Powers on Carnatic-Hindustani affinities

[vainika]

Thanks to a fellow rasika we can access Prof. Harold Powers' 1966 article A comparative approach to the classification of ragas here. His considered dismissal of the scale-based approach to comparing C and H rAgas, and his aThANa-sahAna-darbAr-nayakI discussions are quite illuminating. Thanks Vidya!

[vasanthakokilam]

Thanks Vainika and Vidya. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the document. It is quite informative.

The Adana/Attana material is similar to what we discussed here, with SR taking a similar position to Powers.

I don't quite understand the admittedly forced comparison of the sahAna of both systems in this well thought out presentation. As he grants, the CM Sahana has anti-kAnaDa characteristics in arohana ( I like the reason he gives for that , the slighting of Ga ) even after considering Subbrama Dhikthithar's classification of Sahana under 22. So, here he seems to be arguing, however slightly, in favor of the scale based grouping while admitting a major problem with semantic connections between the two sahAnAs. I am saying this due to him roping in the SSP's prodominat use of small Ga in Sahana. Though the objective of trying to reconcile the two sahAnas and the result is less than satisfying, the intermediate analysis is quite informative and educational.

One small gripe. I personally have considerable sympathy and affiliation/affinity for specific prayoga/usage/emotion based grouping (semantics) rather than scale based groupings ( syntax ), But I have some difficulty when a description of pragmatics ( current practise ) are characterized as a display of "embarassment". That is something I do not care for.

But there is a lot of stuff there to learn. I did not know that the gamaka on 'g' for those ragas that have the same poorvanga as Karaharapriya is essentially a ri-ma wide oscillation. Though that is a generalization on scale-based grouping, an against the grain observation, hope he is right in that generalization.

[cacm]

I agree with the postings as well as the technical aspects Prof. Powers had described in great length. However I contend that there is more to the story. The various ragas esp. as they developed in the South- I do not know anything about the North for that matter the South either- their connection to folk tunes, Pann & other old Tamil literature etc have been discussed by Prof. S.Ramanathan in his lectures & lec-dems on various well known & popular ragas. The names being the same but characteristics being different while interesting in the two systems is not as intriguing as why certain "prayogams" are allowed in some ragas for example tho' they may be considered out of bounds in a certain sense. History & tradition appears to have played a role also......Unfortunately I am not expert enough in this area except to broaden the discussion so others can share their expertise. vkv

[arunk]

(Thanks vainika and vidya)

You take any two things which has some similarity you perceive - maybe two guys whose names are sort of similar, and may be a shade of resemblance that you see.

You propose - perhaps they are - related? Common ancestor?

People who know those two people (perhapps more than you) - scoff at you. Nonsense! They claim. Cant you see how different they are? One is Indian and one is Chinese for God sakes! One eats curd rice, the other one noodles!

You say - yes I know. They are very different. . One is brown, and one is yellow. One has large dark eyes and other smaller eyes. One is short - one is tall. But that is the wrong way to look you know? You have to look deeper - I am not talking about how they are now. See these two pictures of the two? Now squint your right eye when you look at one guy and then immediately scan to the other guy. See? See the resemblance? You can see their noses are similar? Now their eyes look different, but see their eyelashes? They curve the same way?

- the above was a bit in jest.

Joking aside,

The theory is not as far-fetched (as it seemed to me a while ago). I still think it needs to be corroborated with scalar (swara) evidence in early texts (and we dont exactly have a paucity of them).

All ragas discussed do have similar names in HM, and in many cases ragas came into prominence in CM more recently (i.e. not very very old ragas), and in some cases people do think that they possibly came from north or influenced by north (durbAr, kAnaDa etc.). But it still rests on a lot of guess-work to me with flimsy reasonings - i.e. bold guesswork is made in one area, based on hints/reasons seen in a completely different area. Wildly different ragas can have similar prayoga w.r.t solfa syllables. An arbitrary example - p-d-s can be key two ragas with D1 and D2. I am not sure then that one should ignore the different da's (and in particular maybe how they relate to other swaras - say ri), and completely different usages in other portions, but simply zero in on "hey p-d-s is key for both", the "raga names are similar" - so I am sure they were the same raga, and overtime one da changed to other da. In general this line of reasoning doesn't seem as solid as it should be for the conclusions being made.

But I do see the import of <kanada,durbar,nAyaki,Sahana,ATANA> set. It is quite possible someone came up with these ragas with influence from other system - the question is
A. Did they practice/import the raga "as-is" (or nearly as-is) from one-system/proto-system and slowly morphed it to their system
OR
B. Whether they simply created their system's version from the go i.e. from scratch but used the other system as some basis? This can explain the name similarity (particularly similar names in ragas that form a set, which I guess is the key initial evidence), the lack of "evolution" evidence in texts (see #2 below), as well as similarities seen by some "beneath the layer". So the proto-system/other-system was the influence, but not necessarily a true ancestor from which this one evolved? I am not proposing for every raga in the set - but for ragas that don't show enough melodic and scalar similarities, and also don't have evolution evidence in texts. For those that show either, A can very well apply.

Also still statements like these seem off:
1. "the ragam (aTANa) was tradionally assigned to 29": This is incorrect. Almost all early texts assign it to 28 until much later when it changed to 29. . Even SSP assigns it only 28. For some reason most people seem to forget the traditional relationship to 28. I am quite puzzled as to why (?)
2. Of course the reference from T Subba Rao "if in aDANA G3 and D2 are used it will sound like aTANA". While I do see that this is proposed only because of other similarities - this is the basis for melodic similarity. The proposal is someone took aDANA or proto-aDANA, and polishing overtime achieved aTANA with D2 and a different-ga (i.e. from ADANA), which took shape and influenced other swaras etc. etc. You would think the earliest aTANA references atleast would have had D1 or G2? Or may be otherwise i.e. aDANA having D2? I have checked ALL early mela books for aTANA. no mention of 22, no explicit mention of G2 (except SSP), and of course no explicit mention of D1. So yes it is still plausible (based on name similarity, the uttaranga use etc.), but with not much evidence supporting, it is a weak theory. (In any case, the above statement also sounds hilarious when you look at from a different angle. By this, simply use R2 for R1, G3 for G1, D2 for D1 and N3 for N1 and kanakAngi would simply become Sankarabharanam. I know - this is not exactly fair to the argument )
3. nAyaki is kept alive only by a varnam and nI bhajana - Perhaps prof. Powers did not have enough references. Granted - nAyaki is not exactly a popular raga (as durbAr), but this statement is seems misinformed. It does feature more than what is stated. I think nAyaki has more billing than say mAnji

