OVK and Ravikiran Compositions - a new development

[munirao2001]

KVC Sir,

In musicology, two languages words usage is not correct. But, incorrect practice usage of Sanskrit and English is prevalent, inescapable for the ease of understanding.
For the English word, Tradition the nearest equivalent of Sanskrit words are 'Autkarsha', Supreme Excellence and 'Niravadya', Blemish less, Excellence. Other Sanskrit words which can be used in specific contexts are, Udgha and Sreshtathva.

munirao2001

[srkris]

What will be the Indian word for tradition?

There are several words, in some sense Sampradāya is also tradition. How about Ācāra?

[srkris]

I request the moderator to merge this thread with speculation and reality thread.

Done

[bhakthim dehi]

Thank you srkris

[munirao2001]

Srkris Sir,

Sampradaya, with its root in Sampath, is wealth of knowledge and practice, partaken with 'daya', love. Aachara, is following and treading/moving, in general. Yet another word commonly used is 'paramparya'. Paramparya is related to following and acting on values and deeds in the past in the present,in specific aspects. All of these are not related or co related to tradition, tradition in art form.
Observing and studying the usage and its deficiency, I have attempted to define the tradition, as related to art form in my article on 'Karnatic Music, Tradition and Enlightenment' and was published few years back. My posting on tradition is related to my article. Some of the popular practitioners have accepted it but it is yet to get the acceptance of musicologists.

munirao2001

[SrinathK]

Anyway, on the lines of the discussion, a treat for rasikas :

http://www.sangeethamshare.org/tvg/UPLO ... positions/

The Sri Rajagopala in Saveri with the N2 instead of the N3 is available here. But you need to listen carefully for it -- it is easiest to spot in the "D-N-D-P" phrase, but the gamaka on the N2 masks it's presence very well. It's all too easy for this raga transition to N3 and most listeners would barely spot it -- and that's probably what happened to Saveri.

[Suryasriram]

Anyway, on the lines of the discussion, a treat for rasikas :

http://www.sangeethamshare.org/tvg/UPLO ... positions/

The Sri Rajagopala in Saveri with the N2 instead of the N3 is available here. But you need to listen carefully for it -- it is easiest to spot in the "D-N-D-P" phrase, but the gamaka on the N2 masks it's presence very well. It's all too easy for this raga transition to N3 and most listeners would barely spot it -- and that's probably what happened to Saveri.

Truly the N2 is almost undetectable! But the violinist is full on N3... alapanai still going on though... so I will have to listen fully.

[SrinathK]

The Alapana actually uses the N3, except maybe in a couple of spots where the phrases are slow enough to allow the gamaka on the N2, would you believe it? It's the krithi that has the N2 through and through. The thing is that the nishadam in Saveri is not a jeeva swara where you can loiter long enough for it to establish it's own identity.

Which shows that while the old raga lakshanas still existed and were preserved in the krithis, it had made way for the more modern version of the raga everywhere else. But if this was indeed the way the N2 was handled in Saaveri, then it is all too easy for this raga to shift towards N3 especially with a more lakshya oriented temperament

The style of Brinda Mukta feels like looking through a time machine, almost.

[chitravina ravikiran]

Thought-provoking points made by many of you, taking this discussion forward. I am mainly sharing only a few observations (and not conclusions) at this stage.

The answer is very simple. All these changes can be attributed to the later musicians.

Not all but a lot of them! Observations clearly suggest that composers may have been aware of some ragas in a similar manner but in many other instances, they followed/created different versions. There is no evidence to suggest that T and MD originally had the same concept of Devakriya, Veeravasantam, Vegavahini and a number of other ragas. There is not a single version of Natimata marachitivo that is remotely connected with Shree guruguha or Challaga nato that is anywhere close to Veena pustaka dharini. There is glaring difference even between their versions of Hindolam my guru Brindamma explained and demonstrated in a class. How can we assert that all these are only latter day changes?

Thyagayyar has composed in ragas in both the mela systems. Examples include Vasanthabhairavi-Vakulabharanam, Karaharapriya-Sri, Kedaragola-Harikambhodhi, Navaneetham-Nabhomani. Though we didn't get to see other pairs, this very well indicate he is aware of both the systems.

He may very well have been aware of another mela system or he may have thought that ragas like Nabhomani were janyas of the Sampoorna melas with different sequences. There is no similarity between his Nabhomani and MD's. Even in Shree, T doesn't use PDNPM, as per almost all T's sishya parampara, whereas MD and SS did use it. How can this be credited to latter day artists.

