need some very basic help
kvcs...@gmail.com
but i would love to have some pointers as to 'how to locate the Sa in
a song ?'.
also, once we locate the 'Sa', how do we go on to identify the
remaining notes in the song ? isn't it possible that some of the notes
have the same freq. ratio with respect to 'Sa' ? for example, higher
Ra and lower Ma etc.
i'm not expecting new detailed answers and just links to past posts
will also be appreciated.
UVR
At the outset, I would like to state that this does not purport to
be a scholarly or expert treatise on the topic of locating the 'sa'
in a song. I do not think I possess enough musical knowledge
for that.
That said, I think I find that in most songs (certainly upwards of
90% of all songs I have ever heard) there is a strong suggestion
of the base 'sa' either by way of a continuous drone (strings,
bass guitar, ...) etc playing at the beginning or during a majority
of the song, or by way of the song's "resting place" giving an
indication of the 'sa.' This is true not only for old and/or
classical
songs such as 'manamohanaa ba.De jhooThe' [Seema] (has a
tanpura drone), and 'saawan kaa maheenaa' [Milan] (drone PLUS
resting place), but also of new songs such as 'dam dara dam ...
tere binaa' [Guru] (bass) or 'Rock 'n' roll soniye' [KANK] (bass,
strings, vocal chorus, whatnot, throughout the song]. There are
very few songs where a strong suggestion of the base 'sa' is not
available. IMO, most singers cannot start off a song in sur
unless they are given a hint of the 'sa' somehow at the beginning,
and some can't hold sur unless they have constant support.
For finding out the "other" notes used in a song, one just
uses the base 'sa' one has determined. If one has a strong
mental grip on the frequencies of the various notes relative
to the base 'sa', one can just do it by ear. Otherwise, you
can use the help of an instrument like a harmonium or a
keyboard, a fretted string instrument tuned to the base 'sa',
a flute whose base note is your 'sa', etc.
The above is not to say that sometimes the same song can
not be resolved to different 'sa'-s by different people. In my
experience, this typically happen (say) when the song is
"weighted" somewhat equally about the sa and shuddha ma
or sa and pa (same difference). This is probably what you
meant in your post when you referred to "higher Ra and
lower Ma". What is a 'higher Ra'? Did you mean 'Pa'?
I have a friend, for example, who disagrees with my opinion
that the Mehdi Hassan Ghazal "kaise chhupaaooN raaz-e-
Gham" is set to pilu but thinks it uses notes from charukeshi.
Another acquaintance once told me that he 'instinctively'
places the "sa" for Ghulam Ali's "faasle aise bhi hoNge yeh
kabhi sochaa na thaa" at the "chaa" (of 'sochaa'). Whereas,
from the sargam Ghulam Ali sings in one rendition, it is
obvious that it's placed at "faa" (of 'faasle').
-UVR.
gopal
Hi-
I initially learnt to find the sa in a song by parsing for the sa-ga-
pa pattern in the tune. I learnt to do this by trial and error - "if
this is the Sa, then can I hear the ga and pa relative to this?.." A
couple of iterations ought to be enough, and with practice, I find
this happens automatically, without conscious thought. Once you have
the Sa, relating the other notes follows naturally.
I agree that the Sa shruti dominates the tune and/or background score
in most Indian styles, including the film genre. I am unable to think
of any scale that excludes both these notes, though many exclude one
or the other. Eg., Madhyamavati raga excludes Ga, Hamsanandhi excludes
Pa (both are carnatic ragas).
Hope this helps.
Gopal
nac_da...@yahoo.co.in
> but i would love to have some pointers as to 'how to locate the Sa in
> a song ?'.
>
sense if you try it out on instrument of your choice.
=========================
How to recognize Sa in a song? There is a large element of intuition
and as large an element of music training and playing/singing. There
is no step-wise procedure for clearly resolving this. I am taking the
liberty of making the question slightly more inclusive by turning it
into "How to recognize scale of the song..."
I will try to address this based on my experience as I was challenged
by this question a lot in the past. When I asked the experts they did
not understand it. They would say why, that is as plain as a nose on
your face. To make clear my explanation, I will take an example of a
song Pal pal dil ke paas....
The first step of course is to identify notes in the songs. When
figuring out the scales the music that goes on behind the vocals
(counter melodies/Contras) is not a good sample space as it will
almost always mislead, and so would the interludes/preludes.
