Incorrect information furnished in respect of 10 Gamakas in

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 16 May 2011, 14:00

In the article ‘Evolution of CM from 12th - 17th centuries’ written by Smt. Malathi Vasudevan and brought out in ‘MyCarnatic.home’ it was mentioned that Sharngadeva talks about Panchadasha Gamakas (15 Gamakas) and Dasavidha Gamakas (the 10 Gamakas that are more common today). Even though Sharngadeva talks about Panchadasha Gamakas (15 Gamakas) in his Sangita Ratnakara he did not talk anything about Dasavidha Gamakas (the 10 Gamakas that are more common today) in his Sangita Ratnakara as they are lateral inclusions in our music.

So, when I have gone through this article and found this in-correction, I have brought this
to the notice of the author Smt. Malathi Vasudevan and she, in turn, informed me that the source of this information is the article written in Hindu by Shri T.M.Krishna. On request, she was also kind enough to send me the copy of this article where I could not find this in-correct information anywhere. Again, when I brought this to her notice and requested her to give a note even in the article brought out in ‘MyCarnatic.home’ to the effect that the information in regard to Dasavidha Gamakas (the 10 Gamakas that are more common today) should be omitted by the reader-ship she wrote that she had decided to leave the article unchanged. Thus, unfortunately, she was adamant even to give a note in respect of an in-correction of her own.
Having come to know of this in-correct information, as an elderly and knowledgeable person, I have tried my level best to stop the wrong signals emanating from it to the readership. But, as the author herself is adamant to do the needful I am compelled to appeal direct to the readership of ‘MyCarnatic.home’ to omit ‘Dasavidha Gamakas (the 10 Gamakas that are more common today)’ and save themselves from the respective wrong signals of the information and also to the moderators of ‘MyCarnatic.home’ to do the needful in this respect. amsharma

MV · Post by MV » 18 May 2011, 05:14

Please find attached my previous email to you.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your continued interest in the above article. I have considered the points raised by you regarding Panchadasa & Dasavida Gamakas. It would be good if you can share your views on the actual contributors of the 2 concepts.

From my point of view, the concept of 'Panchadasa Gamaka' was first coined in the Sangita Ratnakara. In an abridged article spanning nearly 6 centuries, the acknowledgement has been for the original or major contributor. Also, we are talking about a period before our times. So, it is history as has been told to us or read by us. Though certainly not a work of fiction, it is essentially the author's interpretation of the period from various sources.

At this point, I have decided to leave the article unchanged. However, I am discussing it with relevant people and we will consider the change particularly if you are able to provide more information on your position.

Regards
Malathi

MV · Post by MV » 18 May 2011, 05:22

I have it on advice that earlier scholars like Parsvadeva, Someswara and Nayanadeva talk about 7 or so gamakas. It was Saranga Deva who compiled the comprehensive 15(for the period). Though the 10 Gamakas came later, there is no mention anywhere of who the author of the 10 is. I thought it important to mention the Dasavida Gamakas as originating from the period but my assumption is also that it is truncated from the original 15-where the true credit lies.

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 18 May 2011, 11:19

Dear Chi. Sow. Malathi Vasudevan, I am not at all particular either about the number 15 or 10 of Gamakas or the period of the author of them. In fact, many people know that Sharngadeva had furnished 15 Gamakas and it is correct no doubt. But, along with it, you wrote that Shangadeva talked about 10 Gamakas also which is not correct. We may know or may not know the origin of 10 Gamakas but, in such case, being knowledgeable persons in the field, is it right on our part to attribute 10 Gamakas also to Sharngadeva thus, giving in-correct information to our aspirants in the absence of any authentic information. There is nothing wrong if we do not know a particular point as, in fact, we do not know many things. But, being responsible teachers, we should not manipulate things in our own way. Hope you will understand my point and do the needful in this respect in enlightening our aspirants in a proper manner. amsharma

MaheshS · Post by **MaheshS** » 18 May 2011, 19:25

Just a query, are the 10 gamakas part of the 15 gamakas Sharngadeva talks about? If so, then I don't see a problem.

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 18 May 2011, 20:38

Some are common and some are not. That is the problem. amsharma

vidya · Post by **vidya** » 18 May 2011, 21:14

Malathi ji,
In addition to the points on gamakas raised by Akella garu, I noticed few more issues in this article of yours and
would appreciate a clarification on the same:

>>Some of the oldraga names like Amritavarshini, Nattai and Kambhoji of the undivided system are still used by the Dhrupadiyas.

