Bhakthi and CM - TMK replies

saramati · Post by **saramati** » 15 Jan 2009, 11:47

cool. the theorm above is a joy to read.

vainika · Post by **vainika** » 15 Jan 2009, 13:42

nick H wrote: (When I lived in Mylapore I was quite well known in the district, these days, I fear I am less recognised).

Nick, did this have anything to do with one-way streets being more abundant in Mylapore, perhaps?

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 15 Jan 2009, 17:03

I bet I couldn't lead CMLover the wrong way down a one-way street, even if I didn't use my nick name!

I might be able to get him on a wild goose chase, though, even if I couldn't distract him with a red herring

If you have no car then one has to use bus or auto.

If the auto drivers know you, then everybody knows you.

However, this does not apply to busdrivers.

My thinking is not trained and structured like CML's --- but I think I have just proved that TMK's bus passengers are just as anonymous as forum posters!

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 15 Jan 2009, 22:12

Vainika--all right, no anonymity--
Ramki. 'Relished' your analogy of the cutchEri and canteen fare!

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 15 Jan 2009, 22:19

CML, the savant, nice to picture you in robe with a gavel in hand...

Nick,
I am always amused by your Chennai tales--an ardent fan of your 'caw caws' too! Wish we had cups of chAi chAis when we were in town...

annamalai · Post by **annamalai** » 15 Jan 2009, 22:22

Nick H, Profound and mathematically rigorous theory that settles the issues on network anonymity !

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 15 Jan 2009, 22:42

I think it'll do to settle TMK's complaints, but I make no pretence that it is a perfect world: it does not answer Cool's experience --- but that is another story.

sampath77 · Post by **sampath77** » 16 Jan 2009, 07:14

annamalai

Although TMK wrote his Hindu article "with his own name", what he did not do is name pakkavadhyam artists that come late for concerts, name main artists that give victorious smiles at their accompanists and name main artists that pay accompanists poorly. So, he was indulging in cloaks and daggers. My point is that he cannot do that and also seek open disclosure. Hence I use the term "hypocrite". Hope it is all clear now.

Always_Evolving · Post by **Always_Evolving** » 16 Jan 2009, 08:54

There's so little substance in TMK's response that I am surprised this thread has run into 3 pages. Nick's absolutely right.

Try walking out on the street in Chennai and asking for Vijay or Arun! Even Nick...

I have been on a few internet communities and even on the ones which ensure non-anonymity (being mailing lists rather than bulletin boards) there is always a tendency to write rashly. I like the general rule of netiquette which is -- don't write what you wouldn't say in a regular conversation. But having said that, the rest of his trashing rasikas is unworthy of such a big discussion among us.

TMK could easily have settled the matter by posting here back then or now. He doesn't even point out what the supposed errors were in the newspaper report! But simply says that we should have emailed him to check! Weird.

What were the errors TMK and why should we have assumed the newspaper was erroneous?

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 16 Jan 2009, 10:21

I too am surprised at the serious dissection of an essentially insubstantial and superficial post by TMK.

sureshvv · Post by **sureshvv** » 16 Jan 2009, 10:22

kadambam wrote:It is unfortunate that this topic has been the 'talk of the season' as against Sowmya's tirade against V Subramaniam last season.

That is a highly unfortunate recollection of the events of last season. AFAIR, Sowmya merely countered with well backed up facts.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 16 Jan 2009, 14:05

True.

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 16 Jan 2009, 21:02

sampath wrote:Although TMK wrote his Hindu article "with his own name", what he did not do is name pakkavadhyam artists that come late for concerts, name main artists that give victorious smiles at their accompanists and name main artists that pay accompanists poorly. So, he was indulging in cloaks and daggers. My point is that he cannot do that and also seek open disclosure. Hence I use the term "hypocrite". Hope it is all clear now.

But these two are different kinds of namelessnesses. Here, if you don't feel what TMK has written is believable, you know whom to approach with questions, and after questioning, if you get a lot of "I don't know"s or "I won't say"s, you can forget about the whole thing ... and indeed, you will like TM Krishna less at the end of it: TMK trades away his "popularity quotient" for the freedom to talk.

