http://www.hindu.com/fr/2007/02/23/stor ... 120600.htm
Please read this.
What can one say?
-
coolkarni
Getting a bit serious , i always find MDRs voice hauntimg me (and Amir Khans in HM) on occasions .Ofcourse I am one of those who map renderings to renderings (to borrow an expression frm rajeshnat).
At the right moment in a Sankarabharana , MS's Sama gana Vinodini will start haunting me.So will Chembai's Drona Karna Duryodhana in Bhairavi..
no matter who is singing it.
At the right moment in a Sankarabharana , MS's Sama gana Vinodini will start haunting me.So will Chembai's Drona Karna Duryodhana in Bhairavi..
no matter who is singing it.
-
vijay
- Posts: 2522
- Joined: 27 Feb 2006, 16:06
-
mdrbalaji
- Posts: 41
- Joined: 16 Jul 2005, 00:02
-
arunsri
- Posts: 249
- Joined: 04 Feb 2010, 13:07
There is nothing wrong in comparing artistes, but then it should be a fair comparison. I am sure even if Ms. Aruna Sairam reads this, she will be taken aback. In fact, the reason for my posting here was NOT to discuss the merits/demerits or her music over MDR - but to highlight what sort of nonsense gets published. Is there any way to give feedback to The HINDU on this? Also, what is the need for this kind of introduction to a concert review. Does this reporter think he is SVK (the reporter) who writes a paragaraph on the concert (3-4 songs) and a page as introduction.
Also, in today's edition of the HINDU, in the Friday review section of Hyderabad - Sudha Raghunathan concert was reviewed, it said Bhavayami Raghuramam was sung - my parents went to a concert of hers last sunday, and my father said she sang the chaturdasha ragamalika of Dikshitar. I am not sure if it the same concert, but if it is, then here is another case of reporter writing whatever comes to mind.
Also, in today's edition of the HINDU, in the Friday review section of Hyderabad - Sudha Raghunathan concert was reviewed, it said Bhavayami Raghuramam was sung - my parents went to a concert of hers last sunday, and my father said she sang the chaturdasha ragamalika of Dikshitar. I am not sure if it the same concert, but if it is, then here is another case of reporter writing whatever comes to mind.
Last edited by arunsri on 24 Feb 2007, 02:09, edited 1 time in total.
-
arunk
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41
I think I am as big fan of MDR as most of you (actually listening to him as i write this), and i may be in for brick bats about this but ...
Comparisons are always subjective - some we agree whole-heartedly, some we think are fair, some we think are just nonsense. But the value we attach, is our own assessment - and hence subjective not objective. A "fair comparison" still implies subjectivity as in what is fair. Our conclusions always have strains of subjectivity - we just conveniently elevate them to objectivity when it fits our purposs.
Anyway from the couple of concerts I have attended of Aruna Sairam i have attended, i have no idea where the comparison to MDR's style of rendering comes myself, but the person felt so. He expressed it Big deal! From the article, i dont see him intending to show MDR ("monumental music") or Ms. Sairam in bad light. We may not agree with his conclusions but deem it as nonsense, blasphemy? Isnt this jingoism? If so, this is much much worse than someone being impressed by an artist's music to think that person reminded him/her of some other artist and expressing so. It is also sad that this jingoism is usually well received in our circles - serving as a mode of encouragement for future assaults of this nature.
And at the same time we lament why this art is not a property of "common man" and does not have wider acceptance. As there is wider acceptance - you will find more and more opinions which will make your blood boil (i am borrowing this from a dialog Michael Douglas makes in American President about freedom of speech).
Again, i do not necessarily agree with the comparison made in the review, but the review itself seems better than the norm set by arm-chair critics all over who seem to primarily use it as a vehicle to show how good they are at wielding their pen as a weapon. What chivalry! When the chances of rebuttal are slim to none!
Reviews are always from the view of the reviewer - they *never* represent the collective views of the audience (how much ever the reviewer may seem to try to make it so). This goes for this reviewer, all the way to the subbudus.
Arun
Comparisons are always subjective - some we agree whole-heartedly, some we think are fair, some we think are just nonsense. But the value we attach, is our own assessment - and hence subjective not objective. A "fair comparison" still implies subjectivity as in what is fair. Our conclusions always have strains of subjectivity - we just conveniently elevate them to objectivity when it fits our purposs.
Anyway from the couple of concerts I have attended of Aruna Sairam i have attended, i have no idea where the comparison to MDR's style of rendering comes myself, but the person felt so. He expressed it Big deal! From the article, i dont see him intending to show MDR ("monumental music") or Ms. Sairam in bad light. We may not agree with his conclusions but deem it as nonsense, blasphemy? Isnt this jingoism? If so, this is much much worse than someone being impressed by an artist's music to think that person reminded him/her of some other artist and expressing so. It is also sad that this jingoism is usually well received in our circles - serving as a mode of encouragement for future assaults of this nature.
And at the same time we lament why this art is not a property of "common man" and does not have wider acceptance. As there is wider acceptance - you will find more and more opinions which will make your blood boil (i am borrowing this from a dialog Michael Douglas makes in American President about freedom of speech).
Again, i do not necessarily agree with the comparison made in the review, but the review itself seems better than the norm set by arm-chair critics all over who seem to primarily use it as a vehicle to show how good they are at wielding their pen as a weapon. What chivalry! When the chances of rebuttal are slim to none!