Could you provide the reference for the source of this statement above esp w.r.to amrtavarshini?
The reason I ask is because:
A south Indian raga used by drupadiyas does not immediately imply that amrtavarshini kambhoji were older ragas of a shared heritage of an undivided system. Even the name Amrtavarshini occurs for the first time in Nadamuni Panditar's sangita svaraprasthara sagaramu. It is only found in compositions after its introduction by Muttusvami Dikshita. The presence of South Indian Ragas such as kambhoji, kanakangi etc in dhrupad is attributed to 17th century sufi musicians such as Sheikh Bahauddin barnavi, sufi inayat khan who studied music in the Deccan and took them back to the Dhrupadiyas.

>>His second son, Sri Venkatamakhin, in his monumental work ‘Chaturdandi Prakasika’, provided a list of 72 ragas after considerable research.

Does this imply 72 melas? If this means 72 melas then Venkatamakhin certainly did not provide such a list.He merely mentioned details about melaprastara but did not assign names to them or provide such a list. It is only in the anubandha attributed to Mudduvenkatamakhin that these are named.

>>Ramamatya, the Asthana Vidwan in the Vijayanagara Empire (16thcentury), refers to 19 Melakartas in his book ‘Svaramelakalanidhi’.

Ramamatya in the SMK refers to 20 melas namely:
mukhari, shriraga, malavagaula,saranganata , hindola
suddharamakriya, desakshi, kannadagaula, suddhanati, ahari,
nadaramakriya, suddhavarati, ritigaula, vasanthabhairavi, kedaragaula
Hejujji, samavarali, revagupti, samanta and kambhoji

MV · Post by MV » 19 May 2011, 01:57

Vidyaji,
The para on Dhrupadiyas plus other details came from Appreciating CM by S. Parthasarathy who I have listed as my source. The Melakarta details and other typos were errors which were picked up by me and advised to My Carnatic as soon as it was online in March, but I guess they have been busy. It was that which I expected would cause a debate but was surprised that it was the Gamakas which were being scrutinised. In any case, a healthy discussion around topics like this is always welcome. So, thank you for your post-I have come away a little wiser

MV · Post by MV » 19 May 2011, 02:14

MaheshS wrote:Just a query, are the 10 gamakas part of the 15 gamakas Sharngadeva talks about? If so, then I don't see a problem.

This has been my stand as well Mahesh. But, since our email communication which started couple of months ago, Shri MSAkella for the first time has provided additional information that the 10 may not be the same as the 15 inspite of asking for explanation for my own understanding-I have not read the authors name or the fact that it was different anywhere else. I certainly did not live in the 18th century and the whole article is hearsay which I wrote on request by the web developers. But, it is history retold by ME with what I have read and what I have heard. As a student of music, I'm happy to learn as I go. Just a persistent, aggressive demand to change things without any details can be quite offensive. CM is my passion-I have not appended any long titles to my name. Sometimes, you wonder if the intention is to promote CM or to deter outside interest

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 19 May 2011, 04:47

Hi all, To tell the fact, as a responsible teacher very strictly following some ethics even after my retirement and even at this old age of 73, I work very hard for more than 12 hours a day, even without a nap in the day time, only to help our kids and my main aim always is to feed our kids correct and reliable information only possibly without any ambiguity as I have already spent 40 long years of my precious life only on the rarest topic, Talaprastara which is full of ambiguity and has never been brought out by any author of any period within the reach of the aspirant. Even though I, as an elderly person, always feel it as my duty to be ideal and enlighten the kids, now, again having entered into a wasteful discussion of 10 Gamakas, I repent that there is no use in repairing the society but nothing wrong in enlightening it. Thus, now, I prefer to stop my wasteful discussion at this point and feel sorry for the inconvenience caused in this connection. amsharma

vidya · Post by **vidya** » 19 May 2011, 07:20

thanks malathiji

When akella sir mentions that the SR does not contain a reference to dasavidha gamakas he says it on a sound basis backed by an understanding of historical development in indian music. It is incorrect to state sarngadeva's name in the context of the dasavidhagamakas because that is a concept which came much later. Ask any musicologist who has read their treatises and knows about primary sources and they would say the same as akella sir. His point there is valid
irrespective of individual names , subset etc. He has seen , understood and stuudied the ratnakara when some of us were learning our alphabets!!

