My Recordings of Veena Dhanammal Versions

[RSR]

'bakthim dehi'-> @23->
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13399
Tunesmiths?
---------------------------------------------------
Kindly look for the following.
@2 by Sri.'VK'
@4 by Sri.Mohan
@6 by 'munirao'
@7 by Sri.VK' ....VERY CLEAR
@9 by rshankar
-------------------------------
Please! This particular thread is menat for info about ravsri's uploads of BM taught krithis.
May I suggest that rasikas 'for'/'against' re-tuning and 'authenticity', start a new thread as mentioned in the 'tunesmityhs?' thread?

[RSR]

@21-> Sir, Kindly note ...It is a quotation. You should say..as quoted by RSR in post.

[bhakthim dehi]

@RSR Thank you !!

[shankarank]

#27 -> That only works as good as the quote button on the right corner - how it works - and I highlight and quote using the quote button. I did not manually setup the quote. There is an Up arrow next to your handle in the quoted section - with which a reader can navigate back and look at the original post for full context!

[RSR]

@29-> I think, the quote mechanism here, is not always, suitable.
I would suggest that one can click the 'quote' button, and then remove the body altogether. ( ,,,,,,). It is not necessary to mention any name. but just post one's comment. Readers can connect with the context and comment easily.

By the way, you surely must have chanted SriSuktham in your boyhood, I surmise. I have heard in my school days, long back. and was hugely impressed, by the chant.
'jatha vedas'. Is it a reference to Agni?
May I have your opinion in the 'hiranmayeem lakshmim' thread, currently in focus?

[RSR]

@28->bhakthim dehi-> Thank you.

[SrinathK]

I have uploaded a song that is very popular. Everyone sings this song, everyone knows this song. But a different version, the Veena Dhanammal version this.

https://archive.org/details/SwaminathaP ... aDikshitar

I got hold of the SSP yesterday. This version of yours is almost the same as the SSP. I would have said almost ditto, but the biggest change from the book seems to be a mass replacement of R3 with G3, making it sound like gambhira nATa at many places. If you sang all those G3 with R3, it would perfectly follow the SSP.

[RaviSri]

I suppose you will remember that Dhanammal learnt her Dikshitar from Sathanur Panchanada Iyer, who was a disciple of Shuddha Maddhalam Tambiyappan, a senior disciple of Dikshitar. Therefore, I personally believe that the Dhanammal version of Dikshitar more authentically reflects Dikshitar than the SSP. Ragas like gambhIra nATTai are recent caricatures, therefore, I personally don't consider such ragas when I discuss the Trinity. The SSP is after all a book and can interpret Carnatic music only in a limited way, though it remains the most scientific and technical of all available notations. Even SD says at the end of many raga lakshanas that he has shown certain mUrchanAs and prayOgAs, the rest 'learn from a guru' (lakShyangaLirundu arindu kOlga).

[SrinathK]

True. When I started the raga threads, I wanted to look at the ragas which I did not know anything about, and I wanted to unearth the compositions lesser heard from the shisya paramparas of CM. I am now discovering far more than what I imagined. At least now we can archive them safely and maybe even popularize them on stage in the long run.

[bhakthim dehi]

Therefore, I personally believe that the Dhanammal version of Dikshitar more authentically reflects Dikshitar than the SSP.

Dhanammal descendants might have preserved the versions learnt by Dhanammal. This does not vitiate the authenticity of the versions given by Subbarama Deekshithar in his treatise. He does say subtle features are to be learnt from the lakshanam and that is true too. But those words cannot be applied to transposition of svaras or lack of usage of a particular svara.

If you sang all those G3 with R3, it would perfectly follow the SSP.

Yes, I too agree. But singing Nata with only G3 can only be called as Gambeeranata !! Nata must have R3 profusely and occasional presence or total lack of D3. This is the lakshanam followed throughout.

Thiruppampuram Natarajasundaram Pillai, a student of Sathanur Panchanatha Iyer has notated this kriti in his book. The version given here matches exactly with the version given in SSP. Gamaka symbols alone differ and that can attributed to the instrument style that they have learnt. There is R3 throughout !! How this can be accounted ?

This again shows the authenticity of Subbarama deekshithar and his versions !!

Certainly commenting the efficiency or authenticity of an astute Vidvan to highlight another vidvan is to be avoided.

[SrinathK]

Anyways, let these disagreements not become a source of friction at a time when we welcome that various traditionally preserved renditions are coming out. I guarantee that the more one digs into this (as I am going to do on the rAgAs thread), one is going to find a lot more of this.