But when the writer themselves are anonymous, they have nothing to lose, and can sling mud at anyone with no concern whatsoever for the consequences.

kadambam · Post by **kadambam** » 16 Jan 2009, 21:03

sureshvv wrote:
kadambam wrote:It is unfortunate that this topic has been the 'talk of the season' as against Sowmya's tirade against V Subramaniam last season.
That is a highly unfortunate recollection of the events of last season. AFAIR, Sowmya merely countered with well backed up facts.

My apologies. Yes what i meant was the other way.. V Subramaniam's tirade against Sowmya. Thanks for the correction.

annamalai · Post by **annamalai** » 16 Jan 2009, 22:21

Nick H and cmlover,

Has the ink in your pen dried after writing your Theorem

Sampath,

Looks like you are a victim of TMK's article. No need to ask me questions. Please consider writing a rejoinder in Hindu, with your questions and observations.

You may also include - There is a level playing field in terms of compensation for accompanying artists in all concerts. There is complete team spirit and camaraderie on and off-stage.

Bilahari, Not sure of those adjectives. Are the rest of the postings of writings, including yours are of such intellectual erudition and quality here ?

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 16 Jan 2009, 22:33

I am pretty sure TMK is reading every line of what we are writing here!
It is the innate quality called 'curiosity'.
...and he should remember that
curiosity killed the cat

annamalai · Post by **annamalai** » 16 Jan 2009, 22:42

cmlover,

My question is purely from the celebrated theorem point of view.
Do not know or care who reads and who does not.

MaheshS · Post by **MaheshS** » 16 Jan 2009, 23:07

cmlover wrote:I am pretty sure TMK is reading every line of what we are writing here!
It is the innate quality called 'curiosity'.
...and he should remember that
curiosity killed the cat

But satisfaction braught it back

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 16 Jan 2009, 23:47

annamalai wrote:Nick H and cmlover,

Has the ink in your pen dried after writing your Theorem

Just one more thing to say, or to echo, as it's been said, one way or another...

I think if TMK (although I barely know him as a musician, and not at all as an individual) was to join our forum he might find it to be an enjoyable experience. Anonymity or not, there is a certain thickness of skin required on the internet, but surely no more than that needed by a practitioner of any art reading the newspapers the day after their performance.

I'm sure he would be made welcome

sampath77 · Post by **sampath77** » 17 Jan 2009, 06:09

Srikanth1987-Ji

It is a pointless debate on the various types of namelessness and an assessment on which one is better shade of gray. That nuance is for people like you who wish to provide justification and defence. Whichever way you look at it, this is hypocrisy. If you are caught outside a wine bar, no point in the sheepish grin and a suggestion that you were there to buy milk!

In TMK's Hindu article no names were mentioned. So basically he has fired random bullets at all of his peers. When I am criticising TMK here at least I am criticising a named person (TMK).

annamalai-Ji

I am not a victim. And why should I consider writing a rejoinder in Hindu? I write it here.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 17 Jan 2009, 09:17

If I were in TMK's boots--
I wouldn't visit this Forum every day to ruin my day.
I would rather work on developing a thick skin to ward off criticism.
I would try to learn that half of the posts here would help me
The other half can languish in anonymity for all I care--
And yes, will hone my writing skills so that I spell out what I think
In a way that does not lead to a mammoth word-warfare...
And yes, I have my music to attend to and to lose myself in...

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 17 Jan 2009, 09:33

It is possible that he is doing one or more of the above already!
And knows (I echo Nick's words) that it is not a perfect world...

Always_Evolving · Post by **Always_Evolving** » 17 Jan 2009, 09:34

It is a pointless debate on the various types of namelessness and an assessment on which one is better shade of gray. That nuance is for people like you who wish to provide justification and defence.