veeyens3 · Post by **veeyens3** » 19 May 2011, 20:55

Sri Sharma, I do not have the privilege and pleasure of knowing you personally nor am I acquainted with couple of youngsters, who appear to have different perceptions of carnatic music than yours.Being a kindergartnerer in Carnatic Music (I have downgraded my self assesseds tature from elementary grader) I understand neither your point nor theirs. Since the one and only bond which joins more than 5000 nrasikas is their love of carnatic music which is quite strong enough not to be perturbed by any differences between the members in their individual perceptions,I feel you should not be so upset.If you are right, then we can pray to HIM and say Lord, They do not know what they are saying. But if their view prevaills, then so be it.After all it is a pleasure to be vanquished by ones own child.Then you can share my “Pulagangitham” (I do not recollect a correct English equivalent) when, in 1984, my then ten yr. Old grand daughter,announced to the world after flummoxing me with a question from Ramayana, that I am a dunce with her famous double negative declaration “Thatha ,You dont know nothing” Although I became a grand father ten years earlier, I felt I underwent coronation as Thatha only thenA small digression. The King one day called all his ministers and told them To day one person kicked me on my chest. What punishment should I give him. One minister said chop off his legs, another said hang him, third said feed him to lions etc. When Tenali Rama''s turn came he said Maharaja, Adorn his legs with gold anklets and kiss them.All were aghast. They said Tenali Raman has lost his mind. The king counselled patience and asked tenali raman the reasons behind his decision. He said Oh Maharaja, who in this kingdom is daring enough to kick you in your chest.It should be somebody who is dear to you. Only your grand son fits the bill That is why I suggested that you honour him. Similarly we should be proud of our future generation and accept their superiority. At this the moment you appear to be in the same state as Arjuna before the commencement of war. Sri Krishna's advise Ma Sucha is equally applicable to you. Do not give up because we need your knowledge and experience which should not be hidden inside like a lamp inside a pot so that all of us will benefit and I can take part in the various discussions with increased confidence. May Sri Rama bless you all

MV · Post by MV » 20 May 2011, 02:36

veeyens3 wrote: Do not give up because we need your knowledge and experience which should not be hidden inside like a lamp inside a pot so that all of us will benefit and I can take part in the various discussions with increased confidence. May Sri Rama bless you all

Thatha (if I may call you that), you have the wisdom of Tenali himself. And I completely agree with the above. I have come to admire the perseverence and industriousness myself. And 'Ma Sucha' is equally applicable to me as well.

veeyens3 · Post by **veeyens3** » 20 May 2011, 04:14

MV, My family tree can easily accomodate one more grandchild

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 20 May 2011, 04:38

Very nice, Veeyens!
Sounds like a good catch phrase: very nice, Veeyens

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 20 May 2011, 07:17

Dear veeyens3, OK. I have no objection to come back and take it up on your word. But, in the absence of an assurance that the other party certainly follows the ethics, how can I come back and take it up again? When the other party does things basing on hearsay but not basing on authentic information how can deal with such persons? amsharma

veeyens3 · Post by **veeyens3** » 20 May 2011, 09:31

Sharmaji, How can I give assurance on behalf of others ? we have to assume better sense will prevail More over our actions should be based on our own convictions and faith and should not depend on others action May Sri Rama bkess you

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 20 May 2011, 19:15

Dear veeyenes3, Each and every word of your post is absolutely correct. Even after going through these posts none of them comes out to assure us in this respect but conveniently keep quiet. That itself proves that they are the real culprits. Why should and how can I deal with such culprits? amsharma

veeyens3 · Post by **veeyens3** » 20 May 2011, 19:28

Sharmaji, Sri Rama will show us a way

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 20 May 2011, 21:43

Unfortunately, a very simple matter has become 'one versus the other'. Now people have gone to their own corners and speaking to the wall

BTW, words like 'culprits' is too strong for this context and that may be preventing people from turning back to face the room rather than the wall.

Let us rewind.. MV wrote the article based on material collected from various sources, she does not claim to be a scholar or researcher. Others point out problems with it. Let us discuss and provide any corrections. It should be as simple as that. This kind of stuff happens in this forum all the time.

Also, let us appreciate the author for her efforts. I think this one sided nit-picking and fault-finding, however genuine, does not sound fair unless it is accompanied by a few words of genuine appreciation.

Lastly, MyCarnatic uses the word Encyclopedia in the description of what it is. That implies quite a high standard in terms of form, flow of material for readability and above all content ( either crowd-sourced like wikipedia or through direct editorial control ). The web site owners need to then proactively seek corrections and comments of the content from experts, especially for an article that traces the history of carnatic music over centuries. That does not seem to be happening. In the mean time, we should treat it as a web site with articles on carnatic music. The comment section of such articles usually contains the corrections needed. If that is how it is going to be, that is fine, it does not diminish the value added in any way. Then 'Encyclopedia' is not the right description of what it is.

raghukumar · Post by **raghukumar** » 20 May 2011, 22:30

vasanthakokilam wrote:Unfortunately, a very simple matter has become 'one versus the other'. Now people have gone to their own corners and speaking to the wall BTW, words like 'culprits' is too strong for this context and that may be preventing people from turning back to face the room rather than the wall.

