Raga Moods

[Sangeet Rasik]

SR, can you explain some more on this topic for the HM uninitiated?

Here goes. A disclaimer: none of the statements/concepts/principles explained here are categorical or rigorous in the scientific sense. There is always flexibility and deviation. Viewing of musicological theories and statements in a categorical manner leads to a distorted view.

The ultimate aesthetic criteria are the same whether in HM or CM: "ranjayati iti rAgah". What is important for the discussion on Raga Moods is how you get to that stage.

HM is primarily a mood-based raga system; the seed material for ragas is rarely a scale but rather certain characteristic clusters that convey fairly specific moods or rasas. Note the word "rAga" translates closely as "mood/emotion" and not "scale". The vadi-samvadi concept somewhat naturally arises from this approach. The vadi swara is an anchor around which the "mood" is developed . As I said, this concept is not a rigorous one, and essentially will become more and more blurred as HM and CM increasingly "mesh" with each other (see below). But the very fact that HM is centered around the notion of certain tonal clusters or phrases that create certain pleasing effects, makes it quite useful for understanding "Raga Moods".

CM is primarily a scale-based raga system. Part of this approach seems to derive from the music of the old Tamils (I am by no means an expert on the "paN" system but I believe it was strongly scale-based). Roughly speaking, a scale is chosen and then a complex raga is developed around this scale to the extent that the choice of scale allows. As a result, several different moods can exist within the same raga since one does not start with a specific cluster of swaras that one likes and which creates a certain "mood" or "emotional suggestion". In relatively recent times, we have many examples of such ragas, especially after the meLa system was formalized. Ragas like Sankarabharanam, Kalyani, and Subhapantuvarali represent the high point of the CM "scale-based" approach.

Let me be very clear that there are also a number of current CM ragas that likely do not originate only from a scale. But if we look into the history of many of these ragas, we often discover that they originate from the time when CM and HM were not separated. The detailed discussion of athana in a previous thread, and also in this one, is a case in point.

Returning to the topic: For a very specific example, I will use bhupali-deshkar-mohanam, all of the same "scale" S R G P D. The first two HM ragas are considered two separate ragas exactly because of the "mood-based" approach. Bhupali is a purvanga-pradhana raga. It centers around the G swara (vadi) and is supported by D (samvadi) which provides the "closure" in the uttaranga. It conveys shanta and shringara rasas very well. On the other hand, deshkar is an uttaranga-pradhana raga. The main activities are around the D and the G is now the samvadi swara to provide the closure at the purvanga end. Deshkar has a strident, even euphoric tone which conveys vira and raudra rasas well.

The CM raga mohanam originates directly from the above pentatonic scale (of Sangam-era vintage, I believe. I may be mistaken). Since the vadi-samvadi approach is absent, it integrates features of both bhupali and deshkar within the same CM raga. In the past, this difference has created a certain amount of misunderstanding and nonsensical rhetoric on both sides: HM theorists would comment on the fact that CM misses these finer points that are fundamental to their concept of raga (i.e., emotion), while CM theorists would consider these differences to be too minor and would stress the advantages of the enlarged melodic scope afforded within a scale-based system.

Ideally, a good composer should reflect upon these issues before composing. As I mentioned (and others have also pointed out using Tyagaraja as an easy-to-understand model), the crux of CM is an intricate combination of raga and sahitya that strongly reinforce each other, ultimately to convey a certain meaning (which includes shades of emotion). My composition "manamOhanEna rakshitOham" (see Contemporary Compositions thread, page 3) is a product of such specific contemplation. Here is the recording again:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/66uhyh

The pallavi-anupallavi portion is essentially the "bhoopali" face of mohanam if you will, and mostly conveys "gentler" characteristics of the subject. But the whole mood decisively changes in the charanam, which is the "deshkar" face of mohanam. The whole activity is centered around the uttaranga and creates a strident, militaristic, victorious mood. This musical theme is hammered upon repeatedly in the charanam to drive home the message of power and dominance that is clearly expressed by the words in the sahitya.

SR

[cmlover]

Very well done SR. You should give us more such intuitively educational bridging from HM to CM so that we can enjoy both and understand the subtlities!

Is it simplistic to say that HM is more phrse-based compared to CM being svara based. In that context do Deshkar and bhupali not share (mostly) common phrases?

[vasanthakokilam]

Thanks SR on the detailed explanation on the HM side. Quite useful to learn your point of view on this.

I was also thinking of the bhupali-deshkar-mohanam example but I thought that is a case where CM provided more scope for rasa creativity due to the synergy of the poorvanga and uttaranga but you took the same example to illustrate the opposite point of view. But I do see one point which is probably what you were trying to get across: Since the two rasas are split into two ragas, the multiple rasas/raga cases should be less in HM. That is the context in which you made the HM comment in this thread. Is that where you were leading to?

There is no doubt that sahitya plays a much more important role in CM than in HM but your thesis about CM being predominantly swara/scale based is definitely debatable ( and also the tamil music connection ). The melakartha scheme, its genius and scientific basis notwithstanding, was an attempt to codify, reverse engineer and model the existing vast base of CM ragas ( well past the CM-HM split era and the quite drastic transformation of HM into a distinguishable and separate identity due to various influences in the regions in the North ). One can see the effects of the reverse engineering by the ample provisions for 'foreign notes', 'vishesha prayogas' etc. to capture the exceptions.

So, syntax (scale) came later than semantics (raga characteristics, rasas and emotions, the meaning people attribute to melody). Pragmatics ( context dependent use of ragas to convey emotions ) is an evolutionary thing and probably has changed many times over the centuries along with cultural changes.

As you said, there may not be any scientific and scholarly basis for all this and so if this is your learned opinion, that is fine, we can leave it at that.