This is really neither a shade of gray nor a split strand of hair. There is a difference between anonymous authorship and writing about certain negative practices without naming names. The latter simply means the practice is being critiqued in the hope of providing a wake-up call to those who who might be doing it. Indeed pointing fingers at individuals would just create controversy and rifts within the artist community -- which may not be his objective at all.

My beef with TMK is lack of substance in his latest Krishna uvacha piece, and refusal to engage directly with us on the issues. And his more-or-less dismissal of the rasikas-forum.

PUNARVASU · Post by **PUNARVASU** » 17 Jan 2009, 11:11

A_E wrote-'The latter simply means the practice is being critiqued in the hope of providing a wake-up call to those who who might be doing it. '

Probably following the dictum-'hate the crime, not the criminal'

mahesh3 · Post by **mahesh3** » 19 Jan 2009, 22:52

Folks,

I am quite shocked by the incessent bashing of TMK. All because he dared question some of the opinions on rasikas? I think the people at rasikas need to consider this before reacting the way they have in the other thread on TMK and Bhakthi. If you feel strongly abt bhakthi, then tolerance to other people's opionions is perhaps the first watchword. And clearly, some of the individuals on here found it hard to digest some of TMK's opinions. Thats fine, but railing, ranting and hateful words abt the individual on a continue basis gets old soon. That sort of response is what can be expected of "fanatics", and some of the moderators (members first, however u call them) on here clearly know how to fan the flames of "hate".

While this forum started off with the best of intentions, it is pretty obvious that it no longer can claim to truly be a constructive forum. It is going down the path of the erstwhile sangeetham, and I am not saying this in an ominous way. Some of the individuals masquerading as moderators and members first on here definitely have their own agenda, and are gossip prone. TMK comes across as arrogant, but I dont believe he is. He is quite open to suggestions abt his music, and I know this because I have definitely interacted with him in several instances. I am not saying we need not voice our opinions abt the man and his music, but the reams and reams of hate I am seeing here, and the threats, curses etc are just not in good taste.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 19 Jan 2009, 22:59

Mahesh, very well said.

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 19 Jan 2009, 23:04

I think people were most put off by the tone and of course that prompted knee-jerk reactions. Not to justify - but not entirely unexpected.

However, your blanket statement like "Some of the individuals masquerading as moderators and members first on here definitely have their own agenda" does NOT help. It is basically part of same mud slinging. It also ignores some of the responses which acknowledged many of the points TMK made. So, please - have the same tonic that you prescribe

Arun

mahesh3 · Post by **mahesh3** » 19 Jan 2009, 23:08

ArunK, I haven't used the word "mud slinging" have I?

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 19 Jan 2009, 23:12

did I say you used it? Please read my post again.

Arun

mahesh3 · Post by **mahesh3** » 19 Jan 2009, 23:27

Whateva

! Firstly, I only alluded to "some" of the moderators, not all. So, its not a blanket statement. Secondly, talking abt the behavior and attitude of some folks at rasikas is No, No, huh? Why?

Simple psychological denial, really works, Arun. If you turn on the television, you'll find the mothers of the most obvious criminals that man could ever diagnose, and they all think their sons are innocent. The reality is too painful to bear, so just distort it until it is bearable. And so it is on this forum. Hats off to TMK for atleast being honest and having the fortitude to say it. Mudslinging or whatever it is that u prefer to call, Arun.

bilahari · Post by **bilahari** » 19 Jan 2009, 23:42

The tone was not half as bad as the careless comments put forth by TMK. Now that people are mentioning Sowmya's response to VVS, I think hers is a good model to follow when addressing any form of criticism. It involves producing specific evidence for specific criticisms, explaining your counterargument, and using the evidence and your own argument to negate the opponent's argument. Basic argumentative writing. If TMK had been really irked enough by the preposterous thread, he should have taken the trouble to identify certain key arguments that he disagreed with and written a thoughtful, precise response (he did the exact opposite and waved off the whole forum as a bunch of naughty kids who need disciplining). THIS is the problem I (and probably several others) had with his "response."