Most of us are not gifted the perfect pitch playing the song on the
instrument is a best way to analyze the song.
In Pal pal dil ke paas, in mukhada/sideline the notes are:
F G A flat CC B flat B flat B flat C B flat
FFF GG A flat A flat G A flat
The simplest way to recognize the Sa is, very often sidelines or the
stanzas end on the tonic. (that is Sa in the scale). Here we clearly
see the sideline ending on Aflat. Hai apana dil to aawaaraa a song in
F major, ends the sideline on F. That is suggestive but not 100%
foolproof as quite a few songs are not so obliging
The next clue is the shape of the notes. What scales they fit. Notes
used very frequently in this song are: A flat, E flat, B flat, D flat,
C, F, G. Notes occurring infrequently need to be ignored as they are
accidental notes used by composer to create variety in the song.
The scales that have mapping with the note in the song are:
A flat major: A flat, B flat, C, D flat, E flat, F, G, A flat.
A flat minor: A flat, B flat, C flat, D flat, E flat, F flat, G, A
flat
(C flat == B and F flat == E)
F minor: F, G, A flat, B flat, C, D flat, E,F
Is it F minor or A flat major? (A flat minor being ruled out because
of absence of C and F in the scale which are used liberally in the
song.)
The important difference between F minor and A flat Major is E natural
in former and E flat in the latter. The song has profusion of E
flats. So it is very likely to be A flat.
Now we try another gimmick. While playing the song with the right hand
hold down A flat in the lower octave with left hand. If this does not
create disharmony then we are almost sure that the scale is A flat
major.
If one can play chords on keyboard or guitar, we can have a further
confirmation of the scale. On guitar play Bossa Nova with A flat major
alone for this song. It would of course be better to follow the song
with appropriate chords. Or on a keyboard select any string patch and
hold down A flat major with left hand and play song with right hand.
In this particular song this will give a profound sense of having put
the finger on the spot. That is the acid test.
I had said in the beginning that there is no step-wise procedure
(AFAIK) for resolving the scale and what I have written so far seems
to be very step wise. To just indicate the uncertainties involved in
the whole process I am taking this a bit further.
Since the scale is A flat major, the I, IV and V chords are A flat
major, D flat major and E flat 7th. So you would expect these chords
suitable for the song.
However the chords mostly used in song are F minor, B flat minor and A
flat major. The first two outweighing the tonic chord. What are F
minor and B flat minor chords doing in this song when F minor is ruled
out as a scale? And why the minor chords in a major scale? The answer
is these chords belong to the A flat's *relative scale* of F minor.
The composer has made this song interesting by doing this 'monkey
business' (that is written in awe and admiration). And hence without
understanding what is happening under the bonnet the songs sticks in
our minds and memories as a 'different' song.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
Sunil
kvcs...@gmail.com
yes, u r right. i meant "Pa". however, i misspelt my question. my main
question was, at least in carnatic music, there are instances where
two notes have similar freq. relative to 'Sa'. i mean, in carnatic,
the 2nd Rishabh and 1st Gandhara, or 2nd Dhaivat and 1st Nishad, are
the same relative to 'Sa'.
so, are these differentiated roughly based on the raga ?
also, just as an example, could u help me taking a particular song as
an example ? how about kishore kumar's "koi humdum na rahaa, koi
saharaa na raha" from "jhumroo" ?
UVR
>
> yes, u r right. i meant "Pa". however, i misspelt my question. my main
> question was, at least in carnatic music, there are instances where
> two notes have similar freq. relative to 'Sa'. i mean, in carnatic,
> the 2nd Rishabh and 1st Gandhara, or 2nd Dhaivat and 1st Nishad, are
> the same relative to 'Sa'.
>
That question (whether a note a note be called ri2 or ga1,
dha3 or ni2) is purely a question of theory. Furthermore,
it is specific ONLY to Carnatic music [Hindustani doesn't
use multiple names for the same 'note']. But none of this
is directly relevant to RMIM, so I'll refrain from addressing
this question here. You and I can discuss this particular
issue on RMIC. If you'd like to do that, please (cross)post
this question to RMIC. If you prefer to go over it on email,
you may contact me at u dot v dot ravindra at gmail ...
> so, are these differentiated roughly based on the raga ?
