Parivadini Vid. K.Arunprakash – "Shri Guruguhasya Dasoham” (Lec Dem)

[shankarank]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc98P6wPxAY

This belongs in the General discussions as this is not about talam or layam. As he rightly said, quoting SrI Lalgudi , Mridangists should know sangItam. But alas that standard was let down in the opening sAhitya itself. SrI nathAdi guruguhO jayati.

Many of the youtube links from DKP/DKJ onwards and many other contemporary artistes do an anAgata citAnanda in Sri,,, cidAnanda. In addition in ajnAna dhvAnta pracaNDa , pracaNDa is taken atItam which also puts bhAskarO as atItam and makes the kArvai on bhAskarO go over the saSabda kriya.

Is this innateness of those artistes gained from their musical training , or that is how Sri TLV or any other guru of theirs taught them? - we can only speculate. But it continues important aspects of our sangIta.

Vidushi Sowmya retains anAgata at cidAnanda in her recording. Ramakrishna Murthy does it initially and does a subtle late cut in the later. Both of them however do the ajnAna dhvAnta pracaNDa , without any atIta on pracaNDa. Akkarai sisters in their vocal as well, retain both the anAgata of cidAnanda and atIta of pracaNDa and consequently BhAskarO.

A Mridangist of all people should raise these questions. But what is being allowed to happen is likely a SSP refit and Mozartification of Dikshitar. The sAhitya and candas demand that dvAntapracaNDa is taken with a stiffness at "p" due to "p" in pracaNDa being part of samyutAkshara (double consonant). That also incidentally makes it atIta. So if it all comes together why give it up??

But then only if the Mridangist values this as part of the sangItam, will he ever have the mind to raise such questions. If he is in awe of the sounds of RShabham of dikshitar ignoring his duty of pOShaNa of candas then what avail is there?

நீங்கள் பெருஞ்சொல் வாசிக்க வேண்டாம் , தனி கூட வாசிக்க வேண்டாம். நீங்கள் நினைத்த இடத்தில் அமைதி காத்து கொள்ளலாம். ஆனால் வாசிப்பில் அதீத பரிமாணம் இருக்க வேண்டும். அது ஒன்றும் தனி வாசிக்கும் ஒத்திகை இல்லை. அப்படி பார்த்தால் சங்கீத மும்மூர்த்திகள் உருப்படிகளை நீங்கள் எப்படி கையாண்டாலும் அதெல்லாம் தனி வாசிக்கும் ஒத்திகையே!

Translation: You don't have to play big phrases or even tani. You can keep silence where you feel appropriate. But rest of the time there should be a good amount of atIta feel to the playing. That is not a prep/warmup/take for tani. Well then any good handling of trinity kritIs is indeed a prep/warmup/take for tani. That is their granduer!

That critique pretty much would apply to the approach of the Mridangist for rest of the Lec Dem.

I am still standing on the syllable positioning of pracaNDa bhAskaRO - the candas , the meter and did not yet venture into meaning. But if I do, I already find something related: the mention of savitR - who is BhAskara - the presiding deity of the first candas itself!

குரு பூஜை என்ற சம்பிரதாயத்தை பல காலம் செய்து வருவது உங்கள் சிஷ்ய குலம்! சுருதியில் மயங்கியவர்கள் கூட அதை செய்ய நினைக்கவில்லை! நீங்கள் சுருதியில் மயங்காமல், அந்த குரு பூஜையின் அடிப்படையை எல்லா விஷயங்களிலும் உட்கொண்டால் நன்மை!

Your SiSya group follows the Guru pUja tradition diligently for a long time, much before those who dwell on Sruti ever thought about it. If you just remember the underpinnings of that in all things ( not allowing these notation manuscripts to take precedence) that will be a benefit.

[shankarank]

That SSP seems to be followed in the rendition of Sri nAthAdi is evident especially how jayati lands on the vIchu. It is not extended to samam. But I like the sound of it, in the sense jayati is all short sounds. However it would have more effect , if the same is moved to pre-samam. The atItam will be felt effectively. But then faithfulness to their imagined Mozart and some available notation seems to be more important.

[shankarank]

The questions at the end. By a dancer especially, don't know who that was, but it seems she needed this insight into the thinking process of a percussionist , to likely appreciate tani. My good lord. We have to ask her - how many kAlams does she dance a vaRNam? Thinking of that I am reminded of a funny comment by a rasika in Cleveland , when Kamala Laxman was awarded in one of those years.

"Kamala dances upto 6 kAlams and even bAlA wouldn't".

Back to the dancer questioner: What her body felt always, her brain needed to get it straight from a critically thinking Mridangist

[shankarank]

And then Arun's friend, the art musician asks a long winding question , by the way Christening Arun as an artist!

Even Vivekananda College could not erase what Presidency and MCC did earlier, may be the profs were trained there!

[shankarank]

"ajnAna dhvAnta pracaNDa" : ajnAna is atItam itself and if the Mridangist prefers to remain silent to not cause an opposite meaning - as he explained , the same atItam can be emphasized on pracaNDa , provided the musicians observe that similarity of the previous phrase. That is also caused by the candas - i.e. singing the uttaranga with the same candas as the pURvAnga.

[shankarank]

The next line "jnAna(p)pradAyakO mahESvarO" - same rule would apply , with an implicit extra "p" due to the sandhi. If sandhi is observed, the music will have to shift to the dhIrga on "jnA" , with "na" as short as possible. An initial version taught should highlight the 3-ish symmetry between pradAyakO and mahESvaro. DKJ rendition does that rhythmic highlight. Melodically the notation based one mutilates it a bit. TMK rendition does that by sliding down from top - to make it smooth. TMK adds extra brigas there.

But in the initial version I would take the melody from TMK and rhythmic handling from DKJ.