Arun

[Sangeet Rasik]

Thanks to a fellow rasika we can access Prof. Harold Powers' 1966 article A comparative approach to the classification of ragas here. His considered dismissal of the scale-based approach to comparing C and H rAgas, and his aThANa-sahAna-darbAr-nayakI discussions are quite illuminating. Thanks Vidya!

Thanks Vainika and Vidya. At the risk of sounding pompous, I must say (as the starter of the "athana" thread) that I greatly enjoyed the almost exact correspondence of thought process between Powers and myself, and the way the article unfolded (starting from discussion on swaras and prayogas and ending in historical investigations).

SR

[Sangeet Rasik]

VK,

I don't quite understand the admittedly forced comparison of the sahAna of both systems in this well thought out presentation.

I agree that the discussion on Shahana creates more "loose ends" than it ties up (as admitted by Powers). One possible path is to first analyze ragas in groups and determine their underlying commonalities, and then understand their differences as "variations" or "different flavors" of the same underlying theme. As I understand from hearing HM Shahanas, it seems to me that HM Shahana is also somewhat different from the other HM Kanada-based ragas in that the gandhara is de-emphasized in comparison to the others.

SR

[vasanthakokilam]

Thanks SR.

One possible path is to first analyze ragas in groups and determine their underlying commonalities

Limiting this to HM way of grouping for now,

1) Are such groupings based on underlying commanalities 'musicological' or a lay rasika ( experienced one who can relate to the melodic aesthetics, identify ragas etc. ) would group them also as 'allied ragas'?

2) In HM groupings, are tonal similarities (chAyA/melodic similarities) the predominant consideration? Powers contrasts the terms 'chAyA' and 'bhAvA' using specific definitions and I am curious if that is the widely held view. I like that distinction within the limited definition of the term 'bhAvA'.

3) Powers is quoting the verbiage of modern musicologists but only mentions old texts by names. How far back one can go for this grouping philosophy and also find groupings similar to the currently understood groupings?

[Sangeet Rasik]

VK,

1) Are such groupings based on underlying commanalities 'musicological' or a lay rasika ( experienced one who can relate to the melodic aesthetics, identify ragas etc. ) would group them also as 'allied ragas'?

I would tend to think that the opinions of any person who can present a cogent and unbiased rationale should be taken seriously. Consensus and new knowledge should evolve through enlightended debate and discussion. There is no lack of "musicologists" in Chennai who still believe that ragas like Darbar, Athana, Nayaki etc have no northern influence.

2) In HM groupings, are tonal similarities (chAyA/melodic similarities) the predominant consideration? Powers contrasts the terms 'chAyA' and 'bhAvA' using specific definitions and I am curious if that is the widely held view. I like that distinction within the limited definition of the term 'bhAvA'.

I believe that this is not an important question in HM, because the "groupings" were not made after the fact of the ragas being known. Rather, new members of a raga groups are evolved (at least at a sem-rigorous level) by experimentation/variation of a central theme. Thus, this idea of raga "groups" has been around in Indian music for a while.

3) Powers is quoting the verbiage of modern musicologists but only mentions old texts by names. How far back one can go for this grouping philosophy and also find groupings similar to the currently understood groupings?

For example, I posted an excerpt from "anupasangitaratnakara" (ca. 1675 CE), whose author clearly explains the grouping of kanada-based ragas. The old "mela" ragas found in Indian texts were, I believe, primarily conceived based on the melodic commonalities of certain groups of ragas. Of course, the melas also had "scales" associated with them.

SR

[vasanthakokilam]

SR

Regarding your answer for my item 1, I was not clear about what I was asking. Is that grouping more 'scholarly' or 'is that something that can be discerned by a knowledgeable rasika who is not into bookish stuff and theory'. Since it is based on melodic fundamentals, I would expect a knowledgeable rasika to get at the reasoning behind the grouping by just listening. But, after reading through all this, I am confused about that if that is indeed the case. Say, for example, will someone who has heard Adana and another raga in the Kanada group many times, be able to directly appreciate the fact that they are in the same group without resorting to theory and nod his head 'Ah, I thought there was something there like that'. Same thing with HM Sahana and Adana.

BTW, you seem to feel and imply that some Chennai musicologists are holding on to the "wrong" view that they do not agree with what Powers wrote. Is Powers' view a widely held view? Powers himself is not that authoritative in his statements, he seemed to have laid that out for consideration ( though his writing expresses his conviction on those matters ). But with Durbar and Nayaki, he did not really spend that many words. May be that is a separate article.

Also, I have questions about his analysis. Hope you can provide some clarity on these matters.

"In any South Indian ragam with the Dorian tetrachord in its purvAngA ( SA R2 G2 M1 ), the gAndhAra can shake with Ma an upper auxiliary and Ri a lower ( auxliary ). The 'tivra' ga of SI Athana effect oscillates between ri and ma and is therefore no differnt from the komal Ga of South Indian Durbar ( or of any other SI raga with a dorian tetrachord in the purvanga ). "( Page 5, RHS , page 47 )

The case he makes for the Ga oscillation of Durbar, typical of Dorian tetrachord, actually satisfies the Darbar's mela assignment, But Darbar's Ga has a lot of similarity to the way Thodi Ga is oscillated ( right? ) and but Thodi purvanga is not that of the Dorian Tetrachord.