Short answer: Yes and no. :)
> also, just as an example, could u help me taking a particular song as
> an example ? how about kishore kumar's "koi humdum na rahaa, koi
> saharaa na raha" from "jhumroo" ?
Hmm, ok. I'm assuming you're referring to locating the 'sa' of the
song. There are quite a few ways to skin this cat.
(1) The 'initial drone' method: the song seems to start with prelude
music which has a double bass playing the "sa - pa - sa - pa"
chords rhythmically in the background. There is a strings piece
with the 'sa' being played subliminally.
(2) The 'resting place' method: each 'section' of the song ends at
the 'sa' -- the 'haa' of every terminal 'na rahaa' is 'sa' (sahaaraa
na
ra*haa*, hamaaraa na ra*haa*, taaraa na ra*haa*, tumhaaraa na
ra*haa*, ...). In addition, the 'sympathetic chords' that accompany
Kishore's voice and the interlude music all suggest the 'sa'.
(3) Gopal's "sa ga pa" method: There's a xylophone that ends the
instrument-only prelude piece with the trademark "Sa Ga Pa Sa"
flurry. Then the vocals start with multiple "e hey hey hey" phrases
all starting at 'sa'.
(I am not familiar with the "A-B-C"s of western music; hopefully
Mr. Dandekar will supply the necessary knowhow from that angle).
To start with, it may be necessary to take under advisement
the output from more than one method of analysis in order to
properly locate the 'sa'. With practice, however, (for that's what
this takes -- lots of practice), you will be able to graduate to a
level where you can intuitively lock-on to the 'sa' without having
to sit down and analyze the entire song.
-UVR.
kvcs...@gmail.com
Hi UVR, thanks a lot for the detailed reply. my thanks in the earlier
post got deleted during editing. your explanation proved very helpful.
i forgot that while learning music, how i always carry the drone
instrument with me, and set it to my 'Sa'.
regarding the matching relative freq. of different notes in carnatic
music, i think i'll post it on RMIC as probably more people will
provide their inputs.
ur breakdown of "koi hamdam na rahaa" proved helpful. i was fascinated
by how urself, chetan, surajit a.bose, sanjeev ramabhadran, rajan
parrikar etc. used to break down songs into their melodic patterns,
like "S R g M P D n" etc.
i wanted to know how it could be done.
thanks again.
kvcs...@gmail.com
hi Gopal, actually i think this is the easier method for a beginner to
learn. i tried this method for the song "apane jiivan kii ulajhan ko
kaise main sulajhaauun". i put the 'Sa' roughly on "..jhan ko..." as
in -
apa ne -- jii va na kii u la jhan ko --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Sa Sa --
i think the Ga goes on "jii va na kii" etc. i could try this on more
songs.
kvcs...@gmail.com
hi Gopal, actually i think this is the easier method for a beginner to
kvcs...@gmail.com
Hi Sunil, i really appreciate your detailed response. sad to say, i
have no introduction at all to western music. i have a hard time
relating the octave in ICM to that in western classical music. i think
it's mainly bcos, in ICM, the tonic can be placed whereever the singer
finds it comfortable, unlike in WCM. at least, that's what i assume
about WCM. pls correct me if i'm wrong.
thx.
Sunil Dandekar
>
> - Show quoted text -
The difference is only in notation style. The fundamentals are the
same. Using ICM notation someone would say my sa for this song is Kali
ek. Someone using the western notation would say the same thing in
different words viz I am playing the song in C# scale.
There are plenty of sites which give the keyboard mapping to the notes
of western scale.
In my opinion the western notation method is very unambiguous and
hence better. Each note has a unique name and all the possible
combinations from the 12 notes are uniquely identified as scale types
or modes.
My knowledge of the WCM is a big zero. However I have spent lot of
time in studying western musical theory/practice with reference to
HFM.
regards,
Sunil
UVR
There's an implicit suggestion in the above that the Indian notation
is "ambiguous" and hence "worse (than Western notation)". I totally
disagree with that point of view. In general "absolutes" are only
"better" if one does not wish to (or cannot, for some reason) think in
relative and/or abstract terms. Otherwise, there's no difference
between relative and abstract notations -- they are equally complex
to the uninitiated, and equally easy for those who know.
Saying more on this is probably irrelevant to the topic under
discussion,
so I'll stop here.
-UVR.