Going beyond all that historical and musicological aspects, in today's HM and CM practise, are there differences in the way HM and CM musicians approach their music from the rasa and emotion point of view?

[Sangeet Rasik]

Is it simplistic to say that HM is more phrse-based compared to CM being svara based. In that context do Deshkar and bhupali not share (mostly) common phrases?

They do not share many common phrases. I can explain, but it has been done before by the learned Pt. Ramashreya Jha:

http://www.sawf.org/audio/bhoop/jha_bho ... rspeak.ram

The insight of HM theory in delineating many aspects behind the basis of raga moods is indeed extremely useful. Note how Jha clearly explains once again the rationale of Bhatkhande for classifying Bhupali in the Kalyan thaat and Deshkar in the Bilaval thaat. I cannot help but recall the debates in CM about whether mohanam should be in 29th melakarta or 65th melakarta !

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

VK,

I was also thinking of the bhupali-deshkar-mohanam example but I thought that is a case where CM provided more scope for rasa creativity due to the synergy of the poorvanga and uttaranga but you took the same example to illustrate the opposite point of view.

Please read my detailed post carefully. I am saying exactly that the CM mohanam combines both the deshkar and bhoopali aspects and thus allows expression of multiple rasas, and even illustrated this with my own composition. You are taking us back to square one!

But I do see one point which is probably what you were trying to get across: Since the two rasas are split into two ragas, the multiple rasas/raga cases should be less in HM. That is the context in which you made the HM comment in this thread. Is that where you were leading to?

Short answer - yes. I won't repeat myself, please check my post again.

There is no doubt that sahitya plays a much more important role in CM than in HM but your thesis about CM being predominantly swara/scale based is definitely debatable ( and also the tamil music connection ).

Please let us not confuse svara and scale (which is a collection of svaras). The difference in raga synthesis approach between HM and CM is well known. The Tamil music connection of CM is well documented. The old Tamil music was scale-based and was even played on instruments that allowed little scope for gamaka.

The melakartha scheme, its genius and scientific basis notwithstanding, was an attempt to codify, reverse engineer and model the existing vast base of CM ragas ( well past the CM-HM split era and the quite drastic transformation of HM into a distinguishable and separate identity due to various influences in the regions in the North ). One can see the effects of the reverse engineering by the ample provisions for 'foreign notes', 'vishesha prayogas' etc. to capture the exceptions.

This is unnecessary confusion. Again please read my post before we resume the discussion. I clearly mentioned ragas like Sankarabharanam, Kalyani and Subhapantuvarali. These are all melakarta ragas and do not have any foreign notes or vishesha prayogas. All of these came to the forefront really after the mela system was formalized, before that they did not have much standing in CM. I can quote a number of musical works that make this clear. There are umpteen other examples: charukeshi, kiravani, shanmukhapriya, etc.

So, syntax (scale) came later than semantics (raga characteristics, rasas and emotions, the meaning people attribute to melody). Pragmatics ( context dependent use of ragas to convey emotions ) is an evolutionary thing and probably has changed many times over the centuries along with cultural changes.

The point of my post is that in CM, scale has often preceded rasa. There are no grounds for your assumption, since it does not account for the fact that intellectuals often adopt practices that are non-evolutionary in nature. Part of the reason for "intellectualized" scale-based approaches gaining such prominence (note, I did not say "dominance" since I recognize the futility of rigorous argument about these things) in CM, is that it was much more "brahmanical" in nature and remained insulated from foreign influences. In the brahmanical tradition, taking an abstract scale and giving it emotional form has been a high intellectual endeavor and indeed one important influence that shaped what we now know as CM. Evolution dropped out of the equation here to at least some extent. Thank the lucky stars for that - I cannot imagine life without Sankarabharanam.

Going beyond all that historical and musicological aspects, in today's HM and CM practise, are there differences in the way HM and CM musicians approach their music from the rasa and emotion point of view?

Again, please see my post. HM compositions target usually a specific rasa or emotion. CM compositions often focus on multifaceted themes amenable to elaboration by multifaceted ragas. But basically, these aspects are fully crystallized during the present day. There is no difference in the rasa and emotion felt by a HM musician and a CM musician. Ranjayati iti ragah. The exception is in the cases where, e.g. CM ragas are being imported to HM. Scale-originated ragas like Charukeshi and Kiravani are still being digested in HM and their emotional complexities are still being understood by the HM practitioners.

SR

[cmlover]

Thanks SR
I have always pondered about the logic of classifying Mohanam under 65 vs the original 29. The HM explanation makes it quite clear!
Perhaps there is a similar logic for assigning aThANA to 22 while originally it was from 29. Remembering your discussion of ADANA vs aThANA does it logically explain this assignment, though the CM version is quite different from the HM one?

[vasanthakokilam]

HM compositions target usually a specific rasa or emotion. CM compositions often focus on multifaceted themes amenable to elaboration by multifaceted ragas.

Thanks SR. That summarizes the point you are making very well. And, I agree that in the bhupali-deshkar-mohanam example, we are both saying the same thing.

I think the debatable points about 'scale based prominence in CM and also its tamil music roots' still remain but I can relate to and understand the above point you have made. We can discuss those debatable points separately here or in other contexts. Let us put aside the tamil music connection for some other time since that can derail this thread.

With respect to model building which is how I perceive the melakartha scheme to be, once one builds such a great framework based on existing base of ragas, that powerful model/theory affords for an expansion of concepts. We see this all the time in science. In that sense, looking at a new scale for which there is no equivalent in the existing ragas on which the model is built and then building a raga on that scale is a fruitful and well regarded intellectual activity. I would not deny that had happened. So, I did not mean to say that many ragas in CM originated post-model. (keeping in mind at the same time that Mela is not the same as a raga even when the notes are exactly the same.) The fascinating thing is the process through which the scale becomes a well formed and accepted raga.