As a student I was passionate to learn from high quality and authentic sources and respect the distinctions between composer's styles or even disciples' styles. Which is how I know two versions of Samaja varagaman, Mokshamu galada, Morabettite and many others. I have performed both in some of my concerts. I respect both but the obvious question is: Which one reflects the intent of the composer?

With all due respect to brilliant authors, it would be very dangerous to go place any more than contextual importance to manuscripts except to acknowledge that a given views or version was also prevalent at a given time in a given place. A holistic look clearly suggests that many alternate views/versions also co-existed intentionally or otherwise.

I never had the opportunity to examine the manuscripts of Umayalapuram Krishna Bhagavathar-Sundara bhagavathar ,Tillaisthanam Rama Iyengar or the direct disciples belonging to he Andhra schools. Hence I mentioned only about the Valajapet manuscripts.

Does this mean you have personally examined the Walajapet manuscripts of about 200-250? I have heard only about a much smaller number. It would be wonderful if you could kindly share details of where these are now.

I never said Walajapet disciples were only loyal and only their vesion is reliable. When we want to see the change that has happened, only if get the notation of direct disciple, it makes sense.[/quote}

Agreed but when the various direct disciples of T have been known to claim authenticity of their varying versions, an obvious question would one assess their degree of reliability with respect to the composer's intent? (As a composer, I have a different take on this but I am asking it from other perspectives.)

I hope this will prove that we have lost the original version of many songs of Thyagaraja svamy and the original version must have been similar with MD .

Thank you for the excellent examples of Takka, Malavashree, Anandabhairavi etc and I agree that we have lost original versions of many songs of not only T but also all the composers. But given my examples in this as well as earlier posts, it would be difficult to generalise about the similarity. Many composers have handled some ragas similarly, which is a testimony to the popularity of those ragas then.

There are versions of Jagadanandakaraka with dhaivatham. Similarly, MD krithis were all notated with dhaivatham in SSP indicating the mistake lies only with the musician.

I am aware of those versions! But the Q was about books vs common practice, speculation vs intent!

To bring it back on track, given the fluidity (or non-existence) of our notations/versions, we can never assert whether T or MD or OVK used certain notes/phrases in 100% of the cases. Most musicians (including me) have refined major parts of repertoire according to personal sense of aesthetics/grammar. As I have said often, changes are more difficult to effect (impose) upon varnams/songs with madhyamakala sections.

In OVK's case, I have shown hundreds of examples over the years which reflect his basic intent - even allowing for changes over time.

[chitravina ravikiran]

Saveri N2

N2 is never instead of N3.

My guru Brindamma asserted that it was occasionally used in Saveri when she taught me Telisenura (padam). I also follow her version of Shree rajagopala in some areas to reflect this. It would be instructive to hear her version of Daridapu as well.

Shri K V Srinivasa Iyengar's reference in Tyagaraja hrdayam (which I have seen) is only an acknowledgement of this. If Walajapet or other T's manuscripts specified this, it would be more conclusive.

[chitravina ravikiran]

I wondered for a very long time how much OVK's tunes have also been affected by the process of change that has affected all other composers in this system. I also confess that it was OVK's music that first opened my awareness to music beyond the time of the trinity. It's just that I keep seeing how ragas keep evolving -- less than a hundred years ago, Begada had phrases that aren't around today

Absolutely right about Begada. So also Athana and to a lesser extent Bilahari, Anandabhairavi and others. In Athana and AB even available audios show that the more obviously dramatic N3 and G3 usage have been trimmed down or eliminated in many schools (though Brindamma managed the incredible feat of being able to render these without making them sound gaudy or dramatic! In Begada, over 90% of available audios have much more of N3 than what is suggested in books.

Semmangudi sir once told me that Bilahari N2 was more an error that had become ratified over time. He demonstrated the same phrases with N3 (I have similar theories about numerous such cases in point).

As for OVK's tunes, I feel that they are probably less affected than any other composer of that era for reasons I have cited elsewhere.

[chitravina ravikiran]

no corroborative evidence of OVK contemporaneous with his life time or shortly thereafter exists

This statement may have been understandable in 1940s when many in the mainstream music world heard OVK's compositions for the first time. Since then, an ocean of water has flowed under the bridge and the overwhelming available internal evidence studied and shared have shown that he lived sometime shortly after Tulasidasa (or Bhadrachala Ramadasa). The Music Academy Journal of 1956 noted 1955 as the 190th Death Anniversary of OVK.

