A lot of dirt in the world of Carnatic music

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 05 Jan 2014, 10:02

I am not compatant to say this...Shri TM Krishna says this...

He also speaks about his book, 'A Southern Music - The Karnatic Story', for which he has got a lot of critical acclaim.

Listen at ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ofXIm1c7ZA

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 05 Jan 2014, 10:47

Flowers do not go to bees. If they find that they are not being pollinated, they evolve themselves or evolve different strategies to propagate themselves. But if all that TMK is interested in is survival instinct of propagation, I have nothing to say. But music, and CM in particular, is not about survival instinct of propagation - it is about human evolution to a full-being. Whether the CM 'industry' survives or not is of least concern to me.

I read recently about a plant sprouting in Russian Tundra which was covered by permafrost for thirty thousand years. That is Nature's way of asserting itself. I am not at all impressed by the way CM is practiced. It is just an industry full of people like the proverbial mullah chasing his voice. There are somewhere - like the seed buried in the permafrost - dormant strengths. Even if the whole genre is decimated or overtaken by events, the music as it should be, will rise as the proverbial phoenix. No endeavor in this universe is extinguishable - that is for sure. I may not hear music for a thousand years - but my instinct of music cannot be taken away from me - hum intezar karenge khayamat tak.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 06 Jan 2014, 03:01

I get 'The uploader has not made this video available in your country. sorry".

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 06 Jan 2014, 11:59

TMK becomes infamous for talking common sense.

Paraphrased, on gender discrimination: "If I say I will not accompany a woman, I should be told that I am not wanted for accompanying the men either. No organisation has ever said that to anybody."

(By the way: on things like this, I believe we cannot judge the past except in its own terms. My parents beat me, sometimes severely. It was 1950-something, and that is what parents did, so I cannot say it was wrong. In 2013 it would be wrong.)

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 06 Jan 2014, 12:08

I like that. So with history. We should not judge the past morally based on the present norms.

anonymityatlast · Post by **anonymityatlast** » 06 Jan 2014, 13:09

Govindan sir,

I have been intrigued by your standing up for purifying one's thoughts and deeds. But ultimately, it is farce to accept life itself and still claim any love for purity. Cold and brutal competition, filled with violence, is what (life's) evolution is all about. Renouncing violence while not renouncing life itself is hypocrisy.

It shall unfortunately take violence even to end the life we already have: such is the law and society we currently live in. All we can do to honestly oppose violence is to not propagate life further. And perhaps campaign that such laws be changed that deprive us all of a dignified exit. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns ... 530863.ece

Just an explanation: a "beautiful" little forest will comprise of perhaps two hundred deer. They'll litter a thousand fawns, of which 50 perish in infighting during the breeding season. And the ten tigers and the fifteen they produced (of which ten survive infighting) rip apart and eat two hundred deer and 750 fawns. Then the first ten tigers die of starvation. This is "balance" in nature.

KSJaishankar · Post by **KSJaishankar** » 07 Jan 2014, 01:27

kvchellappa wrote:I like that. So with history. We should not judge the past morally based on the present norms.

Completely agree sir! But shouldn't the converse also be true, that we do not "impose" the norms of the past on the present?

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 07 Jan 2014, 02:02

Very much so.

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 07 Jan 2014, 08:08

I read in Good English by G H Vallins how language changes democratically defying the purists. Same applies to social norms. It has to change by evolution and endure. Yes, past cannot decide for ever for the future.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 07 Jan 2014, 11:38

Which is all skirting around the fact that various forms of discrimination, gender in this instance, are not right in this day and age and should not be accepted.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 07 Jan 2014, 12:26

What muddies matters is that there is "discrimination" of the institutional kind and then there is just plain old personal preference. While it is ok to rail against the former, one needs a lot more finesse to deal with the latter - to make sure you are not impinging on personal liberty,

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 07 Jan 2014, 12:35

anonymityatlast wrote: Renouncing violence while not renouncing life itself is hypocrisy.