Let us rewind.. MV wrote the article based on material collected from various sources, she does not claim to be a scholar or researcher. Others point out problems with it. Let us discuss and provide any corrections. It should be as simple as that. This kind of stuff happens in this forum all the time.

Also, let us appreciate the author for her efforts. I think this one sided nit-picking and fault-finding, however genuine, does not sound fair unless it is accompanied by a few words of genuine appreciation.

Lastly, MyCarnatic uses the word Encyclopedia in the description of what it is. That implies quite a high standard in terms of form, flow of material for readability and above all content ( either crowd-sourced like wikipedia or through direct editorial control ). The web site owners need to then proactively seek corrections and comments of the content from experts, especially for an article that traces the history of carnatic music over centuries. That does not seem to be happening. In the mean time, we should treat it a web site with articles on carnatic music. The comment section of such articles usually contains the corrections needed. If that is how it is going to be, that is fine, it does not diminish the value added in any way. Then 'Encyclopedia' is not the right description of what it is.

Dear Vasanthakokilam,

As the admin of MyCarnatic, I would like you to know that MyCarnatic has been in constant communication with both authors at hand. This issue is not black and white- that is precisely why public discussions are welcome. As soon as the two authors can come to some sort of a consensus on the issue, the article will be edited.

The term encyclopedia is EXACTLY what Get Carnaticized! seeks to become- by the end of the summer, our ambitious goal is to have 50 high quality articles up on MyCarnatic. All ambitious projects have humble beginnings

On that note- we are looking for interested authors to help us compile this ever growing library of articles. Please email me at [email protected] if you are interested in authoring a Get Carnaticized! entry on MyCarnatic.

Best,
Raghu

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 21 May 2011, 03:20

Dear brother-member, vasanthakokilam, Please find the following in which the details of Gamakas (either 15 or 10) are furnished by the author of the article.

‘Saranga Deva talks about Lakshana (grammar and framework) and Lakshaya (the actual performance). He also talks about Panchadasa Gamakas (15 Gamakas) and Dasavida Gamakas (the 10 Gamakas that are more common today).’

1. In the above it has very clearly been defined that Sharngadeva talked about both Panchadasha Gamakas (15 Gamakas) and Dashavidha Gamakas (the 10 Gamakas that are more common today). Basically, it is obvious that any author of any book can furnish any information which is in vogue in his period only but cannot furnish which is in vogue in a later period than his. But, here, it was clear that Sharngadeva had also talked about the 10 Gamakas which have been in vogue in a later period than his.

2. Later, when I have brought this in-correction to the notice of the author, she wrote that the source was the Hindu-article written by Chi.T.M.Krishna and, on my request, she was also kind enough to send me a copy of it which did not tally at all with her in-correct information.

3. By all this contradiction, when I have requested her kindly to give a note, at the least, that this has been written by oversight just, only, to avoid sending wrong signals of information to the aspirants. But, most unfortunately, the author chose to leave the matter unchanged.

In fact, I have no business to interfere into the matters of others unless they are harmful to our kids. That is why I was compelled to enter only in the very high interests of our kids.

Now, I hereby leave this matter to all the intellectual elite. amsharma

MV · Post by MV » 21 May 2011, 04:54

As mentioned by veeyens3 (Thatha, thanks for finding place for me in your family tree) in Post12, this is a matter which really does not concern 5000 odd rasikas who are here for their love of CM.
Thanks for your Post No. 20 Vasanthakokilam Sir and agree with you about an encycolpaedia needing to be precise. Concurrent with Shri Akella's emails, I have been in touch with couple of experts who have kindly agreed to review the whole article for me. Since, Shri Akella has finally come out and said in Post No 6 that the 10 gamakas are not necessarily from the 15, that will be reviewed and rephrased as well.
I do hold that even after any review and corrections (which I am totally happy to happen-I learn in the process too!) the final article will still be only 'a version' not the 'One Truth' since it is History retold.
As you suggest VK Sir, any differences of opinion can then be expressed in comments at best

anandasangeetham · Post by **anandasangeetham** » 21 May 2011, 10:17

As a novice i would very much like to know what the difference is between the 15 and 10 gamakas? Can someone enlighten me? thanks

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 21 May 2011, 11:49

If it is simply a question of fact, it can be very easily verified from the Saptadhyayi. If Sarngadeva did not mention it, then it should not be attributed to him.

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 21 May 2011, 16:21

Yes, sir, it is that simple. amsharma

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 21 May 2011, 20:07

Fascinating subject. It is clear that Sharngadeva talks about 15 gamakas. Do we have any info on who brought it down to 10 and when? If so, that can also perhaps be included in MV's article. Of course, the practical ramifications of gamakas are another subject altogether, since many that are in books are hardly in vogue and some which are in use may not find place in all treatises.