Some people have ascribed his own kneejerk post to poor communication skills and lack of tact. Why couldn't the more vituperative posts in our forum (no worse than his ranting) be ascribed to the same and shrugged off? I am not willing to give either party the benefit of doubt here because when you CHOOSE to write a comment on this forum on on your website, you know what you come across as, you know what tone you're taking, you know what insinuations you're making. Your comments cannot be ignored or dismissed as they would be in an impromptu verbal interview, where you may veritably claim to have been caught off guard, or that the words came out wrong. The same is not true with a written post, because it is premeditated.

Of course some of the criticism of TMK has been excessive, especially with people claiming they'll never again attend his concerts just because he sang a Viribhoni main, etc. People with increasingly polarised beliefs are increasingly frequenting this forum. Yet not in any thread have I found impetuousness or sheer malice or mindless mudslinging the dominant theme. There are always many voices of reason, many people who are objective in their analyses, many people who know how to inject some lightheartedness into the dialogue when it gets too grim. Good sense always prevails finally and I have found every one of these discussions illuminating.

There may be plenty wrong with our forum (with myself as well), but there's plenty good about it still. Amidst all these preposterous conversations there are threads where rasikas of THIS malicious forum organise a get together and lecdem about teaching techniques in CM, headed by a notable member of THIS destructive forum. There are threads discussing the use of D3 in Hamsanadam. Threads discussing how we can contribute to the betterment of CM. Discussing what clicked and what didn't in the latest concerts. To ignore all the education and intelligent as well light-hearted conversation that this forum provides and to simply wave it off as TMK has done, is simply mistaken and misguided.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 20 Jan 2009, 00:09

bilahari
That is a very objective analysis. In fact this Forum is intended to be a constructive force and source in CM. While Freedom of Expression is our taaraka mantra we always make sure that no one is maligned and that our artistes are treated with respect. The Forum is not exactly moderated. We only watch for offensive languages, mischief-makers, spammers and personal or slanderous innuendos against our membership or artistes. Moderators have no special privileges nor do they come first (it is an unfortunate label surviving from a previous era

Of course no one but the poster is responsible for the views expressed or the veracity of his/her statements and we have no control over personal predilections!

arunk · Post by **arunk** » 20 Jan 2009, 00:22

mahesh3 wrote:Whateva ! Firstly, I only alluded to "some" of the moderators, not all. So, its not a blanket statement.

Sure it is - when you blame them for carrying unspecified agendas etc. It is a blanket statement even if you name "one" and don't provide details.

Secondly, talking abt the behavior and attitude of some folks at rasikas is No, No, huh? Why?

I did not say so.

Simple psychological denial, really works, Arun. If you turn on the television, you'll find the mothers of the most obvious criminals that man could ever diagnose, and they all think their sons are innocent. The reality is too painful to bear, so just distort it until it is bearable. And so it is on this forum. Hats off to TMK for atleast being honest and having the fortitude to say it. Mudslinging or whatever it is that u prefer to call, Arun.

My, my, aren't we being a pscho-analyst as well! Yes, TMK deserves credit for raising many of issues he has raised - this has been acknowledged on this forum. Yes some people have gone overboard against him on few threads - this has been pointed out as well. You pointing this out is appreciated as well. But then you are coming about spouting wisdom claiming that we, as a forum have had wool over our eyes etc. etc., we are in denial etc., and with connection to some agendas of moderators. And yes amongst the valid comments TMK made there were some uncharitable ones too. And many of the posts directly dealt with that part.

Yes, "At least he is being honest and speaks my mind" is better than someone who says something but thinks otherwise, but when that one speaks and seems opinionated, it isn't exactly a net positive. Not that TMK is one, but just because a jerk always speaks his mind doesn't make the jerk a better person.

Anyway, thanks for all the advice. My suggestion remains the same. Please read all the posts (this thread, other threads) again - that may perhaps help change your overall perspective.