Violently disagree.

Our civilization has given a lot of thought to these matters (that you bring up in your post) much to the chagrin of many, who would rather that they had spent it on trying to build the better mousetrap.

Just an explanation: a "beautiful" little forest will comprise of perhaps two hundred deer. They'll litter a thousand fawns, of which 50 perish in infighting during the breeding season. And the ten tigers and the fifteen they produced (of which ten survive infighting) rip apart and eat two hundred deer and 750 fawns. Then the first ten tigers die of starvation. This is "balance" in nature.

So?

No need for the quotes around beautiful or balance.

I don't think the 50 figure you have used for in-fighting bears out with reality. If you throw in infant mortality, it might be more valid.

Humans are capable of thought and reflection and while still being part of the forest can also "rise above it" (as in see their place and understand it).

PS: BTW, No disagreement on the subject matter on the link.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 07 Jan 2014, 13:06

sureshvv wrote:What muddies matters is that there is "discrimination" of the institutional kind and then there is just plain old personal preference. While it is ok to rail against the former, one needs a lot more finesse to deal with the latter - to make sure you are not impinging on personal liberty,

Say that you have a manager working for you who only promotes men, when there are equally, or even better qualified, women on his teams. You take him to task for this, and he replies that it is not discrimination, it his personal preference. I suggest that the answer is to let him practice his "personal preference" --- in some other company!

anonymityatlast · Post by **anonymityatlast** » 07 Jan 2014, 13:32

sureshvv wrote:PS: BTW, No disagreement on the subject matter on the link.

Thank you, so glad to learn that!

sureshvv wrote:Our civilization has given a lot of thought to these matters (that you bring up in your post) much to the chagrin of many, who would rather that they had spent it on trying to build the better mousetrap.

Sort of true, that is why there have been such celibate souls as Mahavira and Al Ma'ari. Only perhaps they wouldn't, after a point, consider themselves part of "our civilization"!

sureshvv wrote:Humans are capable of thought and reflection and while still being part of the forest can also "rise above it" (as in see their place and understand it).

Is that why we have outlawed hunting and run slaughterhouses instead?

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 07 Jan 2014, 14:34

Is that why we have outlawed hunting and run slaughterhouses instead?

The problem when designing laws is that you have to adopt a least-common-denominator approach. Ethics and morals cannot be legislated beyond a certain degree. To look to the law to learn about them will be be largely fruitless.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 07 Jan 2014, 14:37

Nick H wrote:
Say that you have a manager working for you who only promotes men, when there are equally, or even better qualified, women on his teams. You take him to task for this, and he replies that it is not discrimination, it his personal preference. I suggest that the answer is to let him practice his "personal preference" --- in some other company!

But what if the guy needs a night watchman?

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 07 Jan 2014, 15:15

nighwatchperson puleeeese! lol.

And it's not really a good example, if we are talking about the mridangist/violinist thing.

Historians: who was this? ...

During a social visit, an eminent mridangist asked a famous female vocalist if she would sing a certain song and let him play. She refused, telling him that if he would not play for her in public, she would not let him do so in private.

harimau · Post by **harimau** » 18 Jan 2014, 21:18

Nick H wrote:TMK becomes infamous for talking common sense.

Paraphrased, on gender discrimination: "If I say I will not accompany a woman, I should be told that I am not wanted for accompanying the men either. No organisation has ever said that to anybody."

TMK becomes famous for talking BS.

Why didn't he say to Karaikkudi Mani that he, TMK, wouldn't want Karaikkudi Mani (KM) to accompany him since KM refuses to play for women? [-x

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 18 Jan 2014, 21:55

Does BS stand for Business Sense?
A good poser to TMK.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 18 Jan 2014, 22:48

Good point.

If he is going to stand up for these things then he should, indeed, lead the way.