MaheshS · Post by **MaheshS** » 21 May 2011, 21:13

The ten gamakas [ I'm NO expert ] as I can find is, arohana, avaroha, dhalu, sphuritha, kampitha, ahata, pratyahatha, tripuchcha, andola, murchchana. What are the 15? And what are the differences? Can someone explain please?

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 22 May 2011, 17:02

By gamaka is meant the ornamentation of the notes, any variation of pitch used to make the sound more expressive. The number of gamakas varies according to authors but fifteen is a commonly given number: svarasya kampo gamakah srotrcit-tasukhavahah . . . pancadasaite parikirtitah (Sarngadeva, Sangita Ratnakara 2. 3. 87-89); gamakah sa ca pancadasa smrta iti bharate (Laksmidhara); in commentaries on the Saundaryalahari: gamakam sthayisvarasya paritah samcarah (Gaurikanta); gamako mukhyanadasya paribhavo rasatmakah (ibid.) "expressive fluctuations of the main sound"; gamakah sthayisvarasya punahpunahposanam (Dindima) "coming back again and again to the main note"; gamak kahiye sthayi ras ko sarvatahsamcar (Gaurisamkar, Hindi) "a constant variation from the main expression."

Source: http://openyoga.eu/ru/kategorii/tantry/ ... y-eng.html

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 22 May 2011, 17:09

After those 10, we have (from various sources):

jAru, dATu, humpitam, nAmitam, mudritam, tribhinnam, mishritam etc. Of these, humpitam (passages with a 'hum'kara for contrast is hardly in use. Tribhinnam - 3 simultaneous notes - is more an instrumental feature, perhaps a concept added to the gamaka list following the British influence in India.

SSP also mentions a few others which were in vogue by then like nokku.

From the time I learnt about gamakaas, I have wondered about arohanam, avarohanam being classified as gamakas. I am sure the authors of treatises had valid reasons but coming strictly from a practical standpoint, this should never be in the list, going by the basic definition of gamaka (doing something to or on a note). The only reason that they may be classified as such would seem to be because the music is moving and not sustained upon a single note.

sruthi · Post by **sruthi** » 22 May 2011, 17:17

http://www.saigan.com/heritage/music/gamaka.htm
"Some opine that the number comes to 15 due to the subdivisions within the 10 gamakas."

10 gamakas: Aarohanam, Avarohanam, Dalu, Spuritham, Kampitham, Aahatham, Prathyahatham, Thripucham, Aandolam, Murchana

15 gamakas: Thripam, Spuritham, Kampitham, Leenam, Aandholitham, Vali, Thribinnam, Kurulam, Aahatham, Ullaasitham, Plavitham, Hoompitham, Mudhritham, Naamitham, Misritham.

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 22 May 2011, 17:36

sruthi wrote:"Some opine that the number comes to 15 due to the subdivisions within the 10 gamakas."

That's what I thought (an uneducated guess).

Dasa vidha gamakas = gamakas of ten types.
panchadasa gamakas = 15 gamakas

Where is the conflict?

sruthi · Post by **sruthi** » 22 May 2011, 18:49

srkris wrote:By gamaka is meant the ornamentation of the notes,

Please see http://www.gswift.com/article-2.html
The standard translations of gamaka as "ornament" (used in this paper) and "embellishment" are both inadequate, to the extent that they suggest something incidental added on to what is fundamental. For gamaka is itself a fundamental element of raga .

Gamaka performs an integral, rather than decorative function in Indian music. Theoretically, one can define a svara simply as a scale degree . . . , but in practice a svara is properly defined only when taking into consideration the gamaka (s) traditionally associated with it. Gamaka is what gives a raga its unique character. (Viswanathan 1974:1/150)

This article mentions the 15 gamakas listed by Sarangadeva.

Also this: According to Ranganayaki, Diksitar's work attempted to reconcile the 15 gamakas of the written theoretical tradition with ten from the oral tradition. That is, he lists 15 but assigns symbols to only ten (Ranganayaki 1981:345).

It also talks about 23 gamakas as articulated by Somanatha in 1609: "The famous fifth chapter of this work lists 23 symbols for use in vina notation."