Arun

mahesh3 · Post by **mahesh3** » 20 Jan 2009, 00:44

Thanks, Arun. Your post, saying that this has been acknowledged, so go back and read is very much along the lines of Bilahari's post as well. Repeated posts pretty much stating the same thing. If I were to be a psycho-analyst, I would definitely call this bias forced-influence by extra-vivid evidence. Great....it works just as well as simple psychological denial.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 20 Jan 2009, 00:55

Mahesh, I think there is more railing and ranting in your post than in the rest of this thread. I think you have been more unfair on your fellow members than any of us have been on TMK.

All this 'some' 'many' 'moderators' or 'few' stuff is just obfuscation.

A very un-useful post.

I think Bilahari's response says it all

mahesh3 · Post by **mahesh3** » 20 Jan 2009, 01:02

Nick, Thanks much for your opinion. I dont see why it is that I need to take the side of "fellow members" versus someone else. I am just stating fact since I did not quite accept the hate expressed on this thread...thats all.

As to the usefulness of my post, I am quite confident you are the right person to talk about "usefulness" of posts. So gracious...you are!

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 20 Jan 2009, 01:13

Hate.

I didn't see any. I would not have joined in if I did.

But... to quote the great commentator on World affairs, Bart Simpson,

Whatever...

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 20 Jan 2009, 01:21

Mahesh, I didn't want to get back into this thread but I think many of us have acknolwledged that TMK has several valid points. That doesn't sound like denial to me. It is only his dismissive/condescening attitude towards the forum that is a little hard to digest.

Sure, top ranking musicians may not find much that is useful (although I do believe an open mind will find at least some threads that throw up something new). But several of us, including me, have learnt a lot from it and enjoy the discussions here even if they do not always "add value". But berating the forum for the level of technical discussions is like a nobel laureate making fun of students discussing a high school problem! No one likes to be called an ass - not even a high school student. Furthermore, we have quite a few "profs" with us from the likes of whom, even senior musicians can learn something.

But I think what got to Arun and Bilahari was the suggestion that the moderators have some sort of an agenda against the artiste. I don't think that is fair at all. Sure, we've had some indignant responses by some mods/regular members to Krishna's article. Call it denial if you will, but there's no "fanning of hate" by the moderators. I think you need to make a distinction between the sensible voices on this forum (including the mods) which are merely disappointed with the negativity of TMK's tone and others (none of whom are mods) whose posts border on slander. However I think it would be a good idea for the mods to remove/edit some of the offensive posts that make unsubstantiated claims against the artiste.

I agree with you that TMK doesn't come across as arrogant in person - since I've already wasted enough words on that in the reviews thread, I will save my breath here! I think Krishna would do well to ponder over why he is attracting so much negative attention - this happened well before his article so it can't all be attributed to denial.

ragam-talam · Post by **ragam-talam** » 20 Jan 2009, 03:17

It's amazing how folks here get so uptight when their tail gets flogged. But they are quite comfortable going after an artiste - or don't raise any objections when they see others doing this.
And the mods who are supposed to rein in on offensive/insensitive posts take a hands-off approach in some cases such as this episode. While I have observed them jumping in for far lesser offenses here!
So some people can conclude that they do have hidden agendas etc.
Let them try and and prove otherwise.

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 20 Jan 2009, 06:05

bilahari wrote:If TMK had been really irked enough by the preposterous thread, he should have taken the trouble to identify certain key arguments that he disagreed with and written a thoughtful, precise response (he did the exact opposite and waved off the whole forum as a bunch of naughty kids who need disciplining). THIS is the problem I (and probably several others) had with his "response."

Well, I felt the same way after reading "Krishna uvacha". And I sent him an email saying this. I got a reply where he explained himself. He asked me not to share the contents with this forum. So maybe you too can send him an email.