My main difficulty is probably on your belief that such post model ragas are the prominent ones in CM. I do not know a whole lot about the exact history of CM, so I will leave it to others.

Couple of side bar issues:

"Scale based" has the implications of non-gamaka ( which you also allude to while discussing CM in relation to tamil music ). Isn't the concept of ten-gamakas or n-gamakas quite ancient? And how about the various microtonal variations/oscilations in swarathanas ( like Begada Ma, Gowlipantu Ma, Saveri Ri etc. )? Are they not pre melakartha scheme? And in today's practise, CM can be considered more gamaka oriented than HM? Atleast that is how a few of my HM afficianado friends perceive CM. I realize this is beyond the basic point you were making so please treat it strictly as a side-bar comment.

I am surprised that Shankarabaranam does not have ancient roots. What is the history behind Bilaval? I am also curious about how you will characterize kharaharapriya in this context?

[vijay]

Interesting discussion. Firstly, SR thanks for that composition! Excellent effort!

I think we are zeroing in on whether CM ragas evolved through popular melodies or through formal derivations from a scalar system (the Melakartha System). Although I don't claim to be an expert I don't think we can argue it one way or the other.

On the one hand, we have examples of Kiravani, Simhendramadhyam and so on which are clearly the result of Venkatamakhin's system and the attempt of composers (principally Thyagaraja and Koteeswara Iyer) to extract melodies from the scales that emerged. I am not sure why SR leaves out Kharaharapriya but to me it is the best example of the Melakartha scheme being transformed into a melody through sheer compositional genius.

On the other we have the Anandhabhairavis, Begadas and Kedaragowlas (or even a Mohanam) that mock attempts at classification. Clearly these were folk melodies that were gradually embraced by the CM system and deconstructed/reverse engineered as you may wish to put it.

The question of which of these is predominant in CM is a rather challenging one. More fundamentally, what do we mean by CM? If we mean, the post Venkatamakhin period, it is possible to argue that it is indeed scale dominated (although I am sure many would be unwilling to concede even this point - not while Bhairavi and Kambhoji are in the Big 5. Uday where are you?!!).

If we are going back all the way, I am afraid we are on shaky ground - the signboards to the source of CM point in at least 3 different directions. The first is the vedas as our purists would like to claim. The folksy ragas take us down the road of popular melodies being gradually formalized. Finally, there is the authority of the Tamil Panns (whose claims to the fatherhood of CM has also been contested). Were the Panns, in turn, derived from vedic chanting or are their roots independent but now untraceable? Or do they owe their traditions to folk music as well?

As far as Shankarabharanam and Kalyani are concerned, they aren't recent developments if the Wiki article on Panns is to be believed. Apparently both were part of the 7 original scales of Tamil Music. The Chilappadikaaram also mentions the derivation of scales by tonic shifts (which again lends credence to SR's theory about the scalar roots of CM!)

I don't suppose we are any closer to the answer!

[msakella]

Dear b/s-member, Sangeet Rasik, Mostly, I always concentrate upon the aspects relating to Tala and also in finding possible easy methods in teaching our music to our aspirants by quickening the process of it but do not have much interest on the discussions relating to Ragas. But accidentally I saw in your post that Shankarabharana does not have either foreign notes or Vishesha-prayogas. I have learnt the Shankarabharana Varna in Ata-tala along with Vishesha-prayogas ‘SNP & SDP’ and if we, elderly people, write such incorrect things the younger generation will be misguided. Hope you will not mis-understand me and kindly make a note of it. amsharma.

[arunk]

very fascinating topic. Great stuff - SR. I think I see the distinction you have made between how Hindustani approaches a "tone structure" vs how cm uses it - with your disclaimer in mind

Note: I am avoiding the term scale as it brings in unnecessary baggage due to the western music nomenclature.The use of term "scale" here is quite misleading and not appropriate. I am not sure "tone structure" good, but I think it is much better than a scale. I hope we can agree that CM most definitely does not use the tone-structure like a western scale. And this is not just limited to flat notes vs gamakas. It is how western music approaches the underlying tone-structure vs how cm uses it.

I would like to make a few points, which do not take away the above main point.

Regarding CM before melakarta system
It is not clear how it was (i.e. before ramamatya and vidyaranya), since it starts approaching the end of Sarngadeva. I believe most classical music (except tamil pann although see below) were following more similar systems then - although we just have to infer this from the works.

Since all works about this prior system have a different theoretical base (and interestingly more about rasas and moods i think), it is difficult to go there and still maintain a tangible thread to later day CM. IMO, in short, anything earlier than even venkatamakhin is a forest.

Regarding Sankarabharanam:
Atleast the name "Sankarabharanam" as a "raganga raga" appears in Sarngadeva's work - though we cant say if it was anything like Sankarabharanam later. There is also a ramakriya which people equate to pantuvarali (or maybe Shubhapantuvarali - there was some confusion between the two I think) - there is some evidence for this in one of the commentaries of Sangitaratnakara.

But, based on what venkatamakhin said about them, kalyani (and todi) became important or perhaps even came into being only much later, and as you say perhaps developed more once melakarta system gained prevelance.

But your main point is valid - most mela ragas did become more prominent after melakarta system. I would not agree Sankarahbharanam falls into this.

Regarding influence of Pann System:
BTW, IMHO the relation to tamil panns overemphasized and perhaps overreaching in your arguments. The mela system took shape in 14th-15th century and in northern part of karnataka. Before that it was the grama-murchana system - atleast all works talk only about that. Works about panns refer to cilappatikaram - which was dated around the same time as Bharata/Dattila and talks about "similar things". And cilappatikaram does NOT give specifics - it was not a musical treatiise. Details about the system based on cilappatikaram came much later and of course by the time the grama-murchana system was also developing. Also many pann names have non-tamil etymology. So it is not clear that cm's interpretation you imply is an outcome of pann system. There is not enough evidence to point at that.