Back to Adana vs Atana:

Subba Rao

While discussing Adana:

There is a Raga called Attana... which has certain similarities with Adana
"If Adana tiwra ga and twira dha are used then it will sound like attana of
karnatak sangeeth"

And while discussing Attana

"The North Indian Adana, in spite of the resemblance in name, does not bear much affinity to it"

Powers says: "...and he ( Subba Rao ) goes so far as to imply that, but for the difference in scale-type with respect to ga and dha,
there would be little or no dfferences between the two ragas ( other than that of the styles )......Penetrative creative insight into their structure and effects; at first blush the ragas are quite different tonally, and a few Indians would agree to the resemblance offhand."

I think Powers is overinterpreting what Subba Rao is saying

Also, If they are quite different tonally, how does an average rasika who has a good ear and who is knowledgeable through listening but who is not a scholar will 'get' the grouping.

Subbarama Dhikshithar on Atana:

"The turnings in the arohana suggest a long dha and in avarohana a long dha and a long ga. Dha and Ga are the life giving svaras of this raga."

Omkarnath Thakur on Adana:

"Prominent utterances and slow pacing of komal Dha will make the bhava of this rag vanish....
Therefore prolonged utterance and slow pacing of dha is to be avoided."

I do not know how to reconcile these two statements while considering the 'Atana/Adana' equivalence since the grouping is based on such nuances like ornamentations, gamakams and whether a swara is given prominence etc.

It is also interesting that Powers seems to have a bias towards how Hindusthani music is described as opposed to how the south indian music is described. ( and he makes it clear that he does not hold the view about the two music systems themselves , it is only about the writers). A bit of comedic thing is, the same writer Subba Rao writes about both systems. Powers seems to assume that Subba Rao switches roles, changes colors and mental make up between the two descriptions.

And he selectively takes what SD says and leaves out the other part which is "Ga seems komal sometimes and sometimes tivra" since Powers makes fun of such interpretations while discussing Atana but in other places he brings in SD to his defense ( in the Sahana part )

Powers says "C.S. Ayyar uses ( the expression ) 'almost ri ma' to both Darbar and Athana". But does that mean they are exactly the same oscillation? That is not obvious to me but Powers seems to make that assumption to build his case.

Also, mention of Ratanjankar's argument seems to go against the grain of the Adana/Attana equivalence argument. I do not know if Powers mentions it as an orthogonal point or for the sake of scholastic completeness even if it goes against his thesis.

[cacm]

Dear VK,
Haing interacted with the Late Powers- definitely one of the great poineers in "popularising" carnatic music here- I can definitely say that he was so heavily influenced by the Great Late Ranga Ramanuja Iyengar- whom I CONSIDER TO BE A demi-God myself- that he tended to discard what any one else said. It is similar to saying that Brinda-Muktha school is the only genuine Carnatic Music etc which statement again is only partly true.
These consequently need to be examined critically as you are attempting to do to flush out which of these appraoaches are TRULY valid. vkv

[Sangeet Rasik]

VK,

Will answer in more detail later. Just a shorter reply now:

1) Apart from Powers and perhaps a couple of others, most musicologists approach the analysis from completely the wrong end, i.e. they spend a lot of time debating why Adana and Athana are different/not related, etc. Nobody seems to ask the simple question regarding the probability of an entire group of related ragas (and with the same names to boot) developing independently in the North and the South. Even a cursory look at the old texts (1500s-1600s) will show clearly that these ragas date from the time when the North and South had a unified music system, and that these ragas are earliest documented in Northern works. Powers makes an oblique reference that "few Indians will agree that Adana and Athana are similar at face value" (or something like that). The real problem is that Indians have lost the capacity for placing fact and reason above useless traditions or irrational beliefs. When presented with overriding fact, we nitpick on details that are not important or have themselves arisen out of a series of misjudgements/mistakes.

2) Thus, the correct approach to the analysis is to treat the connection (or the common origin) of these ragas as *fact*, and then it makes for a much more useful (and possibly generalizable) analysis as to how (and maybe why) such originally common ragas underwent changes to reach rather different forms in the North and in the South.

3) I wish I did not have to spend 100 posts on the Athana thread "proving" that in fact Athana and Adana are the same original raga that have undergone some changes in the North and South. This is like proving that day is day and night is night. But the sad fact is that the CM "intelligentsia" have reached the point wherein obvious fact and reason have become subservient to parochialism and insular beliefs. Hence, it was worth the effort - that one time - to "prove the obvious" (a thankless task especially since there are some who still question the obvious).

4) Powers may have spent time on analyzing Subba Rao, but Subba Rao's work is very late and does not offer a deep analysis of the subject. He simply makes some speculations of switching one swara or two to go from Adana to Athana, thus creating more confusion - whereas a simple recourse to fact and reason would have been better. So in my opinion it is a waste of time to debate Subba Rao.

5) To summarize: the Northern raga grouping Durbari Kanada-Adana-Nayaki Kanada-Shahana Kanada has *obviously* a common origin with the Southern raga grouping Kanada-Durbar-Athana-Nayaki-Shahana. An analysis of how this raga group then evolved differently in North and South would be a most useful contribution in understanding the HM-CM emergence as separate entities. I am willing to participate in such an undertaking. But if this is going to become an exercise in denying the obvious and tying oneself in knots, I am unable to participate further.

SR

[cacm]

Dear Sangeet Rasik,
I generally agree with most of your statements esp your statement about cm"intelligentsia". I still remember the UPROAR when the great GNB did SHASTANGA NAMASKARAM to Badae Gulam Ali Khan after he rendered Maulkauns IN MADRAS & pointed out how the Ustad had shown what you have said about Athana& Adana. Looking forward to your further elaborations. vkv

[arvindt]

But Darbar's Ga has a lot of similarity to the way Thodi Ga is oscillated

At least as sung today, I believe the GGRS prayoga in Darbar does not have a G, only that R-M R-M is sung
and pronounced as G-G. I could be wrong, but this is what I've heard in many lecdems.

This is totally different from Thodi.