I have shared elsewhere about the personal communication I received from descendants of other families who spoke about OVK's connection to Bhaskara Raya. I have also shared similar communication from descendants of Paruttiyur Krishna Shastrigal (1815-1910) who have asserted that he was acknowledged as a scholar in OVK compositions.

There have been similar dissensions about the time period of numerous others including Sadashiva Brahmendra, Narayana Teertha and others which are being reconciled only through internal evidence. In OVK's case, luckily we have the descendants of his brother still available and his Family Tree (http://www.venkatakavi.org/ovk/home/family-tree.html) as well as other details like family deity being Devi have been shared by them.

[bhakthim dehi]

Not all but a lot of them!.

Yes. Not all are culpable.

There is no evidence to suggest that T and MD originally had the same concept of Devakriya, Veeravasantam, Vegavahini and a number of other ragas. There is not a single version of Natimata marachitivo that is remotely connected with Shree guruguha or Challaga nato that is anywhere close to Veena pustaka dharini.

Devakriya: This raga find its presence in Sangita Saramrta. Based on my null hypothesis that there is no difference in the handling of ragas, It can be very much assumed that Thyagaraja svamy was very much aware of Devakriya.
Natimata marachithivo: Many krithis of Thyagaraja Svamy were christened haphazardly based on mere similarity to the scales given in Sangraha Chudamani. This opinion is definitely not new, but many times voiced in many of the many past issues of MA journal. I personaaly analysed the version of this krithi given in the manuscripts (closely resembles the present prevalent version) with Sangraha Chudamani (SC) and Sangita Sarvartha Sara Sangraha (SSSS). There are subtle differences between the lakshana of Devakriya (janya of 20) In these books. However, in both the books the scale does not ascend beyond the Madhya sthayi dhaivatham and panchamam respectively. A kriti can be ascertained to a particular raga only if the krithi has the phrases allowed for that raga. When this prime criteria is not satisfied, there is no meaning to rank that krithi into the raga under query. So this krithi was wrongly named as Devakriya.
Vegavahini: The hypothesis applied to Devakriya can be very well applied here too. SC and SSS give the phrase dnd in this ragam. This phrase is totally absent in the version given in the manuscript. It is always pds in the ascent and sndp in the descent; cannot be called as Vegavahini; wrongly named.
Veeravasantham: The krithi E mani pogaduthura is not completely available in the manuscripts. I am unable to conclude anything out of that.
Again I repeat my conclusions(?) these compositions have undergone a quite a big amount of change in terms of raga structure.

Even in Shree, T doesn't use PDNPM, as per almost all T's sishya parampara, whereas MD and SS did use it. How can this be credited to latter day artists.

Dhaivatham in Sree is an alpa svaram. Using an alpasvaram is at the discretion of the composer. So this doent mean that he is unaware of the tradition or he wants to deviate from the tradition.

As a student I was passionate to learn from high quality and authentic sources and respect the distinctions between composer's styles or even disciples' styles. Which is how I know two versions of Samaja varagaman, Mokshamu galada, Morabettite and many others. I have performed both in some of my concerts. I respect both but the obvious question is: Which one reflects the intent of the composer?

I have a great reverence towards Smt.Brinda. I also strongly believe that she is one of the rarest of the musicians to render an unadulterated version of the krithis. Though her lineage can be traced back to one of the disciples of Tyagaraja Svamy, her version cannot taken for drawing conclusions in this discussion just for a single reason that the versions considered/ discussed here only belong to the direct disciples of the saint.

With all due respect to brilliant authors, it would be very dangerous to go place any more than contextual importance to manuscripts except to acknowledge that a given views or version was also prevalent at a given time in a given place. A holistic look clearly suggests that many alternate views/versions also co-existed intentionally or otherwise.

As I ve said earlier, this discusiion is not aimed to change the version of songs/ragas sung in this era. This is to show and make our ourselves to accept the fact that what we are rendering today is not always the version that the composers have sung and transmitted to the posterity.
Ragas had a much beautiful structure in the past. It is to bring back their glory atleast in the aspects of manodharma and to create a record for the future.
These multiple versions came into existence probably only 40-50 years after the demise of these composers, which I will prove with an example.
Pahi ramadhutha is given as Vasantha varali in the manuscripts of Veena Kuppaier. It is now rendered only in Shadvidhamargini.

Does this mean you have personally examined the Walajapet manuscripts of about 200-250? I have heard only about a much smaller number. It would be wonderful if you could kindly share details of where these are now.