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 19 Jan 2014, 08:21

On second thoughts KM used to accompany DKP, MS.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 19 Jan 2014, 12:56

Thanks for putting the record straight

TheListener · Post by **TheListener** » 22 Jan 2014, 05:13

Nick H wrote:nighwatchperson puleeeese! lol.

And it's not really a good example, if we are talking about the mridangist/violinist thing.

Historians: who was this? ...

During a social visit, an eminent mridangist asked a famous female vocalist if she would sing a certain song and let him play. She refused, telling him that if he would not play for her in public, she would not let him do so in private.

Brindamma to Pazhani Subramania Pillai, I think.

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 22 Jan 2014, 05:33

If they were said in private, then this is 100% hearsay, with all due respect to the source of these matters.
One of the biggest "dirts" in Carnatic music is the existence of such stories!

Secondly, Karaikudi Mani has taken vows of celibacy since he joined the order of his guru. Part of the order of this vow, is not to share the stage with members of the opposite gender (there are even definitions about what sharing the stage means).

I am not endorsing this ascetic order nor am I familiar with its code of conduct, but much has happened in KRM's life that led him to this life of "Anmeegam". Including an accident in the late 1980s where he almost lost his hands and couldn't play the mridangam for several months. I think as individuals we would be better off if we appreciated other viewpoints before we jump to judge others. There is much more to people's lives than meets the eye. Musicians are human.

Yes, he did accompany DKP and MSS in the early 1970s (and extremely well if may add), but that was much before all of this.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 22 Jan 2014, 11:50

You are a fair-minded and generous man, as well as being vastly well informed.

Whether it is really applicable here, or not (and this is not about an individual), vows make me think of of Krishna's words to Arjun, to the effect, "If your family was not so fond of taking vows we wouldn't be in this mess."

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 26 Jan 2014, 05:37

" I don’t believe that I terminated the concert, or ended it abruptly. Some wrongly think that I had hit a wall creatively, or that I was not in the mood. I had actually reached a point of fulfilment. In that state of repleteness, I felt there was nothing left for me to sing. Silence and solitude were the only things I needed.

I may have been able to sing for another hour, but would that have been music? I have reached this place many times but the ground reality of the concert hall has quickly taken over and I have continued. But on that day, I just moved away from singing any further and realised what I had done only [once] I got into the car to go home. Did I shortchange the audience? Some may believe that I did.

Moreover, it had nothing to do with the fact that the concert was free. The same thing may have happened even if it had been ticketed. Music is not about delivering a fixed number of hours’ worth of singing, but about transcending the earthiness of being. Is it correct for me to expect everyone present to share this feeling? Maybe not. But it happened. It may happen again. It is born [of] my giving myself up to music, which is the only reason I exist.."

An interview with Sumana Ramanan is the managing editor of Scroll.in, a digital daily....

More here:
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... e-musician

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 26 Jan 2014, 09:43

Nick H wrote: Whether it is really applicable here, or not (and this is not about an individual), vows make me think of of Krishna's words to Arjun, to the effect, "If your family was not so fond of taking vows we wouldn't be in this mess."

Nick,
May I have a reference material which has even a slightest resemblance to what you have quoted?
I am afraid that there is no such dialogue between arjuna and kRshNa.

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 26 Jan 2014, 09:58

[quote="venkatakailasam"]" I had actually reached a point of fulfilment. In that state of repleteness, I felt there was nothing left for me to sing.

It is at this very point, heart-to-heart communication (between the artist and rasika) starts and it is from here true music flows where there is no applause or 'Aha', but silent devouring. It is unfortunate that he has terminated his concert.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 26 Jan 2014, 11:52

Venkatk,

It's fascinating to look into the mind of an artiste, his inner life. Of course, as rasikAs we only need to look and find his/her thoughts on how he/she connects with the chosen art. Other things are not our business.