[vasanthakokilam]

arvindt: Thanks. I stand corrected. I think I mixed up Darbar Ga with Dhanyasi Ga when I mentioned about the thodi like Ga oscillation.

[vainika]

At least as sung today, I believe Darbar does not have a G, only that R-M R-M is sung and pronounced as G-G. I could be wrong, but this is what I've heard in many lecdems.

Arvind, please let me know the basis (sources/lecdems) for this assertion about darbAr having no Ga.

[arvindt]

Arvind, please let me know the basis (sources/lecdems) for this assertion about darbAr having no Ga.

I believe I heard this in a recording of a TMK lecdem in Shimoga (available
on sangeethapriya):

http://www.sangeethapriya.org/Downloads ... cdem-1.mp3

Moreover, I'm sorry if I came across as saying Darbar has no G whatsoever: the R-M R-M as I understand it
applies mainly to the popular GGRS prayoga: there could well be other prayogas that contain a fully formed G.
I edited my original post to reflect this.

Also, I should qualify that I'm no expert, only a lay rasika and could well be wrong on this -- just what I've heard.

[raviraj]

Vainika,

Thxs for posting that very informative article. Would take time to digest.

On Durbar, beyond the application of GGRS, what has been troubling me was the opinion that Durbar should have the Kanada "ang", GMRS prayoga and SSP's notation of " Tyagarajad anyam na janeham" has a liberal dosage of it. I have heard renditions of the krithi from B Rajam Iyer's brother, Suguna Varadachari and few others. None of them rendered with the GMRS prayoga. Even Kalpagam Mamis rendition of the same in her concert few months back, now released by Carnatica, too doesnt have the GMRS prayoga. Can you throw more light on that ?

Raj

[vidya]

On Durbar, beyond the application of GGRS, what has been troubling me was the opinion that Durbar should have the Kanada "ang", GMRS prayoga and SSP's notation of " Tyagarajad anyam na janeham" has a liberal dosage of it.. Even Kalpagam Mamis rendition of the same in her concert few months back, now released by Carnatica, too doesnt have the GMRS prayoga. Can you throw more light on that ?

Raj

Well, this precisely was the reason why this article was recently dug up (thanks to Srini Pichumani who was the source of this article). Kalpakam mami seemed to be aware that there was this claim and mentioned that none of the renditions she had heard ever reflected it. Either pathantharam normalization has already happened or this other flavor of Darbar was a theoritical mythical beast (I have been on its pursuit for a while now) cited now and then only to differentiate and establish purity of schools. At the moment I have only the words of Kallidaikurichi Mahadeva Bhagavatar (and a few others) to substantiate the existence of such a flavor of Darbar. At the moment there are only two sources of how this could be ascertained by a). Getting a recording of Smt.Kalavati Balakrishnan's version b).To see if Dr.V.V.Srivatsa potentially has a recording of KMB singing this version.

[arvindt]

On Durbar, beyond the application of GGRS, what has been troubling me was the opinion that Durbar should have the Kanada "ang", GMRS prayoga and SSP's notation of " Tyagarajad anyam na janeham" has a liberal dosage of it.. Even Kalpagam Mamis rendition of the same in her concert few months back, now released by Carnatica, too doesnt have the GMRS prayoga. Can you throw more light on that ?

Interesting... TMK also mentions this discrepancy and possible patantara "normalization" in his
lecdem towards the end when discussing Dikshitar's version of Darbar. What about Halasyanatham?
Do popular renditions of it contain the GMRS prayoga or other Kanada-ish prayogas?

[raviraj]

(Apologies in advance for my long rambling post. Couldn’t resist .

Vidya, Thxs for your post. The more I think, the more I am convinced that it was not a mere school/interpretation/patantharam issue, but beyond that. At the outset let me confess that I can claim no expertise or authority, but based on the body of evidence, one can form an opinion, however unfounded that might be

My proposition is that (IMVVHO), Durbar was one of the unfortunate victims of the Sangraha Chudamani instigated carnage which took place in the second half of the 19th century. KVR would love my (att)tack , if I told it this way . Apologies in advance! But do let me know if this sounds plausible. Read on my story !

<Story>

Circa 1700 – Close to a 100 years prior to the trinity, Karnataka Kapi held sway. A raga of antiquity, it had the trademark "Kanada ang" as exemplified by the SSP notation of "Rangapate Pahi" of Margadarshi Sesha Iyengar. The Muthuswami Dikshitar treatment of Karnataka Kapi (Venkatachalapate) was on similar lines. And Karnataka Kapi itself was designated bashanga indicating its regional/basha origin .Durbar, Nayaki were probably allied ragas/siblings, with both of them inheriting the Kanada ang. ( Note: In SSP Dikshitar’s Durbar krithi has profuse usage of GMRS. For the Nayaki krithi Ranganayakam, not trace of GMRS is found in the SSP notation while the notation of Dayaleni of Tyagaraja has it.). Ragas mingled and comingled & were allowed to share common pakads/angas such as GMRS or GM1M2G et al. Beyond mere svaras, the way the svara was intoned was also important.( Refer to Subbarama Dikshithar’s commentary on both these ragas especially as the treatment of the nishada as well as gandhara.

By now Kanada had started appearing in the horizon and was getting popular with the masses. Before it was accepted by the cognoscenti/ conferred status of a raga, it needed to be vested with uniqueness. Also Karaharapriya was still waiting in the sidelines to be accommodated as a full fledged heptatonic scale & Karnataka Kapi was proving to be stumbling block.

And so the powers that be then, decided that Karnataka Kapi the reigning emperor had to go. The GMRS was taken away & entrusted solely to Kanada . Nayaki & Durbar were too divested of the Kanada anga as well, to mark the end of the scheme of ragas sharing common angas or sancharas such as GMRS ( Kanada anga ) or GM1M2G ( Lalit anga), which I alluded to earlier. This scheme is still in vogue in Hindustani sangeeth with angas such as Gaud, Shri et al. In Carnatic music remnants of the approach can be still seen in Dikshitar' treatment of ragas such as Karnataka Kapi/Durbar (GMRS)) and Gauri /Mangalakaisiki/ Vasantha (GM1M2- the m2 being labelled as cyutha panchama).