Sunil Dandekar
> On Feb 16, 1:31 am, "Sunil Dandekar" <sunnydande...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 16, 7:49 am, kvcsh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > In my opinion the western notation method is very unambiguous and
> > hence better. Each note has a unique name and all the possible
> > combinations from the 12 notes are uniquely identified as scale types
> > or modes.
>
> There's an implicit suggestion in the above that the Indian notation
> is "ambiguous" and hence "worse (than Western notation)". I totally
> disagree with that point of view.
No it is not implicit, it is quite explicit. I *do* think western
notation is much better for musical expression. I did think that it is
beyond dispute. But apparantly you don't think so. That is fine. Let's
agree to disagree and move on.
With no intention to inflict my opinions on you, I request you to
consider the following. Read ahead at your own risk.
Indian music is traditionally played 'by ear'. Western music is
traditionally played by reading the notation. No prizes for guessing
which has developed better. Whole symphonies with multitude of
instruments have been written in western notation. Indian notation,
whatever it is very rudimentary and evolved by influence of western
notation. IIRC Mr.Bhatkhande brought the concept of indian musical
notation in early part of 20th century. Before that Indian music did
not have any notation. It was Guru Shishya parampara.
Nobody who knows both Indian notation and Western notation would even
think twice about which notation is less ambiguous and hence easier
for the player.
> In general "absolutes" are only
> "better" if one does not wish to (or cannot, for some reason) think in
> relative and/or abstract terms.
That is perhaps the only ugly spin-off of relativity theory. Post
relativity everybody thinks the argument looks smarter if (s)he
squeezes in absolute and relative. I do not understand what is
absolute and relative in naming of the notes and not naming the notes.
> Otherwise, there's no difference
> between relative and abstract notations -- they are equally complex
> to the uninitiated, and equally easy for those who know.
It is not about complexity. It is about unique identification of the
notes. what is better , naming each element in the periodic table
uniquely or having a shifting start to the periodic table. Imagine we
had only 7 names for the elements in the periodic table. Then Oxygen
would be Lithium with Carbon as hydrogen. Arrgh.
regards,
Sunil
John Wright
> No it is not implicit, it is quite explicit. I *do* think western
> notation is much better for musical expression. I did think that it is
> beyond dispute. But apparantly you don't think so. That is fine. Let's
> agree to disagree and move on.
>
octave; and for different octaves; and for different time intervals, etc
etc. Both therefore have exactly the same level of "information content".
One therefore can not be "better" than other; only better suited for their
own unique needs. The western system uses absolute frequencies - 'A' always
means 440 c/s; the Indian system does not, it allows one to chose whatever
"sa" one wants, the relative interval between notes is what it notated. How
can one be said to be better than the other just on that basis?
> It is not about complexity. It is about unique identification of the
> notes. what is better , naming each element in the periodic table
> uniquely or having a shifting start to the periodic table. Imagine we
> had only 7 names for the elements in the periodic table. Then Oxygen
> would be Lithium with Carbon as hydrogen. Arrgh.
The example above is quite inappropriate. Your logic is that something is
inappropriate for one use, hence it must be inappropriate for any use. Your
statement "It is about unique identification of the notes" is quite correct;
but then, both systems uniquely identify a note. The western system
identifies it via absolute frequency, the Indian system via the interval -
both equally unique. A chief characteristic of all music systems (including
western) is the interval between notes - hence one can benefit by a notation
system that is interval based - relative to a floating Sa. The key benefit
is, a song written in Indian notation can be sung as it is by a person at
whatever pitch that suits him/her; with western system you would have to
transpose.
Regards - JW
John Wright
> what is better , naming each element in the periodic table
> uniquely or having a shifting start to the periodic table.
Consider the following little experiment.
You sing a note - any note, at whatever pitch or frequency you like. I can
immediately treat that as your "Sa" and sing its corresponding "Ga",
reasonably correctly. In doing so, my brain must necessarily be able to
perform two key functions - measure your note's frequency, then multiply it
by 5/4.
Now, suppose you instead ask me to sing a note 50 cps higher than the note
you sang. I would have absolutely no chance. My brain cannot add
frequencies, even integers - but it can multiply, even fractions.
Multiplying by 3/2 (Pa), 4/3(Ma) etc is no problem for it, but adding 50 cps
is impossible. It cannot easily deal with absolute frequencies and
increments like 300 cps + 50, but it can easily deal with relative
increments like X * 3/2.