This much I already found out when I was on a marathon session of listening to Thyagaraja kritis, which I downloaded from Sangeethapriya's tribute pages. I had 2 or 3 versions for every other one, sometimes one version was 2 kaLai and another was 1 kaLai, one was in Mishra chApu (and it will be the commonly known one), another will be in tisra tripuTa.

Even in Dikshitar, I have more than one version cropping up, and the rAgA isn't even different in some of them. In the case of swAminAtha paripAlaya, it is originally in chalanATa and so there are actually quite a lot of DNS phrases.

So now that we've come too far downstream for well over a century, I say preservation is now far more important. Well, I personally think Veena Dhanammal and parampara did quite a lot of gamaka development on the kritis and then preserved them as they had learnt from that point on - gamaka wise they were already at another level compared to the vidwans of that period (one only needs to hear the old gramaphone recordings to get an idea) or even when their version matches the SSP very closely, still the gamaka level is on another scale.

Like thyAgarAja pAlayAsu mAm or even Subburama Dikshitar's own composition kAntimateem in kalyANi for e.g. - it's almost exactly as per the text, but the level of gamaka is way beyond the books - it is in fact the highest amount of weight I've ever observed in any rendition by anybody including today's artistes. Well, it is only thanks to them that today we are rendering ragas with this level of intricate gamaka. But Veena Dhanammal did add an M2 in her paras jAvaLi too.

Brinda and Mukta however were very particular that not one sangati gets changed from the versions they had learnt and this I can observe down to the gamakas on multiple recordings. I have a huge collection of B-M and I intend to develop that thread further.

More on this when I look into the Academy journals, but that is for my next round.

Meanwhile, I am waiting for vAsudEvayani.

[SrinathK]

The prefix "chala" is added only to satisfy the rules of Katapayadhi. Nata is really a raga of great antiquity and it was called only as Nata throughout the history.

naTa seems to be over a thousand years old, having been mentioned in the earliest texts on rAgAs. Even older than that, it is mentioned in the tamizh paNNs, where one paNN called nATTapadai (spelling correct?) is equivalent to gambhira nATa. So that would push it back further to maybe even 2000 years ago. Who knows what history it must have had.

I wonder on a humorous note, if anyone gets the feeling that if rasikas.org keeps going like this, we might become a classical music text all to ourselves - imagine someone quoting links and discussions from here.

[SrinathK]

Also another thing, the Dhanammal school on at least one known occasion followed some ideas that were even older than the period where they learnt those compositions from. Taking that example of AndhAli : http://guruguha.org/wp/?p=166

[RaviSri]

I don't intend to argue anymore on lakshana. It seems to be futile. I'll just record whatever I have learnt. Below is a link to the Dhanammal version of Thyagaarajam Bhajeham, Neelambari. This is sung in 2 kalai Roopakam.


https://archive.org/details/Thyagarajam ... Neelambari

[bhakthim dehi]

Below is a link to the Dhanammal version

I have a suggestion. Let us allocate a separate thread for your recordings. Either we shall discuss separately in a different thread or you shall start a new thread with your recordings alone. It will be useful for us to search and listen to your uploads.

[RSR]

I second 'bhakthim dehi' suggestion. The forum is now discussing the late S.Rajam as a musician and painter. ..Here is a quote from the suleka article
-----

"One of the musicians he admired most in his youth was Smt. Veena Dhanammal (1867-1938) renowned for adherence to traditional values and profundity of music expression. He heard her in the latter years of her life. He spoke of her from his heart “It was Dhanammal’s music that haunted me in my early years. Dhanammal was Saraswati incarnate – she sang and played the veena alternately. I was fortunate to attend her Friday soirees some 40 times. I would sit very close to her ; and when she sang Akshayalinga vibho, she shed tears while doing niraval on the line ‘padarivana’. Shouldn’t we have the same intensity of feeling while performing? How can you be a real singer if you are not a rasika yourself?”

--------
'ravisri' learned from that TRADITION and feel that the version learned by them is the authentic version. ( granted , that 'gamakas' cannot be truly learned from notations, in book , even SSP, but only from a teacher). If the songs are posted in a separate thread by them in musicians section, and there are frequent and regular postings, it will not get drowned in the flood of topics in 'general discussion' .
---
Even better idea for the admin, is to create a separate section for 'DhnammaaL school' . All the recordings of B-M also can be placed there. for very serious students of CM .
Is it possible for creating, branches ( sub-menu) ?

[RasikasModerator2]

: bhaktim dehi said:
I have a suggestion. Let us allocate a separate thread for your recordings.

This thread is for that only !