As we all know, there is no profession for a performing musician without an audience, and we rasikAs are dependent on them for our musical appreciation! In business terms, it can be called a (friendly, unwritten) contract (agreement?), I suppose.

The artiste feels that he has reached the point when he cannot sing anymore, and what's the point, anyway in continuing? Understood.

Now, how about the audience? Have they reached that point? May be not. They want more of good music, and not unreasonably so (they are also conditioned by a normal concert duration).

Of course, not all concerts go by this rule. Even if a performer wants to sing to his heart's content, he may not be able to engage his listeners for more than a few minutes! In that case, such an amicable 'contract' doesn't exist!

Something which happened ages ago, came back to me! I still don't know the answer, but this is what happened. I was working as a sub-editor for a short time at a low key quasi-government publication. After working for a newspaper, it was vacation time for me. Little work, too many people to tackle it. I had a friendly editor who gave assignments which I finished quickly (due to my having worked at a constantly busy daily). I would take a book out of my desk and start reading it, or go to the cafeteria for a cup of coffee. The senior among the sub-editors could not brook it. He said, 'you can't read a book or have your coffee except at the 'understood' hour'! I would say, 'give me some work to do, and I'll stay'. He would scrounge around for some scraps of paper, and after working on them, I'd make my way to the cafeteria. It irked him no end, and the farce went on for a while.

Then, one day the editor called me into his office and said, 'you do more than your share of work. Please feel free to take some time off here and there'! Bless that old gentleman! With that carte blanche, the documentary section next door was a fun-filled learning ground for me.

Now, considering that I was not in my seat (or was sitting and reading a book), were they the right things to do? I still don't have an answer, in the light of what we are discussing here: a performer deciding on his time on stage dependent on his artistic satiation level...

Then again, I had my editor's permission and approval for it

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 26 Jan 2014, 14:19

arasi!oh! What a coincidence!

At that time I was around 25..I was working with NLC....Just joined a couple of years back...

My officer, an old Malayali , used to tell others about me..."see this chap..he will finish a day's work in two hours and keep quite all day..emulate him!!"

He gave a very good report and consequently I got an accelerated promotion....

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 26 Jan 2014, 15:44

What Mr. Nick has quoted is in Mahabharatam, not in Gita.

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 26 Jan 2014, 16:15

kvc
May I know the context in which this dialogue has taken place?

varsha · Post by **varsha** » 26 Jan 2014, 16:17

If you observe carefully , Nick said Krishna to Arjun . Not Arjuna
Nick
Dont you ever read Mahabharatha ( or attend a TMKrishna concert charioteered by Arjun Kumar ) ..and then watch an episode of Yes Minister before retiring for the day .
You will end up concocting suh quotes in your dreams that can originate only in a land of stiff upper lips , Woosters , Northcote Parkinsons and Pickwicks. [-x

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 26 Jan 2014, 16:29

I think there is a contradiction here. A state of repleteness is not same as satisfaction achieved in completing one's job before allotted time - that is satiation. Repleteness is a state of contentment - not satiation - where there is no more hunger at all. It is in that state that you are able to give more - and what can be more joyful than giving with a heart replete! Therefore, when the artist says that he has nothing more to sing, he is contradicting himself. Is it a state of emptiness or satiation which he is calling 'replete'?

KNV1955 · Post by **KNV1955** » 26 Jan 2014, 16:31

Arasi TMK is clever. He has made his concerts free. There is no unwritten contract or boss (here audience) permission to take. L-)

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jan 2014, 17:28

vgovindan, yes, correction accepted!

kvchellappa wrote:What Mr. Nick has quoted is in Mahabharatam, not in Gita.

Thank you, it was my mistake! It occurred during the war itself.

When reading any book (or watching the TV series

) certain things will always stick in the mind. The context may not, perhaps not even the exact words, but taking away some sort of wisdom is more important than an exact quote, I think.