IMO, whether the pann system was original and influenced Bharata's system is not at all clear. What is clear(er) is that soon both systems may have merged - and this was long long before melakarta system came about. That came about in a neck of the woods far (in those days) from panns. So based on that it is difficult to say that the pann system/tradition is the reason for the different interprtetation of tone-structure by cm.

Arun

[cmlover]

Looking at the trend of the discussion I think we might branch off into Tamil PaNN, WM etc., which are interesting in their own right. But let us keep the focus on CM-HM first. SR being quite conversant with both systems should be tapped first on this area for our better understanding of CM in the HM context. I would like to throw in one very basic issue. CM is dominated by Suddha madhyama ragas where as HM has a plethora of pratimadhyama ragas. We know for sure that many of the pratimadhyama ragas entered CM only through contact with HM. Also our vedic origin (if true?) of CM does eschew pratimadhyamam as a svara! Again in spite of some noted experiments (kartik may comment) dvi madhyama ragas never got acceptance unless they have come from HM and got established in CM (Hamir kalyani being a prime example). As such my question is do HM folks conside their raga scheme more liberal in comparison with CM ? Again should we be more permissive in admitting HM ragas which may lead to our knocking the foundation of CM, namely the melakartha schem?
(Take your time SR to respond in view of our outpourings

[arunk]

ouch cmlover . I only intended to clear some reasons that may have led to earlier "needless digressions" (to the crux of SR's point) in the form of the complaints by others (including yourself) about SR's use of "scale", "panns" etc. I was hoping to perhaps facilitate an end to those digressions. Maybe I am mistaken, but your latest post seem to imply that I was perhaps facilitating for further digression and you were coming in as a saviour .

I have been more than guilty of regularly causing digressions before - but I hope not here (yet ).

Arun

[arasi]

No, not here, not yet, Arun
And your self-analysis can be charming, to boot...

[cmlover]

Arun
you are a spark that can start a conflagration
You remind me of Bharathy's
akkini kunjonRu kaNDEn

[Sangeet Rasik]

VK,

My main difficulty is probably on your belief that such post model ragas are the prominent ones in CM. I do not know a whole lot about the exact history of CM, so I will leave it to others.

To start with, let me draw attention to my previous statement:

Let me be very clear that there are also a number of current CM ragas that likely do not originate only from a scale. But if we look into the history of many of these ragas, we often discover that they originate from the time when CM and HM were not separated. The detailed discussion of athana in a previous thread, and also in this one, is a case in point.

When I say that CM is prominently a scale-based system, I am talking about ragas that have evolved during the period that CM became a distinct entity from HM. If you are talking about ragas like kambhoji, anandabhairavi, bhairavi, varali etc, these are old ragas and date from the time when there was no clear distinction between the two systems. Note Venkatamakhin's melakarta scheme was not developed well after the CM-HM bifurcation, it was developed very much during that bifurcation. In his section on raga description, he even talks about ragas like varali, saurashtra and nata in the vadi-samvadi context. This is a clear indication that even during that time the distinctions between CM and HM were still evolving. The previous thread on athana also makes this clear: comparison of Northern and Southern works all the way up to 1700 CE show that they corroborate each other with respect to raga classifications.

Let us also be clear that we should not think of "scale-based classical music" as being a "South Indian" invention. Not at all. In the pre-medieval period, important Northern works such as Sangitaratnakara and Brhaddesi take a scale-based approach. The musical scales were derived by tonal shifts starting from a basic "standard scale". Note that these scales are not explicitly called "ragas", they were referred to as "gramas"/"jatis"/"murchhanas" ("melodic varieties") that can be embellished with different "alankaras". We often hear comments by scholars that "CM has preserved the old traditions better than HM", this is indeed what they mean. But the idea of "raga" stems more from an emotional viewpoint, of certain swara patterns creating certain emotions; as compared to an intellectualized approach involving scale construction and embellishment. This idea of raga is emphasized by Bharata in Natyashastra.

One may consider these two approaches as parallel movements in the Indian tradition from very early days. With passage of time, HM became more focused on the "emotional" approach whereas CM became more focused on the "intellectualized" approach. Of course, by that time both systems had already acquired a large number of ragas from the past (whether stemming from the "raga" approach or from the "grama-murchhana" approach).

"Scale based" has the implications of non-gamaka ( which you also allude to while discussing CM in relation to tamil music ).

Absolutely not. Let us remove this doubt from the discussion right away. The concept of 'gamaka' is an essential tool in both CM and HM.

"Scale-based" does not mean the raga begins and ends with the scale. It only means that the scale provides the seed material for applying the gamaka-based tools. Example: one core idea of Sankarabharanam is to take the 29th melakarta scale (which is a 'plain old thing') and to apply gamakas to notably the R, M and D. These oscillations around the 'plain' R, M and D create almost limitless possibilities for the transitions to other swaras and thus create the basis to build up the raga lakshana.

In HM the gamakas are applied around and within the 'seed phrases', very often the 'critical gamakas' of the raga are part of the original conception or idea of the raga in the first place. For example, one core idea of the HM raga 'darbari kanada' is the relationship between the R , G, and M developed in very specific ways using gamakas on the gandhara.

So the application of gamaka is common to both systems, the difference is what seed material the gamakas are applied on to create the raga.

I am surprised that Shankarabaranam does not have ancient roots. What is the history behind Bilaval? I am also curious about how you will characterize kharaharapriya in this context?

