@rajeshnat,

I do not see why you made this statement:

"Few krithis having multiple paddantharams are far less valued than most of the krithis which have single paddantharam all measured long term"

Also, taking precedence over something is not an easy decision to make , one has to be a devoted learner to experience the dilemma. (I am not sure about your learning experience; so pl do not take offence).

[ksrimech]

Not true. gamakriyA allows the pa-da-sa usage which is found in EkAmranAtham for example but not in pUrvIkalyANi.

OK. I thought they were similar based on the discussions and quizzes we have had on rasikAs. May be I have misunderstood those discussions.

[Jigyaasa]

OK. I thought they were similar based on the discussions and quizzes we have had on rasikAs. May be I have misunderstood those discussions.

I quote from Sri. V.V.Srivatsa's observations on http://www.carnatica.net/newsletter/poorvakalyani.htm ---- "The absence of dha-ni-sa is the essential divergence between Gamanasrama and Poorvakalyani. Subbarama Dikshitar has not described vakratva, in the Arohana, which he states as sa-ri-ga-ma-pa-dha-sa. Pa-dha-pa-sa was a safety rote prescribed and propagated by an unidentified noble musicologist and musician. God bless him! This proves that Poorva Kalyani is not equal to Gamakakriya. Knowledgeable and high-class artistes should not use “pa-dha-pa-sa” when singing Gamakakriya – only “pa-dha-sa” be used and use “pa-dha-pa-sa” when rendering Poorvakalyani, which is a derivative of raga Gamanasrama."

[venkatpv]

Subbarama Dikshitar has not described vakratva, in the Arohana, which he states as sa-ri-ga-ma-pa-dha-sa. Pa-dha-pa-sa was a safety rote prescribed and propagated by an unidentified noble musicologist and musician. God bless him! This proves that Poorva Kalyani is not equal to Gamakakriya. Knowledgeable and high-class artistes should not use “pa-dha-pa-sa” when singing Gamakakriya – only “pa-dha-sa” be used and use “pa-dha-pa-sa” when rendering Poorvakalyani, which is a derivative of raga Gamanasrama."

IMHO, this is an ultra-conservative position to take. I don't see why Purvikalyani can't have the phrase pa-da-sa or ma-da-sa ,or why Gamakakriya can't have pa-da-pa-sa. shiva jaaye in the anupallavi of Meenakshi memudam is notated at pa-da-pa-sa-sa in the SSP (assuming that I am reading the notation correctly ) Also the Gamakakriya varnam of Sonti Venkatasubbayya has pdps or pddps occurring many times.

Also, it isn't clear to me why Dr. Srivatsa quotes Subbarama Dikshitar selectively. SD clearly states that "gamakakriya is also known as purvikalyani"!

That said, we do need to call it Gamakakriya if a Dikshitar kriti is being sung.

[saikiran]

At the outset as a rasika and ardent supporter of carnatic music and a student, i am very pleased to notice that ppl are spending so much of time in posting criticism about concerts. Seems to be a very good sign in times when filmi music is dominating carnatic music. Very heartening sign. But what remains a question mark is why too much of emphasis on whether it is correct to sing in one raaga or the other as long as it is technically correct and good to hear with bhavam.

Does any body have the guts to question Dr. M. Balamuralikrishna for what ever gimmicks he does to carnatic music? Why too much pondering on artists like Sri Vaikom???? Let us stop giving undue importance do debates like this for it is not required. Music fraternity should stand together, be united but these kind of cold wars are uncalled for.

[MaheshS]

Saikrian -

Compared to few other "arguments" in this forum, this one is actually quite alright IMO. Please note, the people are not "pondering" about Sri Vaikom, to be honest, this is the first time his concert has been reviewed in this forum. He sang a composition of Muthuswami Dikshitar in a different raga set by the composer. The main argument is, whether *any* artist can use their "artistic license" to change the raga when the composer himself has decided and composed the song with the specific raga including the raga name in a very beautiful way.

Pulling Dr Balamurali Krishna into this is like comparing salt and software. BMK can compose a krithi on the spot to prove his point and because it's HIS own composition. He does not need to use a different composers composition.

Having been part of this forum for years, this kind of "pondering" happens regardless of the artist. There is no sacred cow in this place.

Oh and lastly, my personal comment, don't be so patronising.

[eppramod]

Please note, the people are not "pondering" about Sri Vaikom, to be honest, this is the first time his concert has been reviewed in this forum. . The main argument is, whether *any* artist can use their "artistic license" to change the raga when the composer himself has decided and composed the song with the specific raga including the raga name in a very beautiful way.

Though deviating from the actual topic...
As a clarification, a few (may be very few) of Vaikam Jayachandran's concerts have already been reviewed before (so not the first time ).
Another point is, more than "artistic license", what i understood from the artist is that he sang the Kriti the way it was taught to him by his Guru.



Pramod

[saikiran]

MaheshS- Thanks for finding my post in the right spirit. I would like to bring to your notice that i completely understand what the debate is all about. I am quiet aware of the fact that Sri Vaikam sang it in different raaga.
You have mentioned that this is for the very first time that his concert is being discussed in this forum. If its for the very first time, my sense is that debate should be constructive but not destructive. From what ever little i understood from the debate, i felt that the artist is degraded. Its not the question of patronizing. Bloggers have been very unkind while using very harsh words about the artist.

One should always bear in mind that to err is human and these people who make nasty comments might also err one day. I again call for unity among the music fraternity.
I only referred to Dr. BMK in the context of making his own changes to tunes of others. There are umpteen instances for the same- irrespective of whether one agrees or not- in fact he himself admitted it while interviewed by a telugu tv channel. In fact i have high regards for the stalwart.