I wonder if a practising musician like Sri Ravikiran could explain these 23 for our benefit.

veeyens3 · Post by **veeyens3** » 22 May 2011, 21:54

As a person with absolutely no knowledge of the subject under discussion, I venture to make a sugesstion for what it is worth. All along the discussions appear to be based on the name of Gamakas alone. Why not make detailed standardised description for each Gamaka, when it would be easy to pick gamakas with identical description for further scrutiny. Many years back, when I had a chance to dabble in computers, I like a school boy with a new toy attempted many things.One of them was calaloguing various songs. from sources like cassette inserts, reviews in newspaper books on music etc. I found the same song with different raga names according to weather under sampoorna or asampoorna system, listed seperately. When I refined my database to include swaras, tala, composer language etc. It was easy to identify songs with many similarities for further scrutiny. Many of you will remember when Dan Rather, a T.V news anchor, declared in Los Angeles court "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck" May Sri Rama bless you all

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 23 May 2011, 14:00

Truly interested persons in knowing the full details of all the Gamakas used in our Karnataka-music can get them through the link http://www.sangeethamshare.org/chandra/ ... hods-2007/ . Recently, for the first time in the history, some experiments have been carried out in this respect in which 60 numbers different of oscillations are furnished along with examples and symbols and 27 facets of oscillations of Kaishiki-nishada alone are also furnished along with symbols. amsharma

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 24 May 2011, 05:37

I wonder if a practising musician like Sri Ravikiran could explain these 23 for our benefit.

I don't know if we are using 23 now. I will focus on the ones in vogue today! Volumes can be written but this is only introductory and highly general. Music is full of exceptions though and lots of listening to great masters will help...!

1. ArOhaNam: Ascending notes / phrases. I contemplated about this and I now believe that it is not just the arohanam of a raga as one may infer. Any set of phrases in ascending sequence can be rendered attractively and it can constitute the gamaka in arohana krama. Ex: SRGM, GMPDN, DNSRG, NRGM, GP,, etc can sound quite ornamental.

2. avarOhaNam: Descending notes/phrases. Same principle as above.

3. DAlu: Holding a note as center and connecting to other notes: SG, SM, SP, SD, etc (this is distinct from dATu as will be shown later).

4. sphuritam: Rendering notes generally in pairs - first time plain, next time with a force from the note immediately below in the raga. . SS RR GG MM etc. The immediate note in raga means that GG in Mayamalavagowla will be distinct from GG in Mohanam. Most artistes tend to slip up on such areas. Practising jantai varishais in different melas can help avoid such pitfalls. In ragas like Suruti and Reetigowla, even phrases like NDP, or NDM, will have sphuritam on Da - almost rendered as NNP, and NNM. This manner of separating the same note the 2nd time is unique in world music, by my experience (though H-artistes like Ustad Vilayat Khan were brilliant in handling it).

5. kampitam: Oscillation. The C-style oscillation is another unique ornamentation without parallel in world music. It is almost the defining gamaka of C-music. 3 things to keep in mind while oscillating a note: (1) Degree/amplitude of oscillation (2) Speed and (3) Number of times one oscillates. Any approximation in the above mix will make the music unclassy. In my opinion, ornamentation like nokku etc are a sub-category of this.

6. Ahatam: Two successive note combos in ascending sequence. Ex: SR-RG-GM-MP. Though it is not SS RR GG MM like sphuritam, each phrase is separated by an upward force similar to it.

7. prathAhatam: Opp of Ahatam. Ex: SN-ND-DP-PM-MG-GR. Much more common than its counterpart esp. in ragas like Bilahari, Kedaragowla etc. One of the most beautiful gamakas in CM. Combines the force of sphuritam with the grace of kampitam.

8. tripuchham: Triplets rendered in the same principle as sphuritam. Ex: PPP-DDD-NNN (in Viriboni muktai swara). At the advanced level, one can render even sphuritam and tripuchham with more grace than force.

9. Andolam (a k a DOlakam): A swinging kind of movement - SRSG,G - SRSM,M - SRSP,P etc.

10. mUrchhana: Normally associated with rendering key phrases with all gamakas in the right mix. (There could be other definitions...)

11. dATu: Phrases with skipped notes. SMGM - RPMP - GSNS etc...

12. jAru (a k a ullAsitam/meenD): Elegant glide between notes.

13. humpitam: Rendering with a hum-kara. Forceful but hardly heard today.

14. nAmitam: Crescendo - start soft and increase intensity. (I have not seen a term for the opposite dimuniando though.)

15. mudritam: Humming with lips closed (as opposed to akara).

16. mishritam: A mixture of more than one gamaka (wonder if it warrants a separate classification).

17. tribhinnam: 3 different notes at the same time (more instrumental).

appu · Post by **appu** » 24 May 2011, 05:51

Beautiful explanation........

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 24 May 2011, 06:34

What is the "usual name" given to the gamaka given to ri/ma/da say in Sankarabharanm when you deliver them with stress/emphasis when going straight arohana (medium to fast speed i.e. not slow): s r g m p d n s

Is it the same one given to ga and ni of kharaharapriya: delivered with emphasis when you do s r g m p d n s (again medium to fast speed - not slow

Also when you take the above in Sankabharanam and go slow the ri is like rgr amd ma is mpm etc. (right?) - What is that usually called?