The Indian notation system - relativity based rather than absolute based -
is much better tuned with this ability of the human brain.
Regards - JW
dandeka...@gmail.com
> "Sunil Dandekar" wrote> No it is not implicit, it is quite explicit. I *do* think western
> > notation is much better for musical expression. I did think that it is
> > beyond dispute. But apparantly you don't think so. That is fine. Let's
> > agree to disagree and move on.
>
> Both Western and Indian system have symbols to represent the 12 notes in an
> octave; and for different octaves; and for different time intervals, etc
> etc. Both therefore have exactly the same level of "information content".
No. They do not. Indian notation system does not have fixed names for
all 12 notes. The names of the notes change depending on what Sa you
choose. Therefore the example of periodic table I have given is
exactly appropriate. Also fixed notes vs changing notes was only one
comparison of the preciseness of western notation vs Indian notation.
As I said whole symphonies for all instruments including rhythm
section have been written in western notation. The notation is such
that those symphonies can be reproduced exactly centuries later. In
indian context such faithful reproduction is neither attempted not
desired. Naturally the corresponding notation methods have evolved
exactly to the level of responsibility they have been given.
> One therefore can not be "better" than other; only better suited for their
> own unique needs.
Nobody uses Indian notation to actually play instruments/sing. It is
used mostly for beginners to teach them the challan of raga or for
beginners to learn the notes of the song.
>The western system uses absolute frequencies - 'A' always
> means 440 c/s; the Indian system does not, it allows one to chose whatever
> "sa" one wants, the relative interval between notes is what it notated. How
> can one be said to be better than the other just on that basis?
>From the perspective of the ease of the common understanding. Just
refer to my earlier write-up on 'how to recognize Sa in a song'. In
western notation I symply say play A flat. If one were to go for
Indian notation, since we do not know a Sa yet in the song all we have
to say is press nth key from the left. Or this fret that string on
guitar. Do you think they are equally efficient.
Please see my periodic table example again. If you think that is
inappropriate then I do not have anything more to add. Just imagine if
we had to write chemical formulae on the shifting H.
> > It is not about complexity. It is about unique identification of the
> > notes. what is better , naming each element in the periodic table
> > uniquely or having a shifting start to the periodic table. Imagine we
> > had only 7 names for the elements in the periodic table. Then Oxygen
> > would be Lithium with Carbon as hydrogen. Arrgh.
>
> The example above is quite inappropriate. Your logic is that something is
> inappropriate for one use, hence it must be inappropriate for any use.
Please elaborate on many alternate usages of notations..... To me they
are meant to codify the musical expression. I do not know any other
use.
>Your
> statement "It is about unique identification of the notes" is quite correct;
> but then, both systems uniquely identify a note.
No they don't. Black 3 can be Sa or Ma or Ga. Depending on where Sa
starts. How do you represent a scale change in the Indian notation?
>The western system
> identifies it via absolute frequency, the Indian system via the interval -
> both equally unique. A chief characteristic of all music systems (including
> western) is the interval between notes - hence one can benefit by a notation
> system that is interval based - relative to a floating Sa. The key benefit
> is, a song written in Indian notation can be sung as it is by a person at
> whatever pitch that suits him/her; with western system you would have to
> transpose.
I do not agree with your conclusion. The indian notation captures the
interval. Western notation captures both interval and absolute
position. Decide which is better.
regards,
Sunil
UVR
> On Feb 17, 1:44 pm, "John Wright" <someemai...@somedomain.com> wrote:
>> "Sunil Dandekar" wrote> No it is not implicit, it is quite explicit. I *do* think western
>>> notation is much better for musical expression. I did think that it is
>>> beyond dispute. But apparantly you don't think so. That is fine. Let's
>>> agree to disagree and move on.
>> Both Western and Indian system have symbols to represent the 12 notes in an
>> octave; and for different octaves; and for different time intervals, etc
>> etc. Both therefore have exactly the same level of "information content".
>
> No. They do not. Indian notation system does not have fixed names for
> all 12 notes. The names of the notes change depending on what Sa you
> choose.
That doesn't seem correct. Notes are always named 'sa', 're',
'ga', 'ma', ... in the Indian system.
Oh, wait, I think by 'note' you mean 'frequency'. Okay, what
you say is true, but I don't see how it creates a problem.