The scale of Sankarabharanam is no doubt ancient (it was called "pazham panchuram" by the Tamils, I think). Kharaharapriya is a very similar situation as Sankarabharanam - the scale is probably very old. The 29 and 22 scales are mentioned in the old musical texts. But that does not make them the distinctive carnatic ragas we know today. We do not know who "invented" Sankarabharanam as a raga, though we know who formalized it as a scale with a name. In case of Kharaharapriya, I think Tyagaraja is usually credited with "inventing" the raga using the scale of that name.

The northern "bilawal" is just a scale, I believe it was used by Bhatkhande to formalize the "thaat". The "real" raga is called alhaiya bilaval, which probably corresponds to an old non-scalar raga called vELAvali.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

I have learnt the Shankarabharana Varna in Ata-tala along with Vishesha-prayogas ‘SNP & SDP’ and if we, elderly people, write such incorrect things the younger generation will be misguided. Hope you will not mis-understand me and kindly make a note of it. amsharma.

Dear AMSharma,

VK and I were referring to "vishesha prayogas" in the sense of "bhashanga prayogas" containing alien notes, which would thereby confound the melakarta system. The prayogas "SNP" and "SDP" you mention, do not create any problem with placement of Sankarabharanam as 29th melakartha. They can be called as "asampurna" prayogas. There is no condition in the melakarta system that the mela ragas should be devoid of any "asampurna" prayogas.

As an aside, I do not know what your definition of 'elderly' is, maybe you are confusing me with someone else. I am 31 years old.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Arunk,

I hope we can agree that CM most definitely does not use the tone-structure like a western scale.

I agree. The word "scale" is used for convenience. See my reply to VK above.

I would like to make a few points, which do not take away the above main point.

Regarding CM before melakarta system
Since all works about this prior system have a different theoretical base (and interestingly more about rasas and moods i think), it is difficult to go there and still maintain a tangible thread to later day CM. IMO, in short, anything earlier than even venkatamakhin is a forest.

See my reply to VK. I express the idea of parallel traditions in Indian music: one emphasizing "Raga-Ragini" and the other "Grama-Murchhana".

Regarding Sankarabharanam:
Atleast the name "Sankarabharanam" as a "raganga raga" appears in Sarngadeva's work - though we cant say if it was anything like Sankarabharanam later. There is also a ramakriya which people equate to pantuvarali (or maybe Shubhapantuvarali - there was some confusion between the two I think) - there is some evidence for this in one of the commentaries of Sangitaratnakara.

I don't recall reading about Sankarabharanam in Sangitaratnakara and couldn't find it today either - can you point me to the chapter and verse if you have it ? Sankarabharanam is certainly mentioned by Lochana (in his work Ragatarangini, dated around 1500-1550 CE) as a raga under the 'Kedara' mela. The kedara mela is defined by Lochana as have the 'scale' of the 29th melakarta, so we know that Sankarabharanam was long associated with that scale. Unfortunately the Ragatarangini does not discuss the details of these ragas.

But, based on what venkatamakhin said about them, kalyani (and todi) became important or perhaps even came into being only much later, and as you say perhaps developed more once melakarta system gained prevelance.

I think the critical issue is when they became "important" in the sense that we know them today as highly elaborate ragas. In Caturdandiprakashika, Venkatamakhin details a separate small list of "Currently Well-Known Melas" (acknowledgement of previous works) before proceeding to his "full list" of 72 melas. Sankarabharanam, Kalyani, and Pantuvarali (today's Subhapantuvarali) all find mention in the "Currently Well-Known" list. But in a different section where he explains more details of the ragas, he only mentions Sankarabharanam in passing, and derides Kalyani and (Subha)Pantuvarali as being unfit for classical music under his "Caturdandi" system - his main reason seems to be that the latter two ragas were popular among the "Turushkas" (Turks). Again this may be reflective of "parallel systems" or "non-standardization" of music in those times. It is possible that in neighboring kingdoms these ragas were already starting to take shape as important ragas.

But your main point is valid - most mela ragas did become more prominent after melakarta system. I would not agree Sankarahbharanam falls into this.

Regarding influence of Pann System:

Let me clarify - I never meant that the ragas and scales came directly out of Tamil music. I would think of it in terms of the entire subcontinent having essentially a single system in the pre-medieval period, with substantial (but waning) "Tamil" influence in the South and substantial (and increasing) "Persian/Turk" influence in the North.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Interesting discussion. Firstly, SR thanks for that composition! Excellent effort!

I think we are zeroing in on whether CM ragas evolved through popular melodies or through formal derivations from a scalar system (the Melakartha System). Although I don't claim to be an expert I don't think we can argue it one way or the other.

Vijay,

Thanks. I think you have got it right - there is no "single" fountainhead of Indian classical music. It is way too much of a syncretic institution to make narrow claims on the origins. I think several composers have contributed to converting the melakarta scales into "real" ragas. Certainly Tyagaraja was one of them.

I am not sure why SR leaves out Kharaharapriya but to me it is the best example of the Melakartha scheme being transformed into a melody through sheer compositional genius.

I didn't leave it out intentionally. Certainly it is also an important case of raga creation from a scale. But it is by no means the "most important" raga of the 22nd group...many of the janya ragas are more "important".

I recognize that this may be a matter of opinion, but in my opinion what we know as Sankarabharanam today in CM is a great example of scale conversion into a great raga, the only difference is that the credit for this conversion is much less clear. It is rightly called the "king of ragas" and is the convergence of all that is great in CM. It conveys all nine rasas when used properly. Both MD and Tyagaraja (particularly the former) made significant contributions in developing this raga

On the other we have the Anandhabhairavis, Begadas and Kedaragowlas (or even a Mohanam) that mock attempts at classification. Clearly these were folk melodies that were gradually embraced by the CM system and deconstructed/reverse engineered as you may wish to put it.