But maybe I can tell you this: his email didn't entirely satisfy me, but explained enough for me to just wait and watch. It's like this: we shouldn't torture someone till their skin becomes thick, and then say they're now "insensitive" (and lack "shoranai"). It's very cruel!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 20 Jan 2009, 06:44

ragam-talam
Whenever you spot an 'offensive' post do bring it to our attention! But don't ask us to intrude on personal opinions (including yours

decently expressed.
How can we curb a member stating that he is outraged by the views of TMK and he will not attend any more of his concerts?
Since TMK has levelled 'anonymous' accusations against our membership we are running this thread for the members to respond on their own as a public service. The views expressed again (I repeat) are not the views of those of the owners or mods of this Forum. And we have no personal Agenda or axe to grind
Stop blaming the mods for any of your personal grouses!

I personally request srkris not to hastily close this thread just because some folks feel uncomfortable with the views expressed!

Always_Evolving · Post by **Always_Evolving** » 20 Jan 2009, 07:00

Whenever you spot an 'offensive' post do bring it to our attention!

CML, since you asked, Inconsequential's views on TMK's inability to provide satisfying music:
http://rasikas.org/forums/post104199.html#p104199 is very caustic

and this paragraph from tamizhkizchan is offensive:

TMK has chosen a path of self-destruction. He opens his mouth (literally!) and, apparently (per emails received by him), crap comes out. As Sampath77 rightly states, his hyprocrisy has truly reached new lows. I just wonder what fake IDs does he use to right on this forum

I have been hauled up on this forum for much less.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 20 Jan 2009, 07:40

Inconsequential admits to being harsh but he has been factual. I doubt whether his post qualifies to be dismissed.

On the other hand tamizhkizchen apears to have gone overboard. Those offending statements have been edited out.

Members kindly note personal innuendos are not tolearated.

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 20 Jan 2009, 11:13

Thanks CML sir - I think that effectively answers any questions about neutrality. I note that Tulip has also edited his/her post.

annamalai · Post by **annamalai** » 20 Jan 2009, 11:51

cmlover wrote:Inconsequential admits to being harsh but he has been factual. I doubt whether his post qualifies to be dismissed.

I do not know what is factual about Inconsequential's writing. It is his opinion. Everybody has an opinion.

What is factual is anonymous posters in this forum, which some of the rasikas forum members do not want to admit and are ganging up to defend that.

There is also an element of gossip and discussion not based on facts that prevails.

If the purpose is to throw mud on artists, it is easy - Inconsequential or bilahari - please name your artist, and it is possible to find some disgruntled rasika to write such negative adjectives also.

Most folks want to maintain decorum in a public space as a restraint.

Always_Evolving · Post by **Always_Evolving** » 20 Jan 2009, 12:48

annamalai wrote: I do not know what is factual about Inconsequential's writing. It is his opinion. Everybody has an opinion.

What is factual is anonymous posters in this forum, which some of the rasikas forum members do not want to admit and are ganging up to defend that.

There is also an element of gossip and discussion not based on facts that prevails.

If the purpose is to throw mud on artists, it is easy - Inconsequential or bilahari - please name your artist, and it is possible to find some disgruntled rasika to write such negative adjectives also.

Most folks want to maintain decorum in a public space as a restraint.

Annamalai:
1. I agree that with your first line -- inconsequential's writing is mainly subjective opinion. And this forum does not forbid people from voicing their opinions as long as they are not offensive.

Personally I felt that inconsequential's post sounded too angry and seemed to take the view that "if the artist's music is satisfying people will pay less attention to his loose talk". He goes on to scold TMK for his artistic weaknesses.

I don't necessarily agree with Incon's view. If we are asking TMK to debate us on the merit of arguments then we should return the favor. However, incons' second para -- about TMK casually dismissing his own mistake in Appaiya Dikshitar's name --- is quite valid and he makes a point.

2. There is no question of not wanting to "admit" anonymity! It's a fact of life! That topic has been extensively discussed. Using pseudonyms and "handles" is part of internet communities. I still feel that it is the issues that need to be debated. Of course I might be doubly careful if I were addressing someone known to be a great scholar or vidwan -- but that only proves we ought to accord everyone the same respect online as we would face-to-face. To me "annamalai" is as much an unknown as "inconsequential". I wish TMK had debated the points raised than lash out at the concept of anonymity.