Are all these nokku?

Thanks
Arun

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 24 May 2011, 07:22

I personally feel that from the beginning many of our ancestors are not much bothered about standardising the different aspects of our music like Shruti or Laya i.e., notes or Tala. Even if a very few did a little some others, in the process of somehow getting easy fame or money, brought out some irrelevant versions of such aspects of their own fancy which only helped to ‘make difficult’ to the poor aspirant but not at all to ‘make easy’. Thus, any tradition, which always starts with very highly disciplined terms and conditions in the beginning, gradually deteriorates in matter of time in respect of the discipline, mostly basing upon the different kinds of selfish-ness or conveniences or in-efficiencies of the followers.

Thus, while, in respect of Shrutis, the modern division of 1-4-4-4-1-4-4 of Shrutis is brought against the old division of 4-3-2-4-4-3-2 of Shrutis, in respect of Tala, the contradictory information furnished in respect of Prastara by one and all the authors right from the 12th century till date.

In the same manner, now, in respect of different oscillations, the real question is neither of the number of different oscillations nor the beauty of the explanation but the relevancy of all the different kinds of oscillations with the present day music and its accessibility to make a common musician understand and to follow it with ease.

Thus, being a teacher, having become perturbed of the prevailing situation, even after my retirement, only to make the aspirant equipped with un-ambiguous material but not for easy fame or money, I was compelled to extensively work on these ‘oscillations’ and brought out around 60 varieties along with relevant symbols designed basing upon their respective travel of sound. In this process I have also brought out 27 facets of oscillations in respect of Kaishiki-nishada alone. I shall be thankful if any Vidwan furnishes the relevancy between the 15 or 10 or 23 Gamakas and these 27 facets of Kashiki-nishada. amsharma

MV · Post by MV » 24 May 2011, 07:25

@Ravikiran Sir,
Thank you. That is brilliant

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 24 May 2011, 08:31

I shall be thankful if any Vidwan furnishes the relevancy between the 15 or 10 or 23 Gamakas

Sri Akella-garu: With all due respect, you are the one that made an issue out of how many Gamakas there actually were. I think MV's article only mentioned them in the context of a larger idea.

That said, I think Sri Ravikiran's definitions of the abovementioned gamakas with examples are wonderful and very relevant from a pedagogical point of view. I, for one, would even consider using Sri Ravikiran's explanatipon, when I teach a course on music cognition to students who largely come from other systems of music.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 24 May 2011, 10:27

I am still confused about the 'number' of gamakas:
Is it 10/15/17/23/27/ ????

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 24 May 2011, 11:55

mahavishnu

Sri Akella-garu: With all due respect, you are the one that made an issue out of how many Gamakas there actually were. I think MV's article only mentioned them in the context of a larger idea.

Hello dear, would you please go through my post once again? I did never make an issue of how many Gamakas were there actually but why, along with the good old 15 Gamakas of his time, the lateral 10 Gamakas also should be attributed to Sharngadeva. In fact, I am never bothered at all about the number of Gamakas 15 or 10 or 23 or any other figure to that matter as they altogether are not at all enough to cater our needs of our present-day music.

That said, I think Sri Ravikiran's definitions of the abovementioned gamakas with examples are wonderful and very relevant from a pedagogical point of view. I, for one, would even consider using Sri Ravikiran's explanatipon, when I teach a course on music cognition to students who largely come from other systems of music.

I am never bothered at all about the number of Gamakas 15 or 10 or 23 or any other figure to that matter as they altogether are not at all enough to cater our needs of our present-day music. That is why, for the true benefit of the aspirant to fully equip him/her in this respect, for the first time in the history, I have made an extensive research on all these different kinds of oscillations, under the guidance of the Almighty (which you may not believe), and brought out 60 kinds along with symbols and auidio-files which are furnished in my CD, AMS Easy Methods-2007 along with 27 facets of Kashiki-nishada alone along with their audio-files.

Though not for the students who largely come from other systems of music, at the least, even for the benefit of our aspirants, would you please try to give the pedagogical point of relevancy of Chi. Ravikiran’s explanations of Gamakas with the 27 facets of Kashiki-nishada furnished by me in the CD, AMS Easy Methods-2007?

cmlover

I am still confused about the 'number' of gamakas:
Is it 10/15/17/23/27/ ????

You need not get confused as they altogether are not at all enough to cater our needs of our present-day music. But, surprisingly, even now, nobody is ready to toil himself/herself either to bring out all the different oscillations of our music along with symbols like me or to support my action or even to condemn my action. That is the pity of our people who are always used either to speak or write a lot but do nothing. amsharma

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 24 May 2011, 19:11

Sri ravikiran/akella-garu,

Could I bother either of you to look at my earlier post and answer the questions I raise? I am just looking for how practitioners refer to those specific gamakas - I commonly run into that kind (a stress/emphasis on a swara during ascent).