Anyways, so the final picture that emerged early 20th century was this. Karnataka Kapi was all but dead & Kanada emerged out of its remnants. Karaharapriya's territory got demarcated as required under the post Sangraha Chudamani regime. The boundary between Nayaki and the emasculated Durbar got blurred which was got over by mandating emphasis on the janta prayogas such as GGRS, NNDP and redesignation of the Durbar raga itself as amenable to madhyamakala exposition, to suit the exigencies of the situation. Also in the process Nayaki lost considerable space to accommodate Durbar. In fact per SSP, it was Karnataka Kapi that was characterized by the prayoga GGMRS.

Poor Subbarama Dikshitar couldn’t get himself come to terms with mass purge that was played out. And with great fortitude continued to hold the flag of the old guards high (labeled today as Dikshitar school, I doubt if there was one & I can’t help agreeing with KVR on this). We do not have any other visible evidence of this great change/mass purge/extermination that was unleashed, other than SSP . We can even today see that remnants of that mass purge in ragas such as Purnachandrika, Anandabhairavi, Devakriya, .....& Durbar in the so called Dikshitar school. And we have gotten over all of them, by labeling the surviving Dikshitar masterpieces as "archaic" versions.

</Story>

Apart from the Kalavathi Balakrishnan version, as you have identified for further exploration one can probably look at the following sources as well:
a) Apart from SSP, Tyagarajadanyam finds place in the "Dikshita Keertanai Prakashikai" of Thiruppamburam Natarajasundaram Pillai, amongst the first set of 50 krithis. Other than the SSP, I consider this book as an authentic notation of MD krithis was the simple fact that the notation was checked by Sathanur Panchanada Iyer himself. IIRC, the krithi is also notated therein with the GMRS prayoga, will check again latter tonight. Did Svaminatha Pillai teach Tyagarajadanyam to Prof.SRJ or others with GMRS?
b) I haven’t heard of Subbaraya Sastri's Meena Nayana by any of the Dhanammal family members. That version might probably cast some light on the GMRS aspect and the subsequent morphing.
c) Chinnaswami Mudaliar published about 68 krithis of Tyagaraja notated in his “Oriental Music in European Notation. Of these if any Durbar krithi of Tyagaraja had been notated, that might be another source of light in this matter.

My 2 cents!

Raj

[vasanthakokilam]

VK,

2) Thus, the correct approach to the analysis is to treat the connection (or the common origin) of these ragas as *fact*, and then it makes for a much more useful (and possibly generalizable) analysis as to how (and maybe why) such originally common ragas underwent changes to reach rather different forms in the North and in the South.

3) I wish I did not have to spend 100 posts on the Athana thread "proving" that in fact Athana and Adana are the same original raga that have undergone some changes in the North and South. This is like proving that day is day and night is night. But the sad fact is that the CM "intelligentsia" have reached the point wherein obvious fact and reason have become subservient to parochialism and insular beliefs. Hence, it was worth the effort - that one time - to "prove the obvious" (a thankless task especially since there are some who still question the obvious).

SR, item 2 is very well put. I would have preferred not to get into charactrization of other people in the debate who make take the opposite sides of the debate. You put the proof in double quotes and i am not sure if that is actually the whole purpose of the debate. Even in Linguistics where this kind of analysis is done in a much more scientific way to find common origins of languages, people seem to take a much humbler perspective.

I think what you say in item 2 is a great objective to have. Start with what you state as the axiom and see where it takes us. And you should be prepared for taking the hypothesis off the table if the further analysis proves the axioms to be untenable. I do not want to be forced into accepting something as true before the investigation even begins. But treating that as a hypothesis is perfectly fine.

5) To summarize: the Northern raga grouping Durbari Kanada-Adana-Nayaki Kanada-Shahana Kanada has *obviously* a common origin with the Southern raga grouping Kanada-Durbar-Athana-Nayaki-Shahana. An analysis of how this raga group then evolved differently in North and South would be a most useful contribution in understanding the HM-CM emergence as separate entities. I am willing to participate in such an undertaking. But if this is going to become an exercise in denying the obvious and tying oneself in knots, I am unable to participate further.

It sounds good to me. But be prepared for people tying themselves in knots or focussing on 'details'. I personally prefer to have logical consistency and clear description of assumptions. For example, it is still not clear to me the exact basis of groupings and whether they are consistent even with in HM, let alone use that to establish parallels. Until I have that picture, I may be tying myself in knots and focussing on stuff that you may consider trivial or unimportant.

4) Powers may have spent time on analyzing Subba Rao, but Subba Rao's work is very late and does not offer a deep analysis of the subject. He simply makes some speculations of switching one swara or two to go from Adana to Athana, thus creating more confusion - whereas a simple recourse to fact and reason would have been better. So in my opinion it is a waste of time to debate Subba Rao.

But Powers uses Subba Rao a lot and so if you consider Powers argument as valid, you can not completely dismiss Subba Rao.

In closing let me say that your item 2 is important. This is stated in a much better way than in our previous Adana-Attana discussions. Going strictly by this, we may not conclude that Attana came from Addana ( I think that is why the Adana-Attana thread grew to 100+ posts ) but both have a common origin. I think stating your item 2 upfront would be a much easier sell. I think the so called 'carnatic intelligensia' believe that CM is in fact the main stream branch of the old undivided Indian music ( I do not want to debate the merits of that here, this is just my speculation as to why some people may come across as insular or parochial ) and your statement 2 is not inconsistent with that belief. And the tool we wil be using is the grouping of HM ragas and the "allied" ragas in CM and go up the tree to see if these two groups have evolved from a common group. I do not see why CM musicologists would have any trouble in such a scholarly investigation.

[vidya]

a) Apart from SSP, Tyagarajadanyam finds place in the "Dikshita Keertanai Prakashikai" of Thiruppamburam Natarajasundaram Pillai, amongst the first set of 50 krithis...

