Is Musical Truth Abstract?

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 13 Apr 2011, 01:33

Something I came across which I wanted to share:

"Musical truth is abstract--in its genesis and in its experience. The engines of its meaning are not represented on its surface--the source of its renewal will not be found there--in style. Music that is arrived by the appropriation of style cannot be real. The vast cultural legacy exacts such a centrifugal force that it tempts us to go shopping in a candy store of styles--but our engagement in pre-existing contexts is only legitimised when distilled--through the small voice inside. Music that is arrived at by the distillation of style cannot but be real. No matter how simple the technical means or manner of expression, it is only through this process that we can ever hope to convey our interior experience with which, at its still centre, music is joined."
Steve Topping (jazz musician).

VK, Arun, Suji, Mahavishnu, charubala et al, waiting for what you have to say...

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 13 Apr 2011, 04:38

What a beautiful quote, Arasi.. As I understand it, this succinctly puts into words the difference between a "kathukutti" musician or performer and a hugely great one. In reading this, I think of deep originality, where the mental gymnastics of imitation and style, adoration and "impressiveness" are absent and what comes out of the instrument, even if it is the voice, comes from a deep meditation, from a stillness of mind, and a deep truth at the core of one's existence.

I hope you don't feel I've butted in, but this quote was so beautiful to me, I'm resonating from the beauty it evokes and I wanted to share the joy of it. I hope I haven't misinterpreted it, but even if I have, it hardly matters..

.. that's how I have felt this.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 13 Apr 2011, 07:45

Ranganayaki,
Thanks for responding to the quote. Just as the same music elicits different responses in different folks, this quote will too, I guess. I addressed a few of those who also enjoy music other than CM and HM. You were part of the et al, the names I forgot to mention!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 13 Apr 2011, 09:51

Musical truth is abstract alright, so is his explanation..ha..ha.. That is a tough one to understand even after a few readings. The last sentence sounds meaningful to me. There is an inkling of profoundness with the rest of the sentences but not being a musician, it is hard for me to know what that is. Ranganayaki's explanation makes sense. Is that what the Jazz musician is saying? I can not tell.

What is style? What is truth?

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 13 Apr 2011, 10:59

Indeed, this takes many readings to understand -- maybe partly because it isn't punctuated properly. While punctuation in English is highly evolved, the variety in speech is just too vast!

I think the general idea is that musical truth is abstract where as a style of music is concrete (like candies). We should distil the style out of our music (?). Even though removal of style might might simplify the music technically, and the manner of the music's expression, there is no alternative to it if we want to convey our interior experience.

Do I have to interpret everything to make it support sparseness?

squims · Post by **squims** » 13 Apr 2011, 11:51

Srikant, that's exactly what I understood from the quote as well! But I had absolutely no idea as to how to actually put it in words, so I just kept quiet. Hehe.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 13 Apr 2011, 16:25

Didn't the saint (tyAgarAjA of course) say it before? 'nAbhi hRt kaNTha rasana' - if the music that rises to the throat doesn't traverse via the heart, I guess it is just vocal gymnastics....
It is why a technically perfect concert, while enjoyable at the moment, is quickly forgotten, and doesn't touch the listener. Music that is an outward expression of the artist's internalized life experiences touches the listener, and one's heart still keeps circling around snippets of the music for days after such an experience. When the artist's life experiences are deeply spiritual, their music makes divinity manifest.
But what is abstract about this? To me 'abstract' is something that is not evident to everyone, and even to the ones it is evident, the take-home messages are individual (based on individual perceptions and experiences). 'True' music is evident even to the untutored (as Kji would say, the kAnsEns)....and the message is universal...So, as with most abstract art, I have to say that I do not understand what Mr. Topping is saying (and it is not for want of reading)!

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 13 Apr 2011, 18:49

Shankar, the word "abstract" in this idea/quote did not remind me at all about abstract art, where you are left wondering (for example) if you really did a good thing visiting the gallery. I think it refers to that unnamable internal space and state of being from which the music springs. This is an abstract genesis and experience in the sense that this is something that cannot be put into words or taught by a Guru to a student. It can be experienced by the student too, though and I imagine that he/she would have to rely on his sensitivity.

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 13 Apr 2011, 18:56

I think you have to read this quote with your heart and use what music deeply means to you in order to get a feel for it, rather than parse the words and think of what they mean in the dictionary. The word "abstract" has a range of meanings, and we can easily go off track.
I think the words themselves spring from a deep love of music and it is in that spirit that you have to read this, not as a collection of difficult words that you may figure out individually. If we remain in that spirit in which it is written, the meaning becomes obvious.