Thanks
Arun

suma · Post by **suma** » 24 May 2011, 19:55

I am voting for Chitravina Ravikiran to get the next Sangeetha Kalanidhi title. Wow, what a knowledge and nice that he shares with rasikas in simple terms so that we can also follow through.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 24 May 2011, 20:17

Sangeetha kalanidhi or not (with a number of elders waiting for their turn!), he is a sangIta nidhi for sure! It will take years for me to get them right. I just feel like taping the list to my fridge. The names sound beautiful and Ravikiran's clarity in words matches his clarity in playing.

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 24 May 2011, 21:04

Dear brother-member, arunk, Had you gone through the details of 60 symbolised oscillations of my CD, AMS Easy Methods-2007 along with another set of 27 facets of Kaishiki-nishada you could have understood the problem very easily. But, you didn’t (that is why I wrote the last sentence in my last post). So, now, in spite of my old age, to sincerely answer your question, in the absence of a relevant demonstration, I must write a very lengthy answer, which I generally avoid nowadays. However, I shall try to give the answer.

In fact, I am more bothered about the mode of playing the Gamaka with the upper and lower limits of it, the starting and ending points of it, longer and shorter notes involved in it and places of stress than its name.

If you play the Gamaka of a note in the speed @ one note per each second everything of it will be magnified to give out the full knowledge of it. That is why while learning the Varna, which plays a vital role in enlightening the aspirant in respect of relevant oscillations, the teacher must, at first, demonstrate the Gamaka if needed and initiate the aspirant to sing in this particular speed. But, unfortunately, none of the music-teachers care to do so.

While asking for the name of the Gamaka in playing ‘ri’ ‘ma’ & ‘da’ of Shankarabharana, funnily, you have brought out the similarity of the Gamaka of ‘ga’ & ‘ni’ of Kharaharapriya which obviously brings out questions about the depth of your knowledge and acquaintance with all these Gamakas.
Why because, while there is some kind of difference in singing Gamakas of ‘ri’ & ‘da’ of Shankarabharana and ‘ga’ & ‘ni’ of Kharaharapriya and ‘ma’ of Shankarbharana, you have mixed up all of them in your question. More over, in the last para of your post, you have also given the notation of Gamaka ‘rgr’ for ‘ri’ and ‘mpm’ for ‘ma’ which is in-correct.

There are two varieties of Gamakas, 1.Lalita-gamaka and 2.Sampradaya-gamaka, which have never been properly defined by any author or by any musician. While Kampita has the relation with the upper or the lower adjacent note only, Gamaka has the relation with the 2nd upper note or beyond. Again, even in Lalita-gamaka the relation is between the 2nd upper note and the exact note in Sampradaya-gamaka the relation is between the 2nd upper note and the beneath note of the exact note. More over, the Gamaka must always be sung starting from the upper note only but not from the lower note (like you wrote ‘rgr’ of ‘ri’ for Shankarabharana).

Thus ‘ri’ of Shankarabharana has to be sung ‘grgr’, ‘da’ has to be sung ‘sdsd’, which is Lalita-gamaka. But, ‘ga’ of Kharaharapriya has to be sung ‘mrmr’, ‘ni’ has to be sung ‘sdsd’ and ‘ma’ of Shankarabharna has to be sung ‘pgpg’ which is Sampradaya-gamaka. If you can follow this ok or if not, a demonstration is the only way by Skype to make you understand. amsharma

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 24 May 2011, 21:11

Thanks akella-garu. I did go through your list earlier (and yesterday) - i think i follow the basic principles but it does requires more careful reading+listening and introspection than what I have done so far. I do stand corrected w.r.t the subtleties in those gamakas I brought up.

Arun

chitravina ravikiran · Post by **chitravina ravikiran** » 24 May 2011, 21:41

Akella ji has given a clear distinction about the lalita and sampradaya varieties. If we were to go even further, the Shankarabharana Ri starts from S and goes to GRGR and the Da will be like P,SDSD. My only request would be to refer to these lalita-kampita and deergha-kampita, since all these still fall under the broad category of kampita. In technical terms, gamaka (from root word gam - to move/go) is more a generic name which has been incorrectly used as an alternative to kampita for many years.

Arun, you are also right. That is referred to as nokku (you actually hook the note from a note above). But it can probably be visualised as a subset of kampitam (done just once or even partially) esp. when played fast.

suma · Post by **suma** » 24 May 2011, 22:25

arasi wrote: I just feel like taping the list to my fridge.

I copy pasted and emailed it to my son!