Yes. I have personally examined the transcripts of these manuscripts. They are preserved at GOML, Chennai.

Agreed but when the various direct disciples of T have been known to claim authenticity of their varying versions, an obvious question would one assess their degree of reliability with respect to the composer's intent? (As a composer, I have a different take on this but I am asking it from other perspectives.)

Original version should been similar.
In this context I can cite an example. The versions of the krithi Madhilona in Kolahalam in these manuscripts and that of Umayalpuram Sri.Sundara Bhagavathar are similar. There are subtle changes but can be(ought to be) accepted as a basic disadvantage inherent of oral tradition.

But given my examples in this as well as earlier posts, it would be difficult to generalise about the similarity. Many composers have handled some ragas similarly, which is a testimony to the popularity of those ragas then.

If they have created another version it can be better called as a different ragam. We know that Shankarabaranam, Todi and other ragas in this league are treated similarly by Thyagaraja and Dikshithar. I have also tried to prove that the older ragas like Takka, Malavasri, Anandabhairavi were dealt in a similar fashion. As for as Thyagaraja svamy is concerned it is a fact that he was a follower of different lexicons. But, whatever lexicon he has followed, he stuck to the scale given there. In certain instances, he also created new scales.
Let me cite few more examples:
Balahamsa: srgmpmr, rmgr, dnp phrases are availbles in both their krithis. To my knowledge these are never seen in todays version. Rmgs , a characteristic phrase of the present Balahamsa is characteristically absent in both their krithis (version given in manuscripts and SSP respectively).
Saveri: Phrass like dnd, snsnd, pndp ar plenty in both their krithis. These are totally absent in todays version (Brindamma might have used).
Surati. The special phrases given in SSP for this ragam (not used nowadays; atleast I have not heard) like srgr, pdnd, pdp are plenty in both their krithis.
OVK krithis: I have not seen these kind of phrases in the Balahamsa or Surati of OVK krithis. They conform only with the present raga structure.
With the abovementioned examples, I ve tried to prove raga structure handled by Thyagarja Svamy and Dikshithar are same.
This should be taken not only as the music of Trinity, but also as the music representing their era. OVKs music (being a pre Trinity composer) must also follow the suit.
Rather, if I can extend my imagination, I can also say Trinity must have been inspired by OVK. But, at the face of present evidence it is only speculative.
My conclusion here is that we have lost the original tunes of OVK krithis.

There are versions of Jagadanandakaraka with dhaivatham. Similarly, MD krithis were all notated with dhaivatham in SSP indicating the mistake lies only with the musician.

I have listened to this version by the disciples of Thillaisthanam school; but not in concerts.
I have also heard Brindamma saying the reason for her not singing Mokshamu galada in the concerts is that she is the only single person using chatushruthi dhaivatham (I have heard this as an anecdote and not sure about the validity).
My point here, when a version does not become popular or when the number of persons singing aparticular version gets decreased, that particular version gradually disappears from the circulation. Then a real situation appears as out of reality, unauthentic and speculative!!!!

we can never assert whether T or MD or OVK used certain notes/phrases in 100% of the cases. Most musicians (including me) have refined major parts of repertoire according to personal sense of aesthetics/grammar. As I have said often, changes are more difficult to effect (impose) upon varnams/songs with madhyamakala sections.

Definitely yes. The ragam structure ina composition is much depended on the mood or bhava of the composer. But, majority of the phrases characteristic to a particular raga must be present in the composition. Also, he cannot use the phrase which does not belong to that particular raga. In the above mentioned examples, the composer has used two, three or many such phrases depending on the composition.
To make it simple, Thyagaraja Svamy and Dikshithar have not eschewed ga ad dha in the ascent of Surati; rather used the phrase rmgs in Balahamsa (as an example).
Of we understand the importance of preserving our tradition, older versions appear much more esthetic and we always there is no need need for refinement. Avaa padinatha paadinale porum nu tonum.

As for OVK's tunes, I feel that they are probably less affected than any other composer of that era for reasons I have cited elsewhere.

I feel OVK s music is affected more than any other composer. Its high time that we investigate and try to get the real tunes (if possible).

[bhakthim dehi]

If Walajapet or other T's manuscripts specified this, it would be more conclusive.

The manuscripts does not mention about the svarasthanams fo all the ragams; Saveri is one such example.

