Lakshayam and LakshaNam - In music and in public speaking

[vasanthakokilam]

I was reading the auto biography recently of Booker. T. Washington ( thanks Cool for the link ). He was a well known orator and a natural speaker. He wrote about his own views on public speaking. There were some striking resemblances to how we characterize our music as consisting of lakshaya sangeetham ( aesthetics and rasa related ) and lakshaNa sangeetham ( grammar and rules related).

Let me reproduce a short snippet of his views on public speaking. Then I tweaked it a bit so it applies to our music.

------
Booker. T. Washington on public speaking.

"...I believe that one always does himself and his audience an injustice when he speaks merely for the sake of
speaking. I do not believe that one should speak unless, deep down in his heart, he feels convinced that
he has a message to deliver. When one feels, from the bottom of his feet to the top of his head, that he
has something to say that is going to help some individual or some cause, then let him say it; and in
delivering his message I do not believe that many of the artificial rules of elocution can, under such
circumstances, help him very much. Although there are certain things, such as pauses, breathing, and
pitch of voice, that are very important, none of these can take the place of soul in an address.
When I have an address to deliver, I like to forget all about the rules for the proper use of the
English language, and all about rhetoric and that sort of thing, and I like to make the audience
forget all about these things, too....."
---
Here is my tweaked part..
---
An artist does himself and his audience an injustice when he sings merely for the sake of
singing. One should not sing unless, deep down in his heart, he feels convinced that
he has an emotional message to deliver. Under such circumstances, in delivering that message, many of the
rules of singing and singing techniques can not help him very much. Although there are
certain things, such as pauses, breathing, and pitch of voice, are very important, none of these
can take the place of rasa, emotion and bhAvam in a concert.
When an artist has a concert to deliver, it is beneficial to forget all about the rules for the proper use of musical phrases,
and about effective singing and that sort of thing, and he should make the audience
forget about these things too.
---

This description definitely skews the significance of music towards lakshaya than lakshaNa. it does not quite imply grammar is not important. One way to interpret it is, lakshaNa is useful for defining, standardizing, communicating, learning and practicing but it is advisable to not think about these grammar level details during a concert.

This seems to jive with the CM practice, right? That is, CM is more a lakshaya sangeetham in practice, with lakshaNa providing the foundational support without constraining and suffocating the lakshaya too much. HM is probably even more so in that direction.

Comments and alternate views welcome!

[venkatakailasam]

It may be interesting to know that Shri TNR was following certain Lakshiyam like resisting the temptation of playing popular cheap tunes.

He considered that he should maintain certain standards. Here is an article from The Hindu of December 13, 2010

A trail-blazing nagaswaram genius.

http://www.thehindu.com/arts/music/article948529.ece

venkatakailasam

[Shivadasan]

Very rightly said.

Tiruvalluvar says that one should speak only when it is going to benefit the society. He has dedicated one full chapter on the art of talking - “Payanila Sollamai”. He has also written one chapter on the essence of public speaking - “Avai anjamai” One chapter on effective speaking "Sol Vanmai" informs us how effective should be our speech.

What you posed will make every musician go back to the question “Why do I sing ?” . Each musician has his own reason for singing. May be financial support, name, fame , social acceptance and so on. Very few persons would be able to reply ,”just for the love of it.”

So far Laksya and Lakshana is concerned, can we make a comparison to oratory and composing verses ?

An orator or a poet need not verify the rules of grammer frequently while rendering an oration or composing a verse. He would have absorbed it so much that it would be in his blood so that it guides his output automatically .

Similarly great musicians imbibe the rules into their music so much that there would be no need for them to refer to the Lakshana while singing. If they know a raga they knew everything about it and they would always be within the rules. There may be some exceptions in certain contested ragas.

Lakshnas appear to have been created after Lakshya and appears to have been prepared so that the tradition is preserved. It has been changing from time to time to keep up with Lakshya . Bharatha, Ratnakara, Venkatamaki etc. etc.

[arasi]

VK,
Very interesting. Just read Sanjay's blog which has something to do with this--a vidvAn's point of view...

[VK RAMAN]

Good topic. I like to read more from learned rasikas, poets, artists. ”just for the love of it” - can a singer sing?