The Natarajasundaram pillai version of tyAgarAjAd anyam is for the most part identical to the SSP version other than minor transpositions like srpm > mrpm and that the notation is provided at a higher level of abstraction than the SSP ie w.r.to podisvarams and un-notatables etc. Prof.SRJ and others via Swaminatha Pillai do not know this composition. Also I think Nataraja Sundaram Pillai's (or even Sattanur Panju Iyer's ) would have had higher chances of normalization (Please see Chapter 4 of Dr.Ritha Rajan's thesis in the following link http://musicresearch.in/categorydetails.php?imgid=101 for supporting examples) than some other schools known for isolationist approaches to pathantharams.The only other potential source could be from the Nagasvaram school in Tiruvarur.

Your reconstruction is quite plausible with regards to the observation on KarnATaka kApi's antiqity (with more earlier and pretrinity compositions in kApi)
and the lack of the same w.r.to both Darbar and Nayaki and also w.r.to the apportionment and allocation of phrases to suit the changing times theory too.
One possible twist to this reconstruction plot would be as follows : --the usual disclaimers stand
- nAyaki seems to have been in existence a little earlier than darbAr atleast nomenclature wise - the Northern tradition ascribes it to GopalaNaik.
- So as per reasons outliend Kapi reigned and nAyaki was already there in some form.
- Probably a version or some variant of kAnada (darbAri kAnada) came down South / became popular.It had to undergo transformations in its Carnatification to suit the Southern melodic needs much like Begada. In this process it had to usurp musical material from nAyaki (to quote from the article). So now there ended up two ragas with similar melodic structure so additional differentiation factors were imposed and allies were created.
- This version that came in probably was discarded and this was probably the 'missing-link' in the evolutionary chain which is referred to as kAnrA (the aprasiddha bhAshAnga rAga that SD mentions)
- This kAnrA ended up as an aprasiddha bhAshAnga rAga but a few phrases now and then featured in certain composers minds and which is probably why there are multiple versions of karnATaka kApi some which sound like darbAr and others which sound like kAnaDa.

All this I surmise must happened much before (late 1700s or even earlier) .Even in the Dikshitar school I'd say that the anga-groupings were already fossils by Ramaswami Dikshitar's time. Whereas the SangrahaCuDamanification of the raga system ie creation of scalar material and nikhaNdus from compositions by the early publishers must have occurred in the later 1800's (which KVR alludes to). So Kharaharapriya, phalamanjari etc were part of this second wave of changes to accomodate compositions that were composed in the new system.

[raviraj]

Vidya,

Thanks for your observations. I wouldn’t disagree with your wave 1 & wave 2 views. After all, slow & inexorable change was the order & Sangraha Chudamani was yet another twist to this tale.

1. I did read Dr Ritha's thesis much earlier but after being fed with conventional materials, reading such anti establishment stuff including KVR's essays, makes one undertake an immense "unlearning", before it can be digested. Anyways thanks for the link.

2. Your reference to the extinct Kanhra as a missing link in this evolutionary chain is interesting. Apart from the SD reference, is there any work that mentions this melody?

3. I doubt if any of our current oral traditions would have a clue on this. An interesting trivia.....During my research on this in the Academy Journal archives I discovered that during the 1963 Dec season, Justice TLV during his Lec Dem on Dikshitar krithis accompanied by Sandhyavandanam Srinivasa Rao sang the following krithis:

Sri Ganesatparam - Ardradesi
Vadanyesvaram - Devagandhari
Sri Sundararajam - Ramakriya
Tyagarajad anyam - Durbar
Venkatachalapate - K Kapi
Abhayambam - Kalyani
Nilotpalambikayai - Kedaragaula
Sri Kamalambike Sive - Sri

I don’t know whether GMRS was there but Durbar followed by K Kapi krithi was interesting for me.

3. The sole survivor of the Tiruvarur's nagasvara tradition is Prof Letchappa Pillai. Let me try reaching out to him.

4. Apart from KVR there was one other Music Academy aficionado Dr. T S Ramakrishnan, whose father assisted Chinnaswami Mudaliar in the notation project. Do you know him ? During the 1940’s -70’s ,Dr.TSR along with Dr V Raghavan held many a Music academy lecdem’s on MD. A vainika as well tracing to Dikshitar sishya parampara, he gave his lec dems along with his 2 daughters. His masterly article about the contribution of Chinnaswami Mudaliar and Subbarama Dikshitar to the study of Tyagaraja’s Krithis as well as his article on the contribution of the Tiruvarur Pentad published in 1975 for the MD Centenary are worth reading. I have been trying in vain to trace them till now. That may be another thread worth going after.

2 more cents !

Raj

[Sangeet Rasik]

Raviraj and Vidya,

Excellent posts with plenty of well considered details regarding the "age of interpolation" (as I called it) in CM. I will join the discussion in more detail on the weekend.

In the meanwhile, I wanted to raise two points.

1) You have focused on the purvanga clusters and various "interpolations"/"changes" thereof. What could be likely hypotheses for the important role of D1 in the "Northern Kanada Cluster" (durbari-adana-nayaki-shahana) - even though of course Shahana and other Kanada variants have D2 - as opposed to the predominance of D2 in the "Southern Kanada Cluster" (kanada-athana-durbar-nayaki-shahana). Just as changes were made to the SKC, could changes have been made to the NKC in the "Islamic period" to include D1, and could all these ragas originally have been D2-containing ? Or is the D2 also an invention of CM and an attempt to essentially transform these NKC ragas and claim them as legitimate Karnataka Kapi successors ? I touched upon Karnataka Kapi in the Adana/Athana thread but did not get into that area since it would broaden the discussion outside Athana/Adana...but it is fair game (and indeed very important) in this discussion.

