Phrases

[Sramana]

Hey all!

I was wondering about everybody's understanding of "phrases" in CM. One of the first things I learned about CM from certain CM friends is that at the formal level much of the music is about "phrases". A raga is more than a scale because it consists not merely of a ladder of pitches but of expectations for their combination. The bhava of a raga comes through in its sequencing of pitches across time, both as discrete notes and as gamakas. The ragas are structured in particular ways because generations of musicians and rasikas have discovered a huge variety of distinct phrases (with variants and combinations) that generate various emotional and intellectual effects.

IF I were to "define" CM in these terms, what would you all think I'm leaving out? Let's deal purely with the raga aspect, leaving tala out. (I may have a crude understanding of raga, but I have no understanding at all of tala.)

One additional question I have is about timbre and dynamics. My tradition (Chinese guqin) focuses a lot of theoretical attention on dynamic and timbral manipulations--that is, subtle volume effects and manipulation of tone color. For a long time I resisted applying a "phrasal" analysis to qin music because the music stresses dynamics and timbre at the same level (or even moreso than!) melody and rhythm. When I bring up dynamics and timbre to my CM friends, they usually say that these get little explicit focus. Is this the case? Given how much formal attention goes to melody and rhythm, are the dynamic and timbral aspects just expected to germinate of themselves?

Also...in discussing CM vs HM, it was suggested to me that the emphasis on HM is more on individual notes than on phrases. Does this analysis hold up? At least as compared to CM...

Also also...I think I've figured out that the reason I love L. Shankar and L. Subramaniam (against all CM common sense) is specifically that they VIOLATE phrasal expectations, and focus indeed on the individual notes and how they can be combined in innovative ways.

[ramakriya]

Also...in discussing CM vs HM, it was suggested to me that the emphasis on HM is more on individual notes than on phrases. Does this analysis hold up? At least as compared to CM...

On the contrary, I think , HM is very phrase oriented too. Each rAga (or a group of rAgas) has a "pakad" ; So you have different
kAnaDas, kalyANs and kouns's , each characterized by its own phrase.


-Ramakriya

[Vocalist]

Quite right ramakriya. Somehow, I've so far been able to distinguish HM vs CM sindu bhairavi. Maybe its the phrases?

[Sramana]

I think that, given the source, what might have been meant by "HM is less phrasal" is that "the phrases take longer/are less dense + there's more dissonance." If "phrases" in CM usage are by definition compact, relatively dense, and avoid things like lingering on ni without resolving to sa, then I guess HM doesn't have the same kind of "phrases" though it is certainly still phrasal. OK, point defused. Anyway, my other questions stand.

[arunk]

Hi sramana,

My 2 cents

One of the first things I learned about CM from certain CM friends is that at the formal level much of the music is about "phrases". A raga is more than a scale because it consists not merely of a ladder of pitches but of expectations for their combination

IMO, i dont think you can generalize this for all ragas and thus say "A raga is ....". On one end of the spectrum of ragas, you do have ones that are very phrase oriented or say more-or-less identified with their characteristic phrases. On the other end, you have ragas which are not at all limited by phrases, although they would have very well-established phrases. So I am not sure your definition would cover the latter set effectively.

So what is missing - as you have asked? I am not exactly sure, but let me try. If you look at how ragas are explained in books (historical to comtemporary), they are done using the following:
1. The swara-sthanas and the basic structure. But to me this is like starting to describe a person by first showing a picture of his skeleton . Can convey very little. I think it is popular because it is concise. Unfortunately that has led to it being highly "overrated" (IMO).
2. The main swaras - which to me are like pivot points of the raga. This also includes consonant relationship, which swaras can be resting points etc.
3. The nature of various swaras in various contexts as in gamakas etc. (many of them phrases)
4. Characteristic phrases (if any).

I think your definition leaves out 2. It perhaps indirectly addresses 3 but only in the context of 4. As I imply above, that can lead to an incomplete picture for many ragas which are not fully defined by phrases.

It looks to me that 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all important, although again 1 is needed mainly as a "starting point". Among the others all may not be applicable for all ragas, and they may not have the same importance for all ragas. For some ragas 1 and 4 alone can define most of it. For others you need all four.

I think in general, it is difficult to find a common definition for all ragas since they come in all flavors - you will end with something very approximate that does not convey all the necessary information.

Arun