I have shared elsewhere about the personal communication I received from descendants of other families who spoke about OVK's connection to Bhaskara Raya. I have also shared similar communication from descendants of Paruttiyur Krishna Shastrigal (1815-1910) who have asserted that he was acknowledged as a scholar in OVK compositions.

Did you ask about the versions that they know or about any manuscrits in their possession.
Are they not actively involved in propagating the music OVK (as you said in your earlier post#37)?



Now I have a few queries:
1. what is your for OVKs krithis?
2. Have you examined the manuscripts personally?
3. Do we have the musical structure for all the available compositions?

I will be very happy if my doubts get clarified.

[bhakthim dehi]

It would be also of great use if you can say about the descendents and/or disciples of Sri Parutiyur Krishna Sastrigal and are their interest in preserving OVK krithis.

[chitravina ravikiran]

Thank you for your most informative posts. Please bear with my late replies amidst the flood relief efforts, travel etc. I agree with several points you have made. I partially agree with

We have lost original tunes of OVK

You have shown in your posts that this is true for any composer of that era. And OVK's works are certainly not insured against changes. Some part of his music has come down to us over the years and others may have got changed over time and many others lost (even according to his descendants).

Again your posts show how multiple karna paramparas of T, MD plus their handling by so many musicians/composers over time means exponentially more changes. It is moot who changed it and when. The fact is most are rendered as per raga structures known today, which is a far cry from what the structures were probably a few centuries ago. OVK's has seen less changes until recently. But as Needamangalam Krishnamurthy Bhagavatar himself used to concede, "not all of the sishya parampara were concert musicians. So parts of the grammar may have got diluted over time".

Even as more and more of us are handling it a lot of the pieces get rendered as per raga structures known today, like T, MD or any other composer including ragas like Balahamsa, Surati. I have heard so many versions of these ragas even in T krtis/padams etc including 'vishesha prayogams' like some you have listed.

I'd like to get to a few other points in greater detail, preferably after examining the Walajapet manuscripts with you (if it is fine by you, kindly email me your convenience.) But from your posts, we get the following picture:

• We don't have available notations/even raga scale/sequence for a majority of T or MD krtis. Same holds good for SS krtis whose manuscripts I have seen - only lyrics were preserved.

• Even the few we have are not much related to what is being heard - even in Walajapet schools.
  • • You contend that ragas like Devakriya have been wrongly named in T school because they don't conform to MD school. Isn't that stretching facts to suit opinions? It is important to note that Devakriya in MD is same scale as the popular Shuddhasaveri in which T and numerous others have composed several krtis (though MD has used a couple of other phrases.
      It is impossible to be certain that phrases were not used by composers like T and MD based on just one available manuscript of some compositions - most of which do not specify even the scale/sequence of the raga, especially when there is clear counter evidence from other sishya paramparas.
    
    
    • In MD's case, it is well known that few of his compositions conform to arohana/avarohana sequence through out even as per SSP notation.
    What do we make of that?
    
    In a scenario reliant on aural tradition, books are only ancillary. Which is why I have maintained that we can only speculate about a majority of things. Just as an example of the limitation of books/notating, Surati SRGR,has got refined (defined?) to SRMR. If it was notated as SRGR, it was an error more on the part of the transcriber which can easily be legitimised as acceptable grammar by an author over time. I can prove numerous such cases in live demos...

[bhakthim dehi]

I really appreciate your commitment to reply my queries despite your busy schedule.

Some part of his music has come down to us over the years and others may have got changed over time and many others lost (even according to his descendants).

It would of great academic value if you can please share your observations regarding the changes that have crept in.

I have heard so many versions of these ragas even in T krtis/padams etc including 'vishesha prayogams' like some you have listed.

As the original tunes were altered we get to hear so many versions. Vishesha prayogams give us a clue that they are the remnants of the yore.

OVK's has seen less changes until recently

I like to differ again.

'd like to get to a few other points in greater detail, preferably after examining the Walajapet manuscripts with you (if it is fine by you, kindly email me your convenience.)

Its my pleasure to discuss with you. Kindly check your mail.

We don't have available notations/even raga scale/sequence for a majority of T or MD krtis. Same holds good for SS krtis whose manuscripts I have seen - only lyrics were preserved.

To my knowledge, the musical structure of all the krithis of Tyagarajaswamy mentioned in the book by Sri. TS. Parthasarathy is available in the books like Krithimanimalai etc. Same with the Dikshithar krithis. what made you to come to this conclusion?