Oh.. there was something else that was nice and clarifying that I wanted to say, but I've forgotten what it was.

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 13 Apr 2011, 19:08

Arasi,

I don't know how much Mr Topping has seen of the Indian genres of music. However, Indian music (relying on melody) employs different impacting devices from Western music (which employs harmony). I don't think style and genre are entirely interchangeable. I doubt Topping will "distill" his music so much as to end up with a melody line instead of including chords, for example.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 13 Apr 2011, 19:13

Thanks all! I had to read this passage several times too!

Ravi,
You say it well, as one can expect, bringing in the difference in the two kinds of concerts--not that a soulful concert lacks in technical prowess--a NSG concert comes to mind. This is where I do not go along with Ranganayaki's kattuk kuTTis (beginner's) reference. Haven't we seen children singing their heart's out in bliss? I don't mean just the 'highly endowed' ones.

VK,
I am not taking the word abstract in the abstract sense. I think he means it in the sense of essence as per my old Oxford dictionary. He's a brit. I've to ask Nick. He might be busy attending and mulling over classic CM concerts

Just kidding, Nick!
As for the word style, does he mean genre?

Srikant and Squims,
Thanks for your posts too. Makes me think more about the inner stillness he mentions...shall we say, a still pool of musical experience from which one draws, which is the essence (?) and it is shared too? Technicalities are part of it surely, until they are separated and showcased to impress the listeners, which then becomes a conscious effort of the musician to impress the audience?
I merely brought this passage to the forum because this is something different from the popular "should our music not be based in bhakti?' argument. Of course it is, because of the genre of music it belongs to . Then again, what IS bhakthi? Can one describe it? Is the word abstract? If so, does it mean abstract in the separated from matter, practice, non-concrete sense or in the essence sense? No, I'm not playing with words here but am keen on knowing where it all stems from, in this musician and other practitioners of music everywhere on earth.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 13 Apr 2011, 19:21

Ranganayaki,
Just saw your post which crossed mine. Sorry, I've gone for another dictionary meaning! Yes, I agree with you that one has to read what he says with one's heart.
As for his indian influence, though he is young, he's described by someone as a musicician of promise in the same class as John MCLaughlin and Holdsworth. Haven't listened to him yet.

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 13 Apr 2011, 19:28

Arasi, when I said 'Kathukutti" it was an easy word I was using not to refer to a literal beginner, but someone lacking the maturity, the ripeness of some others who do experience this depth.

I think this quote refers to a truth beyond style and genre. It does not negate them. You cannot have music with no style or genre. He does say that style is at the surface. But I belive he is refering to a deep common experience underlying the style, or rather, beyond it. no matter what the style or genre.

Arasi, I don't know this musician at all...

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 13 Apr 2011, 19:43

I am none the wiser after several readings of this text. I am left with the same questions that VK and Ravi had. But I won't let that prevent me from speculating

It reminds me of a classic American thing to do after a major sporting event. This is to ask an over-sized man with enlarged pituitary glands (to borrow from Woody Allen) about what happened in the game. He usually says: "We played some offense, they played some defense. and in the end we/they won". While this sounds like a collection of platitudes, distilling the "truth" from what he said is not trivial. There could be some serious profundities in it, but it could also be a very generic statement filled with redundancies of description.

In this context, a performing musician (presumably he is one; I don't know anything about Sri Steve Topping's work) has said some things. And as Srikant says, using questionable punctuation. We are left with these words about music and truth. One interpretation is Srikant's which I like a lot. When you remove all the style from the music, you are left with the distilled substance, which is the truth. This is not a "verifiable" truth as used in logic/semantics but a more Eastern take on it, like the concept of "Satya" in Hinduism. This "truth" is abstract and is the ideal quality that the musician would like to be able to tap into.

I am reminded of an anecdote about Maharajapuram Viswantha Iyer, on a day that he found his muse. When someone asked him what he was trying to convey after an exceptional and inspired Alapanai, he said: Innikudhan enakku shadjam kidaichudu (only today, I found my shadjam). I suppose Ranganayaki has already found the shadjam in Steve's statement

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 13 Apr 2011, 19:52

arasi wrote:
I merely brought this passage to the forum because this is something different from the popular "should our music not be based in bhakti?' argument. Of course it is, because of the genre of music it belongs to . Then again, what IS bhakthi? Can one describe it? Is the word abstract? If so, does it mean abstract in the separated from matter, practice, non-concrete sense or in the essence sense? No, I'm not playing with words here but am keen on knowing where it all stems from, in this musician and other practitioners of music everywhere on earth.