I suggest that shifting or breaking threads will only tend to take the continuity and momentum out of a developing thread. Not to mention the visibility aspect - a thread like this has the promise of being very interesting, so let it run on. If all of you feel that debating historical lakshanas won't settle anything, then you may discuss lakshanas in ragas or in the Dhanammal legacy / Brinda Mukta threads (they already exist and the Dhanammal thread was made sticky years ago) or at a later time and use this thread to stay on discussing @RaviSri 's recordings. You may later copy the posts to other threads.

I would advise against spoiling the natural flow of a discussion, but at the same time just let it not get too far off topic. Threads that are well developed have the maximum views by far.

[RSR]

Found that there is no detailed biographical article on Subbarama Dikshithar . And a few had requested in that thread.
Here is a very detailed and fine blog on the topic.
https://sreenivasaraos.com/2015/06/14/music-of-india-a-brief-outline-part-twenty/
Sri Subbarama Dikshitar and Sangita –Sampradaya-Pradarshini
Any posts on this may kindly be made in the thread on Subbarama Dikshithar. ( unable to locate it quickly)
Mod may move it to the said thread. please.

[RaviSri]

Here is the much awaited (by SrinathK) 'vAsudEvayani' kalyANi. The original version.

https://archive.org/details/VasudevayaniKalyani

[MaheshS]

Here is the much awaited (by SrinathK) 'vAsudEvayani' kalyANi. The original version.

https://archive.org/details/VasudevayaniKalyani

This is astonishing. Who changed the tune to the one that people sing now?

[SrinathK]

Wow. This is fantastic. First thing in the morning and this comes up. This version is a revelation! Especially the way the anupallavi and charanam come back to the pallavi blows the current one right out of the water.

Keep them coming @RaviSri.
You also mentioned Sri mahA ganapatiravatu mAm long back.

@MaheshS It was GNB who changed the tune and that was how that 1940 recording was born and broke the box office. We had no idea for almost 80 years how it used to be before he popularized his version. GNB used to talk of the 20th century as the age of interpretation and it probably might not be off the mark to think of him interpreting the scene of calling vAsudEva from the gate loudly and so starting the song from mel Sa. The swarAkshara phrases in today's version at the charanam were also definitely his idea.

[Ranganayaki]

@Ranganayaki Wait and see, all these things will come out in the ragas section. I confess I am very surprised by the findings going back in time.

Yes, mOkshamu had D2, not the D1 that it has now. That's why Brinda-Mukta never sang it. Abheri had D1, which was why GNB never sang nagumOmu.

Nothing’s happened! I didn’t find anything in the ragas section.

What are your sources for this claim? Is this well-known? I’ve never heard of Saramati having a D2. And where is it recorded that this was the reason B-M never sang it?

[SrinathK]

Not Saramati, mOkshamu. I think it was on this forum itself.

We are developing the ragas thread. Wait till I get to S.

In the meantime do check out the other examples.

[parivadini]

He wanted it to sound like someone loudly called Vasudeva and that's how it changed. The swarAkshara phrases in today's version at the charanam were also his idea.

Dear SrinathK - There is no record that says GNB changed it for the reason stated by you. This interpretation came because of what I wrote in my book. I have clearly mentioned that this was only my guess and this should not be attributed to GNB. We don't know why he changed it.

It is widely believed that Musiri changed the tune of Nagumomu. In a recent conversation with SRJ sir, he mentioned that Musiri had merely recorded another version that was in vogue. He even regretted doing it and didn't realise that it was a tampered version and certainly didn't expect his record to become a huge hit.

Now I'm regretting publishing my "guess work" as part of the biography.

[rajeshnat]

He wanted it to sound like someone loudly called Vasudeva and that's how it changed. The swarAkshara phrases in today's version at the charanam were also his idea.

Dear SrinathK - There is no record that says GNB changed it for the reason stated by you. This interpretation came because of what I wrote in my book. I have clearly mentioned that this was only my guess and this should not be attributed to GNB. We don't know why he changed it.

There is this krithi meru samana .One sung by semmangudi srinivasa iyer and the other by MD Ramanathan . Both are poles apart in treatment even though glowing mayamalavagowlai is intense and intact . Are we excessively reading that GNB retuned , made it sound better , yada yada .I am assuming it is just the flair of two great musicians GNB (whom I adore) and veena dhanammal (whom I am yet to adore), as long as both is kalyani should we all worry about change of tempo etc as long as many like it . Your thoughts on this ravisri, not that I am taking a direct counter on you. More than vageyyakkara it is at times the vidwan/vidushi who brings a greater charm to the music.

Lalitharam
Tx for the clarification but in any case your clarification will never reach the critical mass of readers. But you have age and memory in your side you can conduct a lecdem on the faux pas that you did in your intense search of musician and history.