You contend that ragas like Devakriya have been wrongly named in T school because they don't conform to MD school. Isn't that stretching facts to suit opinions? It is important to note that Devakriya in MD is same scale as the popular Shuddhasaveri in which T and numerous others have composed several krtis (though MD has used a couple of other phrases.

It doesn't confirm to any school. I think my earlier post is not murky in this regard.
Natimata marachithivo is not in line either with the Devakriya given in the earlier treatises(so called Dikshithar school) nor with the Sangraha Chudamani.
Suddha Saveri: is an enigma to me and I will be forced to say a lot of other findings if I start on that. I don't want a digression here.

It is impossible to be certain that phrases were not used by composers like T and MD based on just one available manuscript of some compositions - most of which do not specify even the scale/sequence of the raga, especially when there is clear counter evidence from other sishya paramparas.

I can be certain about Valajapet manuscripts. The ragas which I have cited like Surati, Balahamsa, Saveri have more than 3-4 compositions notated in the manuscript. Only svarasthanas were not mentioned; not the ragas. In all these compositions, all the prayogas mentioned find its presence; number might vary.
I also gave an example (Kolahalam) wherein I tried to prove the earlier versions were similar. Manuscript from the direct disciples (if we get) will definitely prove my hypothesis.
There is no reason to exclaim for dissimilarity between the two sishya paramparas when we examine a later version.
In the case of OVK krithis, be it Kathaya kathaya or Parvai Ondre in Surati or Neela lohitha in Balahamsa, I am unable to trace the presence of any of the said prayogas. A composer must include (would have included)the key phrases atleast once in his compositions. This becomes much more evident when there is a single piece in that particular ragam ( eg Guruguhaadantyam of Dikshithar).

In MD's case, it is well known that few of his compositions conform to arohana/avarohana sequence through out even as per SSP notation. [/list] What do we make of that?

Is it wrong to follow the scale?
I always amuse the presence of arohanam and avarohanam in a book like SSP. But, not even in a single place Sri. Subbarama Dikshithar violated the lakshanams given in the earlier treatises. I will cite Chaayatarangini as an example. He gave a straight srgmpdn and sndpmgr as arohana-avarohana. But a straight forward phrase like is never found in the krithi Sarasvathi Chaayatarangini. What he meant probably was that the phrases srgm, pdns are available. So we find phrases like pmgmpdns, npdns etc. (Even Thyagarasvamy krithis notated in the manuscript has the phrases srgm and pdns). But, pns and srm are the only phrases in vogue now.
So irrespective of the karma, they have followed only the lakshanas given in the older treatises.

Just as an example of the limitation of books/notating, Surati SRGR,has got refined (defined?) to SRMR. If it was notated as SRGR, it was an error more on the part of the transcriber which can easily be legitimised as acceptable grammar by an author over time.

In a ragam ike Darbar we can cite this as a limitation as the vocal sound does not confirm wwith the svarams sung. But here, I don't think so.
In Surati, ga is sandharana in nature and it cannot be notated as rmr or viceversa. Moreover this prayogam is clearly seen in the krithis of Dikshithar.
So a real phrase once is speculated now as an illegitimate phrase.

Now I have a few queries:
1. what is your for OVKs krithis?
2. Have you examined the manuscripts personally?
3. Do we have the musical structure for all the available compositions?

I will be very happy if my doubts get clarified.

[MaheshS]

There are two threads about OVK that are worth reading before we go thro the same issues again and again,

Oothukkadu Venkata kavi - a pre trinity composer?
and
Value of OVK's contributions

[SrinathK]

Except you know, Raga Andhali. Now that changed from G2 to G3 by the time the SSP was written.

[chitravina ravikiran]

Thank you very much for your email. I will call you at the earliest to go over the manuscripts and discuss other clarifications you have sought. For now, just a couple of points.

In Surati, ga is sandharana in nature and it cannot be notated as rmr or viceversa. Moreover this prayogam is clearly seen in the krithis of Dikshithar.

Surati Ga is antara, not sadharana.

Limitations or variations/mistakes of notation: Any musician/guru knows only too well that even in a class of 5 students, each of them could end up interpreting what they are taught in different ways.

Living composers like Tanjavur Shankara Iyer have confided in me how their songs have undergone sharp deviations from what they intended (sometimes positively).

Which is why, in very broad terms, a true traditionalist would find it hard to subscribe to frozen traditions (a point made by numerous legends over time.)

Except you know, Raga Andhali. Now that changed from G2 to G3 by the time the SSP was written.