Arasi, to me Bhakti is an abstract concept.. it is a deeeep love.. it can be associated with Rama or Krishna and then it has a concrete expression. I think that when that love is associated with sound or melody and harmony that is another kind of expression. Would you agree? When a musician is motivated by THAT kind of bhakti, we all enjoy the Beauty and the deep Truth that we are calling musical truth. I'm trying hard to put into words something I only sense in my heart.

Oh, so obviously, I'm reminded of Keats' poem: Ode on a Grecian Urn, and though in these lines he is referring to the Urn and its art, I think it remains true here too, in talking about music:

When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 13 Apr 2011, 20:09

mahavishnu wrote:
It reminds me of a classic American thing to do after a major sporting event. This is to ask an over-sized man with enlarged pituitary glands (to borrow from Woody Allen) about what happened in the game. He usually says: "We played some offense, they played some defense. and in the end we/they won". While this sounds like a collection of platitudes, distilling the "truth" from what he said is not trivial. There could be some serious profundities in it, but it could also be a very generic statement filled with redundancies of description.
In this context, a performing musician (presumably he is one; I don't know anything about Sri Steve Topping's work) has said some things.

Clearly to you, Mahavishnu, this is a lot of meaningless nonsense, a lot of blaaaah.

Right? I did wonder whom Topping is addressing here.. Is he addressing musical professionals? Or the public? Or literary people? I would never think of writing like that, but I think what he is saying is so fundamental that it is hard to describe and you need your reader to pay a little quiet attention to convey it. As a reder, you need to stop your mind, and still yourself to FEEL what he means. If you don't do that, then all that remains is blah and it won't be worth your attention. But it might come back to mind at some other time on its own, when you ARE in the right frame of mind.

(edit): ... removed a part of what I wrote.. did not seem really relevant..

mahavishnu wrote: I am reminded of an anecdote about Maharajapuram Viswantha Iyer, on a day that he found his muse. When someone asked him what he was trying to convey after an exceptional and inspired Alapanai, he said: Innikudhan enakku shadjam kidaichudu (only today, I found my shadjam). I suppose Ranganayaki has already found the shadjam in Steve's statement

I feel I might have, though I am not sure, but my interpretation fits all his words, the totality of what he says, and I have not taken any part of it separately. But may be you are taking a nice swipe at me!!

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 13 Apr 2011, 20:19

Arasi,

This thought crossed my mind too -- I was going to say music should come straight from the heart ... instead of buying candies (exposing oneself to various different styles) and then distilling from them. However, if it comes straight from the heart, where's the distilling to be done -- we're already starting with pure music, aren't we?

However, I feel starting with existing candies and distilling them is what he means.

In this context, I remember this interview, in which (around the 20th minute) Prof TN Krishnan says his music consists of what comes from "filtering" the music from the various stalwarts he accompanied.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 13 Apr 2011, 20:45

Just found out. This is from the sleeve (?) of his CD (Late Flower). So, it's no big proclamation but his personal experience with music, I suppose, and what he said sort of captured my imagination...!

Srikant,
Just saw your post. Thanks for the link. Watching it. Will come back in a while

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 13 Apr 2011, 20:53

Just on a lighter note.... sometimes it is hard to distinguish between profound statements and gibberish.. One time a computer was used to write the abstract of an article on philosophy. It was quite funny. On the first couple of reads, given the obtuse nature of the writing, I had that nagging doubt if someone is trying to trick me that way. But I am glad you all find it not to be gibberish and try to make sense of what he is saying.. A good feeling I am not alone if so tricked

I understood his use of the abstract to be 'not easily touched, seen or felt' in the sense that there is an indirectness to it. But usages like 'Music that is arrived at by the distillation of style cannot but be real' is a turn off for me and that actually confused me first what he means by that.. "style is real" or "style is not real".. I had to extricate myself from all that and read it a few more times to even get a base level understanding. Based on the rest of the messages from you all, there seems to be considerable divergence on interpreting what he actually means.

BTW, I looked this quote up. This is the context. "Andy Holdsworth writes in the liner notes about guitarist Steve Topping's solo instrumental fusion release Time And Distance."