Reviews are always from the view of the reviewer - they *never* represent the collective views of the audience (how much ever the reviewer may seem to try to make it so). This goes for this reviewer, all the way to the subbudus.
Arun
Last edited by arunk on 24 Feb 2007, 03:33, edited 1 time in total.
-
vasanthakokilam
- Posts: 10958
- Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01
Arun: Agreed that reviews are subjective and the reviewer did not try to put down MDR or AS and if CM spreads wider, we have to suffer through more of such viewpoints.. but in this particular case 'WHAT IS RAMAKRISHNAN THINKING'? I am coming from the pov that it just does not make any sense ( and not taking it as putting down MDR ). If he wants to drag such a vastly different artist for comparison, he needed to put a few more words to justify that.
-
arunk
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41
vk,
he found the performance meditative, and reminded him of MDR - thats it. I dont think he is trying to stretch it (from his point of view) - there is no need for him put any more words.
If you do not find Aruna Sairam's performance meditative, it would be impossible to see his point of view. My point is you will find many reviews where you will find stuff impossible to agree with
.
Btw, why should we "suffer" through these views? It implies there there will be no possibility of understanding and thus some respect for differing opinions. I remember reading somewhere that "tolerance" - a supposedly good trait, implies "you dont like it but endure it anyway". Since it has the "you dont like it" part, it really is not a good trait 
Arun
he found the performance meditative, and reminded him of MDR - thats it. I dont think he is trying to stretch it (from his point of view) - there is no need for him put any more words.
If you do not find Aruna Sairam's performance meditative, it would be impossible to see his point of view. My point is you will find many reviews where you will find stuff impossible to agree with
.Btw, why should we "suffer" through these views
? It implies there there will be no possibility of understanding and thus some respect for differing opinions. I remember reading somewhere that "tolerance" - a supposedly good trait, implies "you dont like it but endure it anyway". Since it has the "you dont like it" part, it really is not a good trait Arun
Last edited by arunk on 24 Feb 2007, 03:04, edited 1 time in total.
-
jayaram
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: 30 Jun 2006, 03:08
playing the devil's advocate here for a sec...
Arun, you have said so eloquently that we should respect the reviewer's take on this. At the same time, this is a forum where people do express their views (sometimes in a forthright manner) - and these are dissenting voices. These people didn't agree with the comparison made by the reviewer. They felt it was even blasphemous. Just as the review is just that person's p.o.v., these dissenting voices are also their own.
Similar views of protest were expressed in this forum in reaction to a review by (the other) SVK.
Freedom of speech is hard to handle sometimes.
Arun, you have said so eloquently that we should respect the reviewer's take on this. At the same time, this is a forum where people do express their views (sometimes in a forthright manner) - and these are dissenting voices. These people didn't agree with the comparison made by the reviewer. They felt it was even blasphemous. Just as the review is just that person's p.o.v., these dissenting voices are also their own.
Similar views of protest were expressed in this forum in reaction to a review by (the other) SVK.
Freedom of speech is hard to handle sometimes.
Last edited by jayaram on 24 Feb 2007, 03:34, edited 1 time in total.
-
arunk
- Posts: 3424
- Joined: 07 Feb 2010, 21:41
jayaram true. But i can appeal for a bit of moderation cant i ?
If the review came out with an intention to hurt or be controversial etc. and people were upset, that is one thing (although moderation would still be better there too - much harder probably). Here it wasnt so and hence my appeal (and hence i used the strong word jingoism). But if an appeal for moderation and "tolerance" is to be treated equally as justification for views against which the appeal is made - well that is one's own prerogative of course.
There is differing shades of responses to a differing point of view: respect to complete-trash. All of these these responses are indeed points of views in themselves - how we value them is up to each one of us of course.
Arun
? If the review came out with an intention to hurt or be controversial etc. and people were upset, that is one thing (although moderation would still be better there too - much harder probably). Here it wasnt so and hence my appeal (and hence i used the strong word jingoism). But if an appeal for moderation and "tolerance" is to be treated equally as justification for views against which the appeal is made - well that is one's own prerogative of course.
There is differing shades of responses to a differing point of view: respect to complete-trash. All of these these responses are indeed points of views in themselves - how we value them is up to each one of us of course.
Arun
Last edited by arunk on 24 Feb 2007, 03:45, edited 1 time in total.
-
vasanthakokilam
- Posts: 10958
- Joined: 03 Feb 2010, 00:01
Arun: I am with you in your call for moderation, if that is the extent of your chiding of the responses to that review. ( though they were quite moderate I thought, but anyway.... )
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, don't theyhe found the performance meditative, and reminded him of MDR - thats it. I dont think he is trying to stretch it (from his point of view) - there is no need for him put any more words.
Hey, that was my milder re-phrase for 'blood boiling'Btw, why should we "suffer" through these views ?
-
sangeetarasikan
- Posts: 68
- Joined: 12 Sep 2006, 17:07
Like the proverbial character who betrays his ignorance when he opens his mouth, the reviewer has betrayed his lack of insight into both MDR's as well as Aruna Sairam's music.
On a serious note, The Hindu badly needs reviewers with at least decent knowledge of CM. No point in just 'covering' music for the heck of it.
On a serious note, The Hindu badly needs reviewers with at least decent knowledge of CM. No point in just 'covering' music for the heck of it.