2) One can throw in Abhogi also, as a clear example of a "reverse transplant" from south to north but with no swara interpolations. Even there, the use of prayogas is interesting. The HM characterization of Abhogi as a type of Kanada is quite legitimate in my opinion, considering its similarities to Durbar. The lack of overt GMRS prayogas in CM Abhogi (and preference for GGRS prayogas), whereas the HM Abhogi Kanada makes liberal use of GMRS phrases, also may favor your hypothesis in my opinion. In contrast to the CM artifice of *removing* GMRS to dissociate ragas like Durbar/Nayaki/Athana from Kanada, the HM interest has been in integrating a CM raga like Abhogi into the NKC.

I look forward to this discussion !

VK,

Let me clarify my position further - by "common origin" of adana/athana I also imply that the "common origin" is in North India not South India. Adana is a raga which is not treated extensively in Southern works till much later, whereas the Northern works display a much more crystallized view of this raga from an earlier stage. That was clear in the previous discussion. Again, sorry to call a spade a spade, but if a large section of "CM intelligentsia" believe that Indian Classical Music as we know it today originated primarily in the South, that seems an en extremely untenable idea. The "brahmanical" origins of ICM are clearly in the North, with the entire country being unified under a single system due to progressive migration of "brahmanical" art forms to the South. The medieval age brought other external factors into play, which led to diversification into 2 branches HM and CM. Of course, "deshi ragas" (from folk origins) have been infused into ICM in all parts of India. Again all this is my opinion based on what I know, it should not be interpreted as trying to impose my views on anyone else.

SR

[vasanthakokilam]

SR, I understand what you say about the northern common origin.

but if a large section of "CM intelligentsia" believe that Indian Classical Music as we know it today originated primarily in the South, that seems an en extremely untenable idea.

I hope you are not interpreting this from what I wrote. I definitely did not mean to convey that and I do not know any serious chennai musicologists who propagates such 'south origination' theory. I do not think that is the position of many in the Adana-Attana discussion thread.

Aside from all that, regarding "brahmanical" origin and propagation, I can see that the authors of ancient works and such theoreticians can be attributed that way, but they are not necessarily the 'originators' and 'propagators' of the music, are they? Is there any evidence for that? I thought the ancient books are more descriptive than prescriptive. Anyway, that may take this thread in a different direction, we can discuss that aspect later.

Anyway, given all the high quality discussion going on among Vidya, Raviraj and you, I will step aside and observe for a while.

[vgvindan]

SR,
It was Dronacharya - a brahmin - who taught archery etc to Arjuna - a kshatriya. Similar is the case with Rama. So is the case with any Gurukula system. Every kind of knowledge was the preseve of brahmins. How can music be different?
Please do not give twist to everything to suit your mental frame which is very apparent from your postings.

[Sangeet Rasik]

VGV,

SR,
It was Dronacharya - a brahmin - who taught archery etc to Arjuna - a kshatriya. Similar is the case with Rama. So is the case with any Gurukula system. Every kind of knowledge was the preseve of brahmins. How can music be different?
Please do not give twist to everything to suit your mental frame which is very apparent from your postings.

How is your post related to the discussion ? Did I not say myself that the Indian Classical Music is largely a brahmanical system, and thus its likelihood of origin in the North is much greater based on all the history and chronology we know ? There is a very good discussion unfolding here. Please feel welcome to contribute usefully, it may not be my "mental frame" which needs to be checked. Mods please note possible thread derailment. Thanks.

SR

[arunk]

SR - Your abhOgi example and in general the import of it is indeed an excellent one. This your earlier para in your posts are very good - they provide fodder for more corroboration to what is being discussed regarding how both systems may morph imported ragas to assimilate them into "their own mold".

Arun

[Sangeet Rasik]

VKV,

I still remember the UPROAR when the great GNB did SHASTANGA NAMASKARAM to Badae Gulam Ali Khan after he rendered Maulkauns IN MADRAS & pointed out how the Ustad had shown what you have said about Athana& Adana. Looking forward to your further elaborations. vkv

Thanks. Could you please briefly summarize what GNB and Ghulam Ali said/showed regarding Malkauns ? I am assuming it had to do with the relation of HM Malkauns and CM Hindolam. While this is probably outside the present Kanada-focused discussion, it would be good to have anecdotal evidence from experienced rasiks for future reference when we hopefully take up Malkauns/Hindolam in our future discussions.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that one of the oldest medieval texts Ragatarangini by the Mithilan scholar Lochana (ca. 1550) lists the ragas "Malavakaisika" (Malkauns) and "Hindol" in the same mela (incidentally this is the very same Karnata mela under which ragas such as Kanada and Adana are also listed). Hindol is the HM equivalent of CM Sunadavinodini (SG3M2D2N3S) and has the exact "opposite" swaras of modern HM Malkauns and CM Hindolam, hence it is singularly ironic that these two ragas were once listed in the same mela.

SR

[knandago2001]

arunk: on your comment regarding how systems may morph imported ragas to assimilate them into their own mould - In HM there exists a concept of "makaam"; for example all ragas derived from Kalyan thaat will incorporate the p r phrase during alapchaari and raag vistaar. Thus, the unfolding of Yaman, Hameer, Kamod, Shuddh Kalyan, or Bhoopali will necessarily involve that particular phrase. This is not true of the CM tradition. Kalyani, Mohana Kalyani or Mohanam can be developed without a necessary p r twist.
Another example would be the g m r phrase in all ragas derived from Bhairav thaat. Although Ahir Bhairav differs entirely from Bhairav with respect to the nishada it is the makaam that permits classification under the Bhairav thaat. As we are indeed aware Chakravakam is not classified under Mayamalagoula and vice-versa. This is one reason why Abhogi Kanada differs from our Abhogi.

[vgvindan]

35 Principles of Northern Indian Music

http://blog.sangtar.com/?p=95

[arunk]

Thanks. BTW makaam -Could this is sort of loosely related (or derived from) to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_maqam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makam (i.e. something from persian/moghul influence)?

Arun

[ramakriya]

'makaam' comes from'maqaam', and AFAIK represents something like a 'house'; This is a very parallel concept to our mELas. Ragas are 'housed' in mELas, isn't it?

-Ramakriya

[Suji Ram]

'makaam' comes from'maqaam', and AFAIK represents something like a 'house'; This is a very parallel concept to our mELas. Ragas are 'housed' in mELas, isn't it?