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 13 Apr 2011, 21:15

The whole thing reminds me of Chauncy the gardener (Peter Sellers) in the acclaimed movie 'Being there' wherein scholarly folks discover profound 'Truths' in his idle prattle!

Sorry arasi! for butting in uninvited

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 13 Apr 2011, 22:02

I suppose we can say that a large part of musicians are poor communicators outside of music! While writing my last post, I was thinking that no matter which group he is addressing, he is ill-adapted - for different reasons. The public might find the idea too hard to relate to, musicians might find the words too hard to comprehend and the "literaries" might just be put off by the obtuse and onerous style. But the idea appeals to me!

|( I did enjoy and get thrilled at the thought of the beauty. But I'm like that!!

But if this appeared on the jacket of his own work, then he is setting the bar quite high for himself. Or is he allowing his music to be equally obtuse? Arasi, what is the album like?

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 13 Apr 2011, 23:23

It's fine to be intellectual and to analyse. it's also fine to throw idealism into the mix, whether it is achieved for oneself or not.

However, music, for me, is almost the opposite kind of experience to either this kind of analysis, or to the understanding of it.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 13 Apr 2011, 23:54

CML,
Yes, outsider

VK, Mahavishnu and others...you scientists are really something! An unruly mind like mine finds this appealing, that's all, I guess.

Nick,
Yes, over-analysis takes the charm away for me. Ravi and Ranganayaki seem to know what I'm trying to say.
No, I haven't heard his music yet, but he's clubbed with John Mclaughlin and Alan Holdsworth as trinity! Oh! Have I stepped on a mine? Then again, can the word be used only in connection with T, MD and SS? After all, they were not the first Trinity as it were!
Writers and poets to my rescue

Suji Ram · Post by **Suji Ram** » 14 Apr 2011, 00:04

Music does becomes abstract- when a listener gets a feel for classical music when listening to hip-hop and vice-versa (just as an example). Many a times I have knocked on a door at home to ask "hey have you been copying parts of the music (CM) I have been practising? Or may be my mind in playing some trick- distilling ?

Music is something that is not just an inner feeling. It is an interaction with the environment. A connection to other fellow beings.

veeyens3 · Post by **veeyens3** » 14 Apr 2011, 00:28

To a common man like me, the proposition itself is an oxymoron. It wants two “things” to be compared one” musical truth”, much less its “truth” and other “abstract” You can compare apples to apples, oranges to oranges. So for comparison both sides should be identical We are asked to assign some attributes to “musical truth” and compare it with the attributes to “abstract” Once some values are attributed to something it ceases to be abstract since now it can be defined precisely The concept of music itself is subjective. Music itself defies definition. Recently I saw a T.V show in which Brittany Spears dressed in what looked to me like a swim suit adorned with sequins, pirouetting round the stage generating different frequencies of sound waves and the entire audience, numbering more than a thousand go ga ga wth flaying arms and feet. I could not percieve any music in it since it did not evoke any change of emotion or of feeling.in me. But on the other hand, the sound waves generated in what is known as elevator music,definitely had an effect on my mood d and reaction From a statistical analysis of the thread, more than 275 persons have perused it but only 6 or 7 have have evidently understood the real doubt of the proponent and attempted to solve the riddle.If one reads through all the postings, he will be at the same stage of comprehension at the end as he was at the beginning. Now that I have disturbed the hornets nest, I will hide myself before the wasps find and sting me

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 14 Apr 2011, 00:55

Haha! Veeyens, you certainly deserve to be stung hard for that!!

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 14 Apr 2011, 01:05

veeyens,
I would like to hide too, now!
taDi eDuttavan ellAm taNDalkAran Avadillai. Mike piDippavarellAm pADAgar Avadillai...
When this musician was mentioned in the same breath as the two other distinguished jazz musicians, I paid attention to what he had to say, that's all. Haven't heard his music yet. Music is music to me, some of it more so because my roots are in it and I've grown up with it. My living away from India exposed me to other kinds of music, some of which appeals to me, that's all. Nothing out of the way about it. Music from The Sound of Music went down very well even with those who didn't travel beyond tamizh nadu, if I remember. In our days, we listened to hindi film music avidly, and how we got familiar with the hindi and urdu languages even before we had hindi lessons!
I find that when it comes to little children, if they like something, they will put their hearts and soul into it, not seeing the difference between a song in the english language or a bhajan! I'm a bit like that perhaps! I've got to grow up. My grandchildren say--''Don't!''