Yes, indeed. "Folk melody" is another way of expressing the fact that these ragas arose from the primitive urge to express certain emotions.

As far as Shankarabharanam and Kalyani are concerned, they aren't recent developments if the Wiki article on Panns is to be believed. Apparently both were part of the 7 original scales of Tamil Music. The Chilappadikaaram also mentions the derivation of scales by tonic shifts (which again lends credence to SR's theory about the scalar roots of CM!)

Indeed, the "scales" of these ragas have been known for a long time but their emergence as the ragas we know is very late.

SR

[vasanthakokilam]

Thanks SR. I think, though not sure yet, you have clarified a majority of the points of your thesis. Let me take some time and digest those.

A few follow ups to bring a couple of points to sharper focus. Sorry to ask again if you had already answered them.

1) Pre HM-CM split, there were scales and so were scale based ragas. At that time which category was prominent? Scale based ragas or phrase based emotion centric ragas?

2) What criteria, if any, would you use to distinguish between scale based ancient ragas and scale based post-split and post-venkatamakhin ragas? Asking to see if the pre split scale based ragas are still prevalent in HM.

3) More importantly, let us take a specific example to focus on.

The "real" raga is called alhaiya bilaval, which probably corresponds to an old non-scalar raga called vELAvali.

What factors do you use to classify VeLAvali as non-scalar when the Sankarabaranam scale itself is ancient?

Fast forwarding to today, is alhaiya bilaval based on a single rasa in contrast to the multi-rasa Shankarabharanam?

4)

One may consider these two approaches as parallel movements in the Indian tradition from very early days.

I assume you mean "parallel but separate movements". What evidence exists that they were indeed separate? Isn't it possible that the murchana is the result of the efforts of the intellectual musicologists of that time to provide a formalism to the phrase and emotion centric music that was prevalent then? Are the ancient texts that talk about the murchanas descriptive or prescriptive?

[arunk]

SR,

(pl. note that i am being very mindful that is a diversion from the main topic - so dont want to get into this deeply)

reference to Sankarabharanam in Sangitaratnakara (obviously i am looking at an english translation - Shringy and Prem Lata Sharma): It is under the RagavivekAdhAya chapter, verses 4-5a: under well known ancient ragas, he mentions Sankarabharana, Ghantarava, hamsaka, dIpaka etc.

regarding raga/ragini as "parallell" to grama/murchana: Timelines dont add up. If any raga/ragini is "parallel" to mela system as it would match in timeline (14 centurish). Grama-murchana predated both - by atleast a millenium (in terms of origin)

Arun

[vijay]

SR, I think the Ata Tala varnam in Shankarabharanam uses N2 in the SNP prayoga and this would certainly be a Bhashanga note - perhaps this is what Sharmaji was referring to.

[arunk]

regarding raga/ragini as "parallell" to grama/murchana: Timelines dont add up. If any raga/ragini is "parallel" to mela system as it would match in timeline (14 centurish). Grama-murchana predated both - by atleast a millenium (in terms of origin)

SR - a clarification. I am not sure I was interpreting your post to VK correctly with reference to this (it was late last night). If so, pl. ignore this. In any case this would be splitting hairs.

I think what you perhaps meant was the earlier common grama-murchana system was perhaps "more scalar" in its interpretation of the tonal-structure like the mela system, and the raga-ragini is more like the current HM interpretation. I would tend to agree - although books about grama-murchana system are too subject to various interpretation for my taste to be very sure about this.

Arun

(PS: I still disagree with your take on the pann influence on melas based on different factors - but let us leave that as it not that relevant)

[ramakriya]

Is it simplistic to say that HM is more phrse-based compared to CM being svara based. In that context do Deshkar and bhupali not share (mostly) common phrases?

They do not share many common phrases. I can explain, but it has been done before by the learned Pt. Ramashreya Jha:

http://www.sawf.org/audio/bhoop/jha_bho ... rspeak.ram

The insight of HM theory in delineating many aspects behind the basis of raga moods is indeed extremely useful. Note how Jha clearly explains once again the rationale of Bhatkhande for classifying Bhupali in the Kalyan thaat and Deshkar in the Bilaval thaat. I cannot help but recall the debates in CM about whether mohanam should be in 29th melakarta or 65th melakarta !

SR

Nice thread

As SR says, mOhana can be both bhUp as well as dEshkAr; IMHO, composers have taken to the bhUp aspect more than the dEshkAr aspect.

SR, correct me if I am wrong - Tyagarajas endukO bAga teliyadu, E dAri jUcitivO are some examples which show the dEshkar aspect, while mOhana rAma, nannu pAlimpa etc provide the more mainstream bhUpish tinge to the rAga.

Listened to manamOhanEna rakshitOham. A very nice composition!

-Ramakriya

[ramakriya]

I would like to make a few points, which do not take away the above main point.


Regarding Sankarabharanam:

Atleast the name "Sankarabharanam" as a "raganga raga" appears in Sarngadeva's work - though we cant say if it was anything like Sankarabharanam later. There is also a ramakriya which people equate to pantuvarali (or maybe Shubhapantuvarali - there was some confusion between the two I think) - there is some evidence for this in one of the commentaries of Sangitaratnakara.

But, based on what venkatamakhin said about them, kalyani (and todi) became important or perhaps even came into being only much later, and as you say perhaps developed more once melakarta system gained prevelance.

But your main point is valid - most mela ragas did become more prominent after melakarta system. I would not agree Sankarahbharanam falls into this.


Arun

Just to add to what Arun has already said:

shankarabharana was around at least during purandara dAsa (~1500 AD). It may have been there among the 15 mELas described by Vidyaranya(~1350 AD) - I do not remember exaclty;

Surprisingly it does not show up as a mELa in swaramELakalAnidhi (~1550 AD), which describes sAlanga nATa mELa in it's place. By Venkatamakhi's time (~1650 AD), we see it had already aquired the title Raga Raja.