-Ramakriya

maqam is scale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rast_%28maqam%29

house is makhAn not maqaam

[cacm]

VKV,

I still remember the UPROAR when the great GNB did SHASTANGA NAMASKARAM to Badae Gulam Ali Khan after he rendered Maulkauns IN MADRAS & pointed out how the Ustad had shown what you have said about Athana& Adana. Looking forward to your further elaborations. vkv

Thanks. Could you please briefly summarize what GNB and Ghulam Ali said/showed regarding Malkauns ? I am assuming it had to do with the relation of HM Malkauns and CM Hindolam. While this is probably outside the present Kanada-focused discussion, it would be good to have anecdotal evidence from experienced rasiks for future reference when we hopefully take up Malkauns/Hindolam in our future discussions.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that one of the oldest medieval texts Ragatarangini by the Mithilan scholar Lochana (ca. 1550) lists the ragas "Malavakaisika" (Malkauns) and "Hindol" in the same mela (incidentally this is the very same Karnata mela under which ragas such as Kanada and Adana are also listed). Hindol is the HM equivalent of CM Sunadavinodini (SG3M2D2N3S) and has the exact "opposite" swaras of modern HM Malkauns and CM Hindolam, hence it is singularly ironic that these two ragas were once listed in the same mela.

SR

Desr SR,
You may be disappointed at the pedestrian level of my reply but I feel is is good not to embellish things; Still I thank you for the interest & will recall below what my memories are:

Bhade Gulam Ali Khan kept every one SPELL BOUND with his exposition with emphasis on PERFECTsruti & swara sthana alignment & it was truly amazing how much imagination he exhibited because we are so used to various facets of Laya, Composition, etc we are used to in carnatic music. In almost spontaneous fashion GNB first did the Shastanga Nmaskaram to the Ustad before he went to the mike & made a FEW comments as he did not wish to inturrupt the stratosphere every one was propelled to! Also he was very sensitive to the level of the audience!

GNB was very brief & to the point. He said today you have heard what PERFECTION in our MUSIC IS. He said practicioners of Carnatic music have a lot to LEARN from the intense emphasis on SUDDHAM in terms of the notes, micro notes as well as microtones. He also pointed out that everything of consequence in our cultural history had its initial beginnings in the North & it was Saranga Deva (from Kashmir) who gave us the grammar. He also pointed out ( as PMI has said) that every note is so many cycles/second and TIME is built into music in an inextricable fashion. In the South because of the trinity it has been ELEVATED to such a high level and the traditions like Nadswaram etc. He said while many may not be familiar with the nuances of N.Indian Maulkans they can certinly relate to Hindolam which is generally accepted as having been derived fron the North.

The Ustad said he was looking forward to hearing GNB render Hindolam as he was sure that he can learn a few things! GNB not only rendered Hindolam in detail & in a superb fashion in the next concert Ustad attended he also gave a private rendering ( I did not attend this- I interacted with GNB but my respect level was such I did not want to bother or request anything. This attitude changed after I moved to U.S.A. but still I did not change much in this regard) but I HEARD IT WAS SUCH A SCHOLARLY EXPOSITION THE USTAD WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE REMARKED I SHOULD BE THE ONE WHO SHOULD PROSTRATE IN RESPECT BEFORE YOU!)....

Sorry IF this post is disappoiting but I want to be true to what I remember. vkv

[knandago2001]

more on makaam
http://www.maqamworld.com/maqamat.html

[vasanthakokilam]

Thanks very much Nandagopal for the link. The description of the maqam is relatable at many levels with Raga, especially as described and practised in HM. Now it is understandable what you wrote when you first related Maqam to HM way of classifying ragas. I find these statements especially interesting in the context of this thread.

"The building blocks for maqamat are sets of 3, 4 or 5 notes, called trichords, tetrachords and pentachords, respectively. The Arabic word for these sets is jins (plural ajnas). The word jins means the gender, type or nature of something. In general each maqam is made up two main ajnas (sets) called lower and upper jins. These can be joined at the same note, at two adjacent notes, or can overlap each other."

"Instead of thinking of a maqam as a collection of 8 or more individual notes, it's often useful to think of it as a group of two or more ajnas (sets)." (this sounds pretty close to the purvanga and uttaranga based analysis of HM ragas )

"Each maqam includes rules that define its melodic development (or sayr in Arabic). These rules describe which notes should be emphasized, how often, and in what order."

"Each maqam includes rules that define the starting note (tonic, or qarar in Arabic), the ending note (or mustaqarr in Arabic), which in some cases is different to the tonic, and the dominant note (or ghammaz in Arabic). The dominant is the starting note of the second jins (in general the 5th, but sometimes the 4th or 3rd note), and serves as the pivot note during modulation."

It is no wonder that the Raga based music and the Maqam based music found themselves to be quite compatible. I have listened to an online music Radio station from Iran and the Iranian classical music they play is not that distinguishable in style from HM.

[gn.sn42]

It is no wonder that the Raga based music and the Maqam based music found themselves to be quite compatible. I have listened to an online music Radio station from Iran and the Iranian classical music they play is not that distinguishable in style from HM.

Do listen to the many samples on the website linked by knandago2001 - there are many interesting parallels. You could perhaps begin a new topic on maqams for further discussion.

[vasanthakokilam]

Yes, I was poking around there in that modulation section 4 minute audio link where they talk about how the various tetrachords are combined for various melodic effects as the musician does maqam-visthara

[gn.sn42]

Some good oud samples are at: http://www.mikeouds.com/music.html

Turkish classical music samples at: http://www.turkishmusic.org/index5.html

[Suji Ram]

more on makaam
http://www.maqamworld.com/maqamat.html

http://www.maqamworld.com/realaudio/cli ... ulwahab.rm

this clip from this site sounds like a familiar hindi film music

[rshankar]

Suji,

That clip evokes visions of a sinuous Vyjantimala undulating to the strains of a 'bIn' in nAgin....