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 14 Apr 2011, 01:45

Brittany Spears is music concrete for the younger generation especially in the outfit as described!
She of course is abstract for me and definitely for veeyens; I presume

Now the elusive truth is somewhere in between!

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 14 Apr 2011, 07:46

Well Arasi, sometimes a quote is just a quote (with all due respect to Gertrude Stein).
@Ranganayaki: I actually don't think the quote is all "blah", I honestly gave it a shot but it just didn't speak to me.

Although, I really love the arts, music and literature across multiple genres and cultures, I can see why I was never drawn to studying the humanities. It is just too hard.

Now I am really curious to hear Steve Topping, since I really like the music of John McLaughlin and Allan Holdsworth.

At the cost of digressing, here's something that happened to me last week. My wife's publishing firm organized a book launch event in Toronto for a Brazilian writer who also happens to be a percussionist. So at the end of the reception, there was a musical event and I had agreed to play mridangam with them (some advantages of being on sabbatical). I must tell you that I know next to nothing about Brazlian music, except for a few Bossa Nova records making their rounds in college. Also, I can hum the "Girl from Ipanema" - the Stan Getz version.

I sat down with these musicians whom I had never met, about 5 mins before we went on stage. We spoke about the set, some basic structures for when we were going to take solos etc. As I was fine tuning my mridangams and adding ravai to the thoppi, the guitarist/band leader who is also a mean flautist, asked me if I knew Trichy Sankaran. My jaw dropped. I told him that no self-respecting mridangist could not have heard of TS and that too in Toronto. Plus I had just met Sri Sankaran on behalf of Rasikas.org to collect some DVDs of his recent interactive session (more about this in another post). It turned out that Mark (the Brazilian band leader) had studied with Sri Sankaran and Sri Jon Higgins in the '70s at York U. I don't know if it had to do with this exchange, but we suddenly discovered this feeling of connectedness and a camaraderie just instantly developed on stage. I explained a simple korvai to them and walked them through misra nadai briefly. We realized all this just seconds before the curtains opened.

So, the lights came on and we just stared at each other suddenly with this newfound sense of respect. The concert was incredible. We played in our traditional styles. But when distilled, the styles came together and there was just music. Does this have something to do with what Steve Topping tried to say? I don't know...

Edited: removed pic, after reading post by E_S on another thread...

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 14 Apr 2011, 10:10

arasi wrote:VK, Mahavishnu and others...you scientists are really something! An unruly mind like mine finds this appealing, that's all, I guess.

Arasi, it is not really that.. I honestly just did not understand what he was trying to get at. After reading all the responses, I am still not sure. And when you and Ranganayaki say that 'this appeals to me', I completely buy that.

But..given that you all have to interpret what he is saying in that obtuse manner, how sure you all are that you are not projecting your own thinking onto what he is saying?

One way out of this is, you all can try to rewrite his words in an easy to follow English without any interpretation, with improved punctuation etc. That will be an interesting exercise..

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 14 Apr 2011, 10:12

Thanks Ramesh for the story and the details. I thought being at Toronto TS or his students would have participated too! Is the Brazilian percussion totally latin style or have any similarity with our CM grammar?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 14 Apr 2011, 10:36

Here is my rewrite with the objective of making it clear ( and aim is not conciseness or good written English etc. ):

"Musical truth is abstract--in how it is generated by the musician and in how it is experienced by the musicians and listeners alike. The meaning behind what a piece of music conveys can only be found by digging and searching deeper than the surface of the style. The source of its renewal will not be found in the surface of that style. Music that is arrived at simply by appropriating (making use of) a style cannot be real. The vast cultural legacy exacts such a outward looking force that it tempts us to make music by picking from an assorted variety of pre-existing styles ( That is, our culture tempts us look outside rather than inside ). But our engagement in such pre-existing contexts is only legitimized when distilled through the small voice inside. ( that is, if you engage in music making simply by using an existing style without involving that internal inner voice, it is not legitimate). Music that is arrived at by the distillation of style can not help being real. ( that is, music arrived at by the distillation of style IS real ). Music can be expressed in a simple manner or it may utilize simple technical means, it does not matter. It is only through this process of distillation of style through the small voice inside of the musician that we can ever hope to convey our interior experience. The core of that experience is still and unmoving. And Music intersects with the interior experience at that still center."