-Ramakriya

[ramakriya]

We do not know who "invented" Sankarabharanam as a raga, though we know who formalized it as a scale with a name. In case of Kharaharapriya, I think Tyagaraja is usually credited with "inventing" the raga using the scale of that name.

The northern "bilawal" is just a scale, I believe it was used by Bhatkhande to formalize the "thaat". The "real" raga is called alhaiya bilaval, which probably corresponds to an old non-scalar raga called vELAvali.

SR

SR, can you tell us who formalixed the scale for Sanakrabharana?

As for as your observation goes, aren't all thaats mere scales. Some cases there the main rAga associated with the thAT has the same name (eg: bhairav) while in other cases the names differ ( eg: pUriya thAT- pUriya dhanAshrI rAga , kalyAN thAT - yaman rAga). IMO, mELas are also just a collection of notes, but the rAga associated has the same name as the mELa.

-Ramakriya


-

[ramakriya]

SR, I think the Ata Tala varnam in Shankarabharanam uses N2 in the SNP prayoga and this would certainly be a Bhashanga note - perhaps this is what Sharmaji was referring to.

The way I know this varna, the prayOga S N P which occurs right at the beginning of the varna has kAkali niShAda.

-Ramakriya

[Sangeet Rasik]

VK,

1) Pre HM-CM split, there were scales and so were scale based ragas. At that time which category was prominent? Scale based ragas or phrase based emotion centric ragas?

I think both streams existed, which was what motivated my statement of "parallel movements". Bharata's Natyashastra (dated to as early as the late-Mauryan period or as late as a the early-Guptan period) clearly talks about scale construction by tonal shifts. At the same time, it also clearly talks about the "rasas" (emotions) as being an important motivation behind art forms (such as drama and music). I think the raga-ragini theory is just a more fully developed version of the "emotion-based" stream of thought that has existed throughout the history of music.

2) What criteria, if any, would you use to distinguish between scale based ancient ragas and scale based post-split and post-venkatamakhin ragas? Asking to see if the pre split scale based ragas are still prevalent in HM.

As ArunK said, this is a bit flexible and qualitative. For example, one could go by the raga names (which indicate origin in "folk" traditions or "desya" origin in a particular region of India) and also whether or not they are mentioned as scales explicitly constructed from the "tonal shift" systems in vogue during the ancient times.

What factors do you use to classify VeLAvali as non-scalar when the Sankarabaranam scale itself is ancient? Fast forwarding to today, is alhaiya bilaval based on a single rasa in contrast to the multi-rasa Shankarabharanam?

First of all, the name hints at a "folkish" origin, probably from some coastal or riverine region (possibly Southern India!). Secondly, the raga velavali is mentioned as a raga under the "Kedara" scale (which corresponds to Sankarabharanam scale) in early medieval works. The use of "bilaval" (velavali) as the name of the "thaat" itself, came much later in HM.

Regarding alhaiya bilawal, I would think the predominant emotion it evokes is of energy and enthusiasm; and perhaps also romantic (shringara) aspects. It certainly does not compare to the sweeping emotional compass of Sankarabharanam.

One may consider these two approaches as parallel movements in the Indian tradition from very early days. I assume you mean "parallel but separate movements".

No. I don't think they were separate at all. The natural tendency for classification and intellectualization in any "brahmanical" scholar must still have been balanced by the recognition of the emotional aspects of music and that at least some of the ragas already in existence had been the product of such "rasa"-based expression.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Arun,

reference to Sankarabharanam in Sangitaratnakara (obviously i am looking at an english translation - Shringy and Prem Lata Sharma): It is under the RagavivekAdhAya chapter, verses 4-5a: under well known ancient ragas, he mentions Sankarabharana, Ghantarava, hamsaka, dIpaka etc.

Got it! thanks, I had skipped over it.

regarding raga/ragini as "parallell" to grama/murchana: Timelines dont add up. If any raga/ragini is "parallel" to mela system as it would match in timeline (14 centurish). Grama-murchana predated both - by atleast a millenium (in terms of origin)

Also see my reply to VK. I agree the formal concept of "raga-ragini" came later, but the very idea of "rasa" being an important driving force for music was already expressed much earlier, and it must have continued to play a role all through the pre-medieval period. It was in this sense that I meant "parallel movements".

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Perhaps there is a similar logic for assigning aThANA to 22 while originally it was from 29. Remembering your discussion of ADANA vs aThANA does it logically explain this assignment, though the CM version is quite different from the HM one?

CML,

I think that in case of aThana the (misleading) 29 classification was based on the entry of the bhashanga swaras (antara G and kakali N), which is not the case in mohanam. To summarize our old discussion for participants of this thread: this classification "mistake" has died a natural death since the antara G has been recognized as an alien and is not used any more whereas the "kakali N" has been recognized as not being a real kakali N at all ... it is a "special" intermediate N which occurs in some prayogas and is rather similar to the "special N" in the hindustani raga aDANA from which it basically originates. In the medieval works (both Northern and Southern) the raga aDANA/aThANA was always explicitly associated with the kANaDa (karNATa) mela. The current HM version fully retains that character, whereas the CM version has gone through some "growth pangs" but is now settled in the 22nd mela along with kANaDa.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

(PS: I still disagree with your take on the pann influence on melas based on different factors - but let us leave that as it not that relevant)

Certainly. Someone else will have to lead any future thread on "paN" system and its relation to CM, since I am linguistically and textually incompetent to do so.