That is more in my guru Brindamma's school, I think. Most theory books mention it as 28 janyam with G3. But Brindamma was of course vociforously against pre-occupation with 'theery'

While on the subject, several other ragas like Saraswatimanohari of MD vary sharply from T's versions. Which leads to one possible conclusion - composers handled at least some ragas quite differently and a few similarly.

The danger I am talking about is in trying to retro-fit opinions to facts with respect to composers' handling, when we do not have ANY thing in the composers' own hands to go by, unlike Western scenario where original notations of Bach/Mozart are available and difficult to change. Inevitably, changes are the norm in our tradition. As long as they are evolutionary refinements based on inner musical compulsions, after mastery over tradition and sensitivity and integrity, rather than sensationalism for personal gains, one has not much cause for complaint.

My personal leaning has tended towards 'loyalty to the raga - as we have it today from great masters over time including gurus'. "What it used to be before", "what it could have been in which school" are all wonderful pieces of interesting information that we respect to study timelines of various traditions.

[munirao2001]

My personal leaning has tended towards 'loyalty to the raga - as we have it today from great masters over time including gurus'.

CNR Sir, Is not the ideal is of " Loyalty to the raga/passion, its rasothpathi, its rasanubhuti in conformance to the lakshya and lakshana of art form" deriving and delivery of pleasure/bliss and its partaking with rasikas? All the great maestros contributed the deviations and variations, both in lakshya and lakshanam aspects, with their imagination and creativity, also their limitations. To establish the deviations and variations, they justified them as in line with tradition and in respect of the tradition. To end the contradictions and confusions, I have realized that Excellence, with no second, is the ideal and truly enabling creativity of rasa of raga and its delivery of rasanubhuti. To establish excellence, with no second, documentation is needed with experts panel, contributing.

munirao2001

[bhakthim dehi]

Surati Ga is antara, not sadharana.

Yes. I know it takes antara gandharam and is placed under harikamabhodhi melam.
I feel you are much contented (obsessed!) with the present way of addressing ragas to forget (probably overlook) their past glory.
Presently, to my knowledge, rgr is not at all used in Surati. Then why did I mention?
The answer is rgr was used in tara sthayi and its position there is sadharana!!. Now every other related comments in my previous post should make sense.

Limitations or variations/mistakes of notation: Any musician/guru knows only too well that even in a class of 5 students, each of them could end up interpreting what they are taught in different ways.

I too agree they have their own limitations. No one can equal a sincere and dedicated guru. But when we want to study the changes, its essential to look only those notations given by great Vidvans of the past.
I said Vidvans and I meant what I said. It implies they are capable of listening and notating what ever they have heard from their master with utmost care. The practice of writing notation itself indicates that their intention was to preserve their (his) Guru's krithis for posterity.
We might not be talented enough to read their notation. Hence, Its always better not to impose our limitations on them.

Inevitably, changes are the norm in our tradition. As long as they are evolutionary refinements based on inner musical compulsions, after mastery over tradition and sensitivity and integrity, rather than sensationalism for personal gains, one has not much cause for complaint.

There is need of lakshana then. What appears esthetic to us might not be for the next generation. They can very well introduce prati madhyamam in Surati or can sing Gitarthamu in Hameer and call it as an evolution.

My personal leaning has tended towards 'loyalty to the raga - as we have it today from great masters over time including gurus'. "What it used to be before", "what it could have been in which school" are all wonderful pieces of interesting information that we respect to study timelines of various traditions.

I really appreciate you for the interest shown by you in trying to preserve the raga structure as it is now. But this attitude was not shown by some (or many?) musicians of the past and certainly history repeats in the future. Hence, at least to have a record, we must do research, analyse and bring back those lost changes (atleast in theory). So, in the future, practicing musicians like you who wants to takes care in preserving the tradition will take that as a guide and prevent downfall of our tradition (can I use this word?) which can otherwise happen.

Before reciting Vedam or Prabandam, even now it is a practise to say Lakshminatha samarambaam or Sadashiva samarambaam; not only the taniyan of our direct guru. This kind of respect must be shown to the direct disciples of the Trinity too as we can equate them with Yaamuna or shankaraacharya in our musical tradition.

[SrinathK]

While I don't think what was lost in the dark ages may ever be found back unless someone gained trikala - gnyana, I'd say that the present information age with the ability to record and archive anything and anywhere and discuss it out loud will stabilize the current form of our music. The list of available compositions however, will continue to grow to ever more gargantuan levels (I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all lest I be misunderstood) as more ancient composers are discovered and newer composers come to light.