Alright, please check if I have botched anything.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 14 Apr 2011, 11:52

Is the inner voice referred to, same as the 'soul music' of the blacks?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 14 Apr 2011, 12:38

No. Soul music is religious music of yesteryears with secular themes.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 14 Apr 2011, 13:15

There is music of the essence, and there is music of the personality.

Music of the essence touches us deeply. Music of the personality makes money for pop stars, although it may also be suitable (and even enjoyable) for exhibiting our bodies and jogging around, with or without sequins.

Other words, closer to the original quote, would be style and substance. Style is to do with show; substance, of course, is to do with content.

It is a simple matter that (unless my understanding is way off the mark) I would have thought was simply a given for all of us who are lovers of any sort of serious music.

It is not to do with whether music is Indian, American, African or Eskimo, nor is it to do with whether music is overtly religious/devotional or secular. However, it does throw some light on why "fusion" often fails --- because the fusion is at the level of personality or style, not at the level of essence or content.

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 14 Apr 2011, 14:16

CML: Brazilian music is different from the rest of Latin America; the grammar has very little to do with CM rhythmic structure. However the understanding of timing, tempo and meter are universal.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 14 Apr 2011, 18:18

Mahavishnu,
Never mind the hue and cry for and against fusion, let folks find Topping's words acceptable or not, I'm so happy you shared your one of a kind experience with us! The hours when the science and humanities in you found a true fusion* of an experience!
Now, as for the mighty power of the pen (or the lack of it, in my case

: I carelessly used the word ''quote" ;(--not realizing that the word is reserved for pearls of wisdom from profound thinkers across the ages. Supposing I had said, a young guitarist has the following to say--would the responses have been of a different tone? I don't know!
I am very happy that you had that unique experience. Hope you can make it again this season to Chennai and we can hear you at a jam session, if that happens? I do not know how often you play on stage. I'm sure your grandfather is mighty proud of you--even when you blended in with the Brazilians

*not in the argued-about, genre sense of the word.

VK,
Interesting that you scientists are also musicians! You play your flute. There are moments, some insightful ones, in your being absorbed in the music when you are not aware of svaram, rAgam or tAlam--when music just flows out of you. You may not even be conscious of what is happening. Such a moment, in recollection at a latter hour might make you see what I saw in the musician's words. It touched me, and yes, I wouldn't anymore call it a quote

kalyani_ragam · Post by **kalyani_ragam** » 14 Apr 2011, 18:18

arasi wrote:Something I came across which I wanted to share:

"Musical truth is abstract--...

oh man, this is the heights of all topcs in this forum. The topic in itself is abstract. Just cant understand what the writer wants to say except that it is gibberiesh.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 14 Apr 2011, 19:04

Just goes to prove that our Poet Laurate is also high-brow

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 14 Apr 2011, 19:12

arasi wrote: I carelessly used the word ''quote" ;(--not realizing that the word is reserved for pearls of wisdom from profound thinkers across the ages.

It touched me, and yes, I wouldn't anymore call it a quote

Arasi, I don't follow you here! I don't know why you would say that the word "quote" is reserved for "pearls of wisdom". This thread did begin with a quote!

Anyway, you are a grandmother? Wow!!!!! I wouldn't have given you a day over 27!

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 14 Apr 2011, 19:28

vasanthakokilam wrote:[But..given that you all have to interpret what he is saying in that obtuse manner, how sure you all are that you are not projecting your own thinking onto what he is saying?

Vasanthakokilam, I believe all interpretation is projection. You have the words of an author, who meant something specific, but what it means to you is definitely your interpretation. Your interpretation is valid as long as there is nothing in the work that contradicts it. You may find meanings in a work that the author never intended, but it is still valid. It is only in that spirit that I would dare to give an interpretation. Otherwise, it would be very presumptuous of anyone to declare (as is often done, which actually bothers me a lot) that the author meant "this" and not "that". So if you read my explanation, an interpretation, you will find that I don't refer to what the author wanted to say, but what this quote means to me. I hope I have consistently stayed in that spirit in most of my postings.

So if that quote speaks to me and I have an interpretation, it might speak to Arasi too, yet she might have a different interpretation. As long as it is in keeping with the quote, neither has to be wrong. The meaning does not necessarily belong to the author either. He may have meant something but never realized that there was more to his words that other people could discern. This happens very often in great literature which remains alive through the ages. This happens repeatedly in an "original" way for everyone who repeatedly reads a literary work and finds new meaning and enjoyment each time.