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Ramakriya,

IMHO, composers have taken to the bhUp aspect more than the dEshkAr aspect. SR, correct me if I am wrong - Tyagarajas endukO bAga teliyadu, E dAri jUcitivO are some examples which show the dEshkar aspect, while mOhana rAma, nannu pAlimpa etc provide the more mainstream bhUpish tinge to the rAga.

Yes, I agree with you. Also, your choice of "enduku baga teliyadu" for the deshkar aspect is indeed very thought-provoking. I remember listening to a BMK recording of this composition and feeling the same thing. I should go back and listen to it (I think it is in my collection).

There is also an old Hindi film composition named "giridhara gopala" sung by MS Subbulakshmi. Parrikar has a clip on his site and uses it as an example of Deshkar occurring in "light music".

http://www.sawf.org/audio/bhoop/ms_meera.ram

It was composed by a southern Indian (S. Venkataraman), so I wonder if it had any inspiration from a CM composition. I keep having a feeling that it mirrors some CM composition I have heard in the "distant" past, but I never have been to pin it down. Perhaps this is due to the fact that I have not listened to much CM outside the MD-ST duo for the last several years, maybe someone else can identify a possible CM krti that fits the bill.

Listened to manamOhanEna rakshitOham. A very nice composition!

Thanks!

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

Vijay and Ramakriya,

The "chalamela" varnam of ST in Sankarabharanam has no bhashanga swaras (at least the way I learned it). "SNP" at the very beginning certainly has kakali N, it would indeed be very awkward if a Sankarabharanam piece started off with a kaishiki N prayoga. "SDP" is by no means a vishesha prayoga, it is one of the most important prayogas. The different approaches to D from either the tara shadja or the madhya shadja are both very important components of Sankarabharanam and are both very well illustrated in the adi tala varnam (Sami ninne).

SR

[vasanthakokilam]

No. I don't think they were separate at all. The natural tendency for classification and intellectualization in any "brahmanical" scholar must still have been balanced by the recognition of the emotional aspects of music and that at least some of the ragas already in existence had been the product of such "rasa"-based expression.

SR

SR, based on all the discussions I see that the two movements are not separate. I tend to think that the intellectualization may just be the effort for providing a formalism to an already existing base of "rasa"-based expression. That framework would then have provided the basis for 'discovering' new melodic motifs which is what we have been calling 'scale based' ragas. Is there any evidence in any of the works for or against such a thing? I am not sure if your thesis is contradictory to what I am stating above but if it is, what is the evidence for that?

[Sangeet Rasik]

SR, based on all the discussions I see that the two movements are not separate. I tend to think that the intellectualization may just be the effort for providing a formalism to an already existing base of "rasa"-based expression. That framework would then have provided the basis for 'discovering' new melodic motifs which is what we have been calling 'scale based' ragas. Is there any evidence in any of the works for or against such a thing?

I think we are on the same page for the most part. I guess there are pieces of circumstantial evidence, like for example the names of "non-scale-based" ragas like Kuranji, Surati, Kambhoji, Saurashtra, Punnagavarali, Velavali that reveal their "tribal" or "folkish" origins. Also, I believe that ragas like Anandabhairavi and Nilambari are well known to have been "staples" of South Indian folk music.

Titles of old musical texts like "Brhaddesi" ("The Great Work of Desi Music") also suggest folk influence. In this work, Matanga discusses the origin of music and defines "desi" ("folk") music as follows:

"In various regions, sound (dhvani) spontaneously becomes pleasant to living beings and then becomes pleasant to the people and kings. This dhvani that arises from region to region is called desi."

"That which is sung by women, children, cowherds, and kings out of their own will with love in their own respective regions is called desi music."

Regarding "scale-based" ragas, the picture may be more complicated and is a combination of several different factors. For example, Venkata Dikshit (Venkatamakhin) comments derisively upon ragas like Kalyani (also known as Iman or Yaman to the Persians) and Subhapantuvarali as being dear to the Turks, and thus hints that these ragas may have components that are not of "brahmanical scale-based" vintage. At the same time, the formalization/standardization of these scales as "legitimate ragas" provided further impetus for later scholars and composers to take them up for further elaboration and evolution. For example, Muddu Venkatamakhin and Govinda built upon Venkatamakhin's classification and formalized not only the "Sampurna mela" classification but also "derived" many janya ragas.

But there is also more "recent" evidence for this process. In Hindustani sangeet, Pandit Kumar Gandharva is well known for making a detailed study of the folk music of Central India and presenting some of the folk melodies in the form of "new" classical ragas.

http://theory.tifr.res.in/~mukhi/Music/myarticle.html

"...The fascination with words and meanings, and personal experience, was undoubtedly related to Kumarji's strong beliefs about folk music. He believed (and who can dispute it?) that all "classical" music is an outgrowth of folk music, where the most basic elements of life and nature are expressed in musical form. In his view, classical raagas are nothing but the distillation of musical essence from a class of folk songs, and this led him to an enterprise to discover "new" raagas by simply listening carefully to more and more folk songs. He called these "Dhun Ugam Raagas", and many of his discoveries -- Madhsurja, Ahimohini, Saheli Todi, Beehad Bairav, Lagan Gandhar, Sanjaari, Maalvati -- are now accepted as raagas and find mention in various modern texts such as "Raga Nidhi"."

If I am not mistaken, Dr. KJ Yesudas was trying something similar in South India, but I have not followed up on the success of his efforts.

SR

[vasanthakokilam]

Thanks very much SR. The info you provided is very helpful.

[vgvindan]

BILAVAL (ancient name Velavali) Bilaval had become the basic scale for North Indian music by the early part of the 19th century.

Regarding rAga vElAvali - http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/index.php? ... iew&id=662

[jananee]

cml.arasi and vageyakara : though i stumbled upon this thread a little late i must say i really enjoyed reading your views...thanks!