Now, very roughly and with big gaps, it is the time that Arjun has vowed that he will kill somebody (who?) before the sun sets. There was a time when I had a huge amount of Mahabharat detail in my head, as imbibed it in every English translation, short of the full-length one, that I could get. Now, even major names have faded. My memory is like that.

Closer to topic,

TMK is clever. He has made his concerts free. There is no unwritten contract or boss (here audience) permission to take.

It isn't about money.

I feel that an artist has a duty to deliver. The timing may not be a part of the "contract," and the contract is not necessarily anything at all to do with money, but delivery should be in terms of audience satisfaction.

What good is it if the chef goes home after the first course, because he is replete?

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 26 Jan 2014, 17:44

nick,
There is a big difference between 'vow of celibacy' - premeditative and spiritually oriented - and vow of arjuna - hasty and temperamental. Though in English both may be called vows, in Sanskrit vow of celibacy is called 'vrata' and vow of arjuna is called 'Sapatha'. Therefore, I think your quote is out of place here.

venkatakailasam · Post by **venkatakailasam** » 26 Jan 2014, 17:49

When one reaches the stage of fulfillment...Is there a next stage...someone who has inherent potential to be a great artist

feels that he has reached that stage and there is nothing in him beyond that to give...

Why not we take his statement as it is and appreciate his honesty....
Shri Govindan.." heart-to-heart communication between the artist and rasika"..

I feel that this can happen Only If both are in the same wave length..It is not so here..

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 26 Jan 2014, 17:52

What TMK does is his manodharma or manobhava. Audience will decide what to do with his concerts. There were mavericks before. TMK is shrewd. He cares for audience and readers. Look at his marketing efforts for his books and CDs.
I always feel art is a powerful medium of communication and the spectators and audience are the life bread of art. Sometimes, the communication succeeds after an artist's lifetime. That is sad.
The better word to use, I feel, is engagement between the artist and his audience, in preference to agreement or contract.
Now, 'is it just for an artist to end a concert at his will (whatever expression may be used for this)' can be met with a counter-question 'is it just for the audience to leave in the middle of a concert, and that too from the front rows?'
Then, what about artists starting the concert late? One person who is dot on the time at all his engagements is Sanjay. I have never seen him late to start a concert and I have not seen strumming the Tambura in limelight or a quarrel wit the mike.
I will come back on Mr. Govindan's quiz.

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 26 Jan 2014, 18:42

vk,
Fulfillment is not same as being replete. The artist uses both words. Is he feeling fulfillment or feels replete - both cannot be true - therefore contradiction. Fulfillment is a subset of repleteness.

Regarding 'heart-to-heart communication', when heart speaks, other hearts simultaneously open up - unless someone wants to shut it deliberately. All hearts are on the same wavelength. Why tyAgarAja's song appeal? - He speaks from heart - though through a weak medium called artist. It is only brains which are in different wavelengths. When Bharati sings 'ettanai kODi inbam paDaittAi iRaivA' - it is the heart that speaks. Every one of us have experienced this heart-speak some time or the other.

All other types of communication (in music, particularly) are unsubstantial and have momentary value only - the Ahas and applauses.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Jan 2014, 21:42

vgovindan wrote:nick,
There is a big difference between 'vow of celibacy' - premeditative and spiritually oriented - and vow of arjuna - hasty and temperamental. Though in English both may be called vows, in Sanskrit vow of celibacy is called 'vrata' and vow of arjuna is called 'Sapatha'. Therefore, I think your quote is out of place here.

Ahh... a vow by any other name

Perhaps you may think my quote misplaced or even inaccurate. Perhaps it is: you have scholarship advantages over me, not least in being able to study such things in a language that is not foreign to their origin. This is not meant to be in any way disrespectful of you. I was only able to take away from those writings what my circumstances and education allowed --- but (and even if some of my interpretations are unorthodox) I did, and do, value them highly.

But this has been a digression...