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 14 Apr 2011, 19:33

[quote="RanganayakiThis happens very often in great literature which remains alive through the ages. This happens repeatedly in an "original" way for everyone who repeatedly reads a literary work and finds new meaning and enjoyment each time.[/quote]

When this happens, the reader may tend to think it is the greatness of the author, and may be that would be true, but the really interesting thing there is the creativity of the reader, his active mind as a reader, his growth from one reading to the next.

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 14 Apr 2011, 19:36

Mahavishnu, what a wonderful experience and a lovely memory! You must have been elated! Did you find it hard to sleep that day?

Thanks so much for sharing it, and the picture is very nice.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 14 Apr 2011, 21:39

Arasi, Ranganayaki: There is no need to defend your liking that quote

This is all only about that quote, what the author of those words wanted to convey and not about your liking it or not. You will see below why I have an interest in this quote. And more importantly, you will see that this discussion has nothing to do with being scientific etc.

Let us engage in a free exploration.

>I don't refer to what the author wanted to say, but what this quote means to me.

It was head-scratch-er at first. But then I "interpreted" it like this: "It is nearly impossible to know what any sufficiently obtuse writing really means". I can go with that. All we are left is our interpretation. I also agree that statements about art have that vibe.

I think you are all saying 'don't over think it or over analyze it, Read it, get a feel for what the author wants to say and relate it to in your own personal way'. Fine.

In my case, I can't say if I like it or not, relate to it or not, before understanding what it is. Of course, I can preempt all that and put in a fuzzy interpretation
"music that comes from inside is genuine music. Music that is taken from outside, transformed a bit to make it look different is not genuine".

How can you disagree with that? How can you not relate to that? It is an age old saying alright. But...

Of late, I have come to the realization that such rush to put in an interpretation on statements about art is equivalent to "dismissing" the statement too easily and moving on. I used to 'dismiss' such statements about art that way before. Here "dismissing" is not by ignoring it but rather by "taking it in, molding it in our personality and moving on". In many cases it was wholly inadequate. I only understood one dimension of it, if at all. In many cases, some of what artists say did not make any sense at all. Was that gibberish? Some of it was but others were not. Distinguishing between the two is tricky.

Are there people saying these things to sound pompous and self-important? Sure, there are some.
But then there are other people, pompous or not, have some genuine things to say how they feel about art.
They are trying to say something that words do not have the power to fully convey, but words is all we have.

I also have come to realize over the years that other people relate to art in radically different ways than I. That is quite fascinating.

That is the reason for me to not to bring in my past understanding while reading someone's feelings about art.
To give enough space and time for the author's intent to seep into me, to see if there is anything fresh that I had not felt before. Often times, it does not work at all, so be it. At least I gave it the respect such statements deserve. Once in a while there is a payoff, often minor, and it is worth it. If I recollect some examples I will post.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 14 Apr 2011, 22:05

The obfuscation caused by the muddled plebian translation (of Vk) may have eclipsed the Royal transparency of the quote:
Perhaps the following can help

"Musical veracity is abstract--in its genesis and in its Erfahrung. The engines of its acceptations are not represented on its surface--the .προέλευση of its renewal will not be found there--la mode. Music that is arrived by the appropriation of style cannot be terrestrial. The gargantuan cultural legacy exacts such a centrifugal force that it tempts us to go shopping in a candy store of styles--but our engagement in pre-existing contexts is only legitimised when distilled--through the petite voix inside. Music that is arrived at by the distillation of style cannot but be surreal. No matter how facile the technical means or manner of expression, it is only through this process that a fessus viator can ever cogitate to convey our interior experience with which, at its placid centre, music is harmonized."
(abstractified)Steve Topping (jazz musician).

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 14 Apr 2011, 22:43

vasanthakokilam wrote:Arasi, Ranganayaki: There is no need to defend your liking that quote.

VK,
You are telling me and Arasi, what I wanted to say to Arasi.. there is no need to be embarrassed at liking something that other,equally good minds may think silly or meaningless. Please do re-read me, I was only answering your question about how I can be sure that I was not projecting. I do not feel the need to justify enjoying the quote, nor do I mind others even hating it. The reason I did not tell her so myself was because I was not completely sure that she was actually, really questioning herself.

vasanthakokilam wrote:

>I don't refer to what the author wanted to say, but what this quote means to me.

It was head-scratch-er at first. But then I "interpreted" it like this: "It is nearly impossible to know what any sufficiently obtuse writing really means".
I can go with that.