I'd say however that it will become more and more difficult for newer / newly discovered composers and compositions (or it may take it's own time) to become as well known as the older ones as the current Carnatic repertoire itself is massively vast.

Maybe extinct ragas could even be reinvented as new ragas someday.

But at the end of the day, a thorough understanding of the evolution of our raga system to the current scale-derived 72 melakarta and the consequences of adopting such a system and how it has subtly influenced our choice of phrases and swaras in the ragas we use today -- is very important information for everyone to know.

[bhakthim dehi]

I like to give an update to fellow forumites regarding this topic.

I like to thank Sri. Ravikiran for not only inviting me to have a discussion in person on this topic, but also for sharing the valuable manuscripts in his possession. He was instrumental in me reviving this thread again.

The manuscripts in his possession were procured by him from the family of late Sri. Needamangalam Krishnamurthy Bhagavathar (NKB), an authority in the compositions of Venkatasubbaier. So the authenticity of manuscripts need not be proved.

As a preliminary report I like to mention about two ragas, Bilahari and Reethigowlai. The krithis in NKB mss will be compared with the Dikshithar and Tyagaraja Svamy krithis belonging to the sources which I was discussing in the past.

Bilahari: I was able to get 3 krithis: Santhatham aham - first avarana krithi in the set of Kamakshi Navavaranam, Nindringu unnarul and Vandaduvum ponadhuvum. The archaic phrases srgdp, rgmgr, dns, sgs were found in these krithis. These phrases also seem to be present in a Tana varnam of Sonti Venkatasubbaiya, krithis of Dikshithar and Thyagaraja Svamigal. I doubt whether are we hearing these phrases in the present era.

Reethigowlai: This is one another interesting ragam to study. Brundavana nilaye is the only kruthi I was able to get from NKB mss. The krithi itself starts with snnp in the mandhara sthayi and the second sangathi with npns. there are plenty of mandra sancharams in the pallavi. This very well contrasts to the present version (atleast the version which I have heard). Usually, the older versions tend to have copious mandra prayogams is my observation. Apart from this, phrases like srgm, pdm, sndns (Madhya sthayi), pdnndm were all found. These again find its presence in the gitam given in Pradarshini, Dikshithar and Svamy's kritis.

So with the available evidences, we can conclude (?) that the original tune of the compositions of our composers have been changed (partly or completely), either knowingly or unknowingly by some of our musicians of yesteryear.

Now, it is up to an individual to take this or not.

[SrinathK]

Are these manuscripts are being digitized and archived online?

At the very least it proves that OVK also followed the prevailing tradition of the times. Which makes the Sangraha Chudamani stand as the odd book out.

We might as well dump the concept of "tradition" in CM now and pray to God that the old versions of our ragas be at least rediscovered as new ones ... -- and it makes you wonder, has CM only stabilized today in it's current form because of the progressively easier availability of information since the 20th century?

If yes, then the concept of tradition in CM is a very modern thing.

[bhakthim dehi]

Sangraha chudamani is not alone. They are a constellation of books with similar contents. Sangita Sara sangrahamu, Raga lakshana by an unknown author with origins from Andhra and Mahabharata chudamani in tamizh (to some extent) fall under this category. I place them together only with respect to the raga lakshanas.

[Sivaramakrishnan]

The most scholarly debate I have ever come across in rasikas! Seems a few more issues remain to be sorted out. Perhaps the titans are waiting for the 'season' to close!

Thanks Sri Ravikiran and bhakthim dehi.

[Suryasriram]

Would like to ask Sri Ravikiran sir a question:

The Saptaratna Kritis as notated by yourself in your book, are slightly different in a few kritis like Bhajanamrta, Balasaramurali and Madhava Hrdi Khelini, and vastly different in the others viz. Aganita Mahima, Alavadennalo, and Jatadhara Shankara, when compared to the notations published by the disciples of Sri Needamangalam Krishnamurthy Bhagavatar, in Sri Krishna Ganam. (Since I have not learnt Sundara Nandakumara, I do not know about its notations. And I understand the two extra charanams in Jatadhara Shankara were recently discovered and published.)

So, why is there such a lot of difference among the swaras of these kritis?

P.S. I am in no way pointing fingers on anybody, it is just a huge query which I had when I learnt the kritis, which was difficult since the notations in both books didn't tally.

Um.. I think during the merging of the two threads, this question was somehow missed, hence quoting it here, so that someone could clarify it for me.