3. Please don't accuse people like bilahari of mudslinging. He/she has shown a lot of objectivity. (BTW I don't know Bilahari from Adam or Eve or Krishna!)

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 20 Jan 2009, 13:02

Annamalai,
Yes! More of that kind (who want to maintain decorum in the forum), the better!
And let us not underestimate humor--not to make fun of individuals but to deflect rudeness.
Would be nice if we can steer away from posting in a mean fashion in haste; get more constructive in our criticism
and carry on as a dignified foum that we all ilke to belong to...

Purist · Post by **Purist** » 20 Jan 2009, 18:21

'Vinasha Kaale Vipareethe Budhi hi' goes a saying .
(Intellect goes wayward when self destruction is round the corner).

Wish TMK doesn't fall prey and concentrate on higher planes of his musical journey.

preposterous · Post by **preposterous** » 20 Jan 2009, 20:36

Purist wrote:'Vinasha Kaale Vipareethe Budhi hi' goes a saying .
(Intellect goes wayward when self destruction is round the corner).

Wish TMK doesn't fall prey and concentrate on higher planes of his musical journey.

When does 'Vinasha Kaale' begin? and in defence of Sri TMK:

As I was the original author of this post and having seen the various 'strong'/'bang' posts, I thought I would find about more about the person...

Checking his web site especailly the section on Interviews & Articles, I find that he has been consistent (I have not read all the articles) in talking about issues etc. No one can say that he is presenting his views only after he became popular or developed his USP to attract audience.

List of articles mentioned in his site:
Times Of India - 1st December, 2008 - Music Season Spl.
Article on TM Krishna by his cousin Anil Srinivasan
Culture in one's life - J Krishnamurthy Schools Journal - 3
Culture in one's life - J Krishnamurthy Schools Journal - 2
Culture in one's life - J Krishnamurthy Schools Journal - 1
India Today - December 17th, 2007 2
India Today - December 17th, 2007 1
The Hindu Sunday Magazine - December 16th, 2007 3
The Hindu Sunday Magazine - December 16th, 2007 2
The Hindu Sunday Magazine - December 16th, 2007 1
Windows and Aisles - Paramount Airways Magazine - December 2007 - Vol. 2
Deccan Sunday Herald - October 28th, 2007
The Hindu Friday Review - October 5th, 2007
India Today - September 17th, 2007 3
India Today - September 17th, 2007 2
India Today - September 17th, 2007 1
Simply Chennai - July 2007
India Today - March 19th, 2007
India Today - February 19th, 2007
The Hindu - Feedback - 2007
Sruti - An Article On My Guru - 2005
Asian Age - Interview - 2004
The Hindu - Metro Plus - April 14th, 2004
The Hindu - Friday Review - 29th October, 2004
Chennai Online Chat - 15th September, 2003
Madras Plus - July 24th, 2003
Sify.com - November, 2002
Madras Plus - March 28th, 2002
The Hindu - August 22nd, 2001
The Hindu - Folio - December 2000 1
The Hindu - Folio - December 2000 2
The Hindu - Folio - December 2000 3
The Hindu - Folio - December 2000 4
We Also Make Money - The Hindu
Indian Express - Sunday, July 25th, 1993
The Hindu - Friday, December 11th, 1998
The Hindu - Friday, November 22nd, 1996

I have given the link to the article 'We also make money' - http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/01/26/st ... 260708.htm, for the rest check his web site under, The Musician>Interviews & Articles

So it is evident that he has been presenting his views consistently over the last 10 years (keep in mind he was born only in 1976). His feedback article 'We also make money' in the Hindu was published in 2001 (when TMK was 25 years!). I am sure other artists feel the same way but don't say it openly even when they are much older...

I can only guess that other performers don't come from the same background to have financial security to articulate their views in the same way as Sri TMK does... some may be thanking him

Any way all this does not matter... Lets enjoy his music and wish him happy birthday on 22 Jan.

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 20 Jan 2009, 20:45

Inconsequential's comments are indeed OK. They may not be factual even, but they are pertinent and relate only to TMK's music.