VK, I really have no problem with you going with that, but I definitely don't go with that. I have tried to say clearly what interpretation of a work of art means, and what I have written is what makes for meaningful criticism, even meaningful understanding. Otherwise it is just speculation on what you believe the author wants to say, or what books and PAST scholars tell you that you should think of a work of art, a keertana in our case, and more importantly, it is in that frame of reference that we have people rising in anger at the slightest perceived insult to "the" trinity.

What I wrote is not a cute way of saying hey, I really have no clue about what he wrote or meant, but I'll think this and let's see you try to prove me wrong. To me, statements about art DON'T have that vibe. Also, in that quote, I don't refer only to obtuse writing, I refer to any artistic writing.

The "fuzzy" interpretation that you offer is not based on any rigor, and is not tested by the words he uses. It is an attempted summary of our interpretation (either mine or Arasi's) and is not based on your understanding of the "text". As I write these things, I realize that my writing sounds like I am angry with you. NOT at all!! I am responding, and disagreeing, but plEASE don't read any anger in this. I am more used to disagreement and argument than anyone here, I think, and I am enjoying putting forth my views to you. But, I am feeling a little frustrated that my words, which I thought were very clear, almost didactic, can be so thoroughly misinterpreted!!!!

( I do use the word with care).

vasanthakokilam wrote: Of late, I have come to the realization that such rush to put in an interpretation on statements about art is equivalent to "dismissing" the statement too easily and moving on. I used to 'dismiss' such statements about art that way before. Here "dismissing" is not by ignoring it but rather by "taking it in, molding it in our personality and moving on". In many cases it was wholly inadequate. I only understood one dimension of it, if at all. In many cases, some of what artists say did not make any sense at all. Was that gibberish? Some of it was but others were not. Distinguishing between the two is tricky. .

Yes, sometimes, you move on, and may be you may understand it better. If it is gibberish to you, it is gibberish. But the gibberish can become meaningful later. Let me give you an example. I quoted from Keats recently in some other thread, and it's on my mind. When I first read the poem as a little girl, the words "Beauty is Truth and Truth Beauty" had very little meaning to me, may be none. It was as I grew and matured that I put some new meaning on to the words. Now the text meant something to me. I could not be what I was not, and when that happens to you as an adult, you just have to let it go. There is no justification in my thinking that Keats was trying to be obscure. But he certainly was obscure to me.

I like most of the rest of what you say. Yes, unless one has a clear reason to be able to say that someone is trying to be obscure and bombastic, one ought not to do that. After all what is bombastic to others is fundamental in meaning to some. You were wondering if this was a joke at the very beginning of this thread. Well, if you read the quote carefully, it is clear that the author has a specific subject and he is actually saying something that is on his mind. It is not a prankish collection of words that are apparently on a subject, but on closer reading, reveal absolutely no meaning.

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 14 Apr 2011, 22:48

CML, you should move this one to the "kavithaigal" thread

I love the gratuitous usage of Latin, German and French!

Arasi, Ranganayaki: thanks for your kind words. Arasi, not sure what my grandfather would say about me playing Brazilian music, especially going in knowing very little about it. I have just been thinking about how important it is for a mridangist to know and understand the musical bhavam and sahityam equally. I am imagining that he would have liked it as long as there was no thappu tAlam.

VK: I am with you there. In the end, words are all we are left with. And context, if we are fortunate. Probably this is the reason why I have remained a blue-collar scientist.

And Ranganayaki: Arasi is the most accomplished 27 year old there is!

smala · Post by **smala** » 14 Apr 2011, 22:52

Can Mahavishnu return the pic, please - on a timer, for 12 hours? I missed it.

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 14 Apr 2011, 22:54

[quote="cmlover"]The obfuscation caused by the muddled plebian translation (of Vk) may have eclipsed the Royal transparency of the quote:
Perhaps the following can help

Oh, Stop it, CML!!

I would have really enjoyed your first line!

Ha, ha! I did, actually, till the rest of it showed up. Didn't your thesaurus give you words for abstract, engines, music, distilled, legitimized, means, manner...

?

Ranganayaki · Post by **Ranganayaki** » 14 Apr 2011, 23:17

Ranganayaki wrote:[ Otherwise it is just speculation on what you believe the author wants to say, or what books and PAST scholars tell you that you should think of a work of art, a keertana in our case, and more importantly, it is in that frame of reference that we have people rising in anger at the slightest perceived insult to "the" trinity.
.

This takes the life out of criticism, and reduces it to "dead habit" as Tagore may have called it.