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 26 Jan 2014, 23:17

Just in case this adds value, Nick, I think Govindan's point is that there is a material difference between the KM situation which seems to have been taken after much deliberation and possibly advised by his spiritual guru ('vrata') whereas Arjuna the warrior was hot-headed when he took his vow ('sapatha'). So, while it is definitely appropriate to tell Arjuna that ( and it is an easy one morally), it gets complicated and nuanced when it comes to the KM type of vrata.

But the message that you remembered from Mahabaratha is a very good one indeed since that is the kind of situation we find us and others encountering millions of times in our lifetime which are painful and draining.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 27 Jan 2014, 00:18

Yes... but Krishna's words were not just about the hot-headed vow of that day, it is the family history. Doesn't all that begin (or almost begin) with a vow of celibacy?

I'm not qualified. I feel that I could have held up well in Mahabharat conversations around 20 years ago, but not now.

vgovindan · Post by **vgovindan** » 27 Jan 2014, 01:00

Which kRshNa and which family you are referring to? If it is Mahabharata kRshNa, are you referring to vow of celibacy by bhIshma? If the answer is yes, then this is the first time I am hearing a twist in the course of the kuru dynasty attributed to bhIshma. That makes it interesting. Can we discuss this in a separate topic?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 27 Jan 2014, 01:10

Ah, then it gets interesting, though I do not know what specific back story Nick is refering to. I have not read Mahabarata in earnest for many decades. In any case, Mahabharatha is a great and engrossing story for me mainly because the heroes and protagonists are not perfect. Children do get a sugar coated version of it which is how it should be but as adults we can take a less than ideal depiction of the heroes. ( not saying that is what is involved in this specific case ).

I was wondering how off topic this is, but then realized it may fit in under the common theme of 'greatness does not imply perfection'. It never really is in practice. But as Govidan says, I think we can take this thread of discussion to a separate topic.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 27 Jan 2014, 02:49

By all means! Though I reiterate that I am not qualified to join with you guys. Once, maybe, despite not being a Sanskrit scholar, but not now.

Mahabharatha is a great and engrossing story for me mainly because the heroes and protagonists are not perfect.

For me this is exactly what Mahabaharat is about! There is no truly perfect person, and there is no 100% bad person, but mistake making even includes the gods. It is a story of mistakes that led to what I interpret as what we would now see as a nuclear war it was so devastating. But people make mistakes.

There was a fisherman, a king, a daughter, a love. Demands were made, a vow was made and ...the rest, as they say, is history. If he hadn't, if she hadn't, if only.... And so on, though the generations If he hadn't, if she hadn't, if only...

I'm afraid that I'm getting into bedtime waffle mode

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 27 Jan 2014, 08:19

The more serious Vrata, which is questionable from today's context, which led to the huge tragedy, was Yudhishtira's viz. he would not refuse to play at dice, if invited.

sankark · Post by **sankark** » 27 Jan 2014, 11:22

kvc, that vrata wasn't the actual issue IMO. The issue is not having folded at some point and to have said to self, "Enough is enough. I am in a hole. Let me abstain from digging further". But then you wouldn't get Mahabharatham atleast as we know it

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 27 Jan 2014, 12:58

I have started a catalogue of Mahabharat Mistakes

Each one a lesson...

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 27 Jan 2014, 15:08

Mr. Sankar,
Frightened at Draupadi's curse and prompted by Vidura and Gandhari, Dhritarshtra returns all they lost. Y accepts a further invitation as he was returning to Indraparastha. This is because of his vrata. He would not wind up at any stage because, Sakuni was inviting him at every stage even in the previous play. It is Vrata that is said to be the cause why he plays under such onerous terms. Y's job at Virata's court was to play dice and he makes money there!
Yes, MB as it is is a valuable epic. Our discussions concern whether Vrata and Sapatha are the villains of the piece (to relieve Sakuni and Duryodhana of the burden).