[Sundara Rajan]

Vasanatakokilam: I guess you really meant to say, in your second sentence, one should NOT sing, unless he feels convinced -----. Perhaps a typo.

[munirao2001]

The wealth and heritage of knowledge is based both on Lakshya and Lakshana, both complementary. Conflicts are simply due to either ignorance or rose to cover the weakness. Sensing the immense benefits of Lakshya, edifice of Lakshana was formed and structured with the objective of clarity, understanding, appreciation, practice, teach and most importantly to hone the skills and for highest values in performances, pregnant with Lakshya gnanam. Primacy for Lakshya is given, for Rasa Shrishti, with the gained mastery over manodharma. Lakshana gnanam and practice does not restrict or act as impediment, but equips to focus more on manodharma, with the strength of perfection achieved. It is also factual that the limitation in Lakshya gnanam can be over come with Lakshana gnanam. Without the Lakshana, with Lakshya with abandon, is hazy or unclear form in flow in breach and is self destructive.
A performance by a Great Maestro/Maestro, with unfettered manodharma, suffering in a minuscule or a small part, through unintentional slippage in Lakshna, should be ignored for the higher values in delivery or performance. To avoid such lapses and for higher perfection through blemish less performance with chaste and noble purity, in the future, the lapse(s) are to be informed for corrective action. Definitely it does not call for unbridled criticism with main focus on the lapse(s), ignoring the otherwise, exceptional performance of high standard.
True Artist is first and foremost, a good Rasika with deep love for the Art. Artist chooses to become performer to partake the pleasure he has derived and values imbibed with other rasikas with goals and objectives of gaining recognition and rewards of the success in his endeavor, akin to the benefits of Prayer and Prasadam! Self Actualization without the Self Fulfillment is not possible. Self Fulfillment can not be achieved without the minimal comforts in living. Bhogi can only become Yogi!

[vasanthakokilam]

>Perhaps a typo.
Sundara Rajan, yes. I have fixed it now. Thanks for pointing it out.

Shivadasan, thanks for the references to the kuraL chapters. I will check them out. I wish our Tamil teachers in high school used such chapters as life lessons rather than focusing on only grammar. Again, the same lakshaya vs lakshaNa aspects in the educational context.

munirao, thanks for your views which set the two in context. I just happened to listen to a Bhairavi by Somu today( I think Cool uploaded that in the past 6 months or so ) . The vibe I got was, given the way he was singing his heart out with complete immersion in the music and being 'in the zone', there is no way he was 'thinking', let alone thinking about lakshaNas.

[VK RAMAN]

Bhogi can only become Yogi! well said.

[vgovindan]

Self Fulfillment can not be achieved without the minimal comforts in living.
Bhogi can only become Yogi!

There is no set definition for 'minimal'.
A bhOgi can become a 'rOgi' too.

[munirao2001]

vgovindan
On the 'minimal', Life giving, enjoyment, perpetuity and support contributing factors constitute the minimalism. It is Dharmic. One's own search and true understanding of intrinsic requirements of Self, will lead to minimalism. Constant Comparison, Competitiveness, attempts at securing other(s) requirements through artificial and unnatural aspirations leads to maximal ism, disturbing and disrupting natural Life. One of the Life ebbing process, Greed sets in, firmly. Wants can be met but, Greed is insatiable and can not be met. Bhogi, with greed, becomes 'rogi' - living being, with self inflicted affliction(s), not otherwise.

Imitation and adaptation, in various degrees and becoming like some one else,other than the Self, is easy and common. But, Life takes up the challenges of continuous and constant conflicts and chaos. Self aggrandizement becomes the easy tool, to stay afloat. To understand Self and requirements of Self, is the real challenge and beauty in Life!, but uncommon. Inquiry, observation, sensitivity, simplicity,true knowledge of reality and its total acceptance and living, through unconditioned mind leads us to become both Bhogi and Yogi, with no chance of becoming 'rogi'.

[srikant1987]

I agree with Sri Muni Rao on lakShaNa and lakShya.

[vgovindan]

munirao,
I am more than convinced with your explanation of the words 'minimalism' and 'bhOgi'. My intention was to highlight 'bhOgi' being a loaded word, lest people rush to hasty conclusions. Sorry for the digression.