As long as a musician can mentally resolve the name back to
the correct frequency, and play it back correctly, what does
it matter what the musician calls the frequency? It should
be immaterial whether someone is using the 'sa-re-ga' scheme,
the 'do-re-mi' scheme, or the 'A flat, B flat, C' scheme.
I think we humans deal with relative naming all the time in
daily life. A 2 year old can identify his mother as "maaN"
or "mummy" and yet, if his father should call out "suntee ho?"
can figure out with zero problems who is being called. I do
agree that this is *only* possible for the 2 year old to do
because he KNOWS (=has learnt) that his 'maaN', 'mummy',
'suntee ho' and '<his mom's name>' map to the same individual,
but I refer you back to what I said earlier; relative naming
is NOT difficult to work with for those who know how it works.
> Therefore the example of periodic table I have given is
> exactly appropriate. Also fixed notes vs changing notes was only one
> comparison of the preciseness of western notation vs Indian notation.
Very well, then. Let's use your example of the periodic table.
I think you will agree that there is no difference between calling
the terms, "Helium", "the element that comes after Hydrogen in the
periodic table", "the second element in the periodic table", "the
element with an atomic weight of 2", "the element that comes before
Lithium". Well, no difference save for the fact that some of these
descriptions are "relative" and not "absolute".
> As I said whole symphonies for all instruments including rhythm
> section have been written in western notation. The notation is such
> that those symphonies can be reproduced exactly centuries later. In
> indian context such faithful reproduction is neither attempted not
> desired. Naturally the corresponding notation methods have evolved
> exactly to the level of responsibility they have been given.
I agree about 'not desired' insofar as one is talking about
presentational music. 'Not attempted' is not accurate.
In one of your previous posts, you mentioned Bhatkhande as
having been the one to formalize the Indian notation. Maybe
for Hindustani he was (I don't know). However, I think that
if you reviewed the history of Indian music as a whole you
may discover that this assertion is not correct.
Centuries before Bhatkhande, there were musicians in the south
attempting to write down notations of musical exercises such as
sarali swaras or alankaaras, not to mention the lakShaNa geetas.
>> Nobody uses Indian notation to actually play instruments/sing.
*Many* musicians use the Indian notation to actually sing and play
instruments. Admittedly, the kind of music being played/sung/
practiced by these people is (more often than not, but NOT always)
Indian classical music. But to claim that 'nobody uses it' is
absolutely incorrect.
>> It is used mostly for beginners to teach them the challan of raga or for
>> beginners to learn the notes of the song.
That's just false.
>> refer to my earlier write-up on 'how to recognize Sa in a song'. In
>> western notation I symply say play A flat. If one were to go for
>> Indian notation, since we do not know a Sa yet in the song all we have
>> to say is press nth key from the left. Or this fret that string on
>> guitar. Do you think they are equally efficient.
Efficient for what? Play "A flat" is not needed for Indian music,
nor is it needed for 'determining the sa' of a song (note that
the question was not "how do determine the 'frequency of the Sa'").
"Play A flat" is certainly good if all that is ever needed is to
reproduce the same music in the SAME way every time it is played.
However, in practice, one sometimes finds that the musicians
need to transpose a song to a different base scale, because the
singer is not capable of (or comfortable with) singing the song
in the original scale. Say a film song is in "B flat", but the
singer re-singing it needs to sing it in D? At such times, I
have seen the 'absolute'-wallahs doing some quick 'relative
(re)calibration' of the composition to suit the singer's needs.
Every single chord and bar in the song needs to be readjusted
to fit into the new scale.
Oh, by the way, is it "B flat" or "A sharp"? :-)
>> Black 3 can be Sa or Ma or Ga. Depending on where Sa starts.
>> How do you represent a scale change in the Indian notation?
>>
You simply say that (if the 'sa' was 'black 3') "the sa is now
black 4" and THAT'S IT! You *do not* have to go through the
tedium of recalculating any of the remaining notes AT ALL. Once
the 'sa' has been fixed, everything else *automatically* gets
remapped. I think this is considerably simpler than having to
recalculate every single chord.
>> The indian notation captures the interval.
>> Western notation captures both interval and absolute position.
>> Decide which is better.
I think it doesn't matter at all -- provided the 'interval'
leads you to correctly end up with the absolute position.
BTW, I want to be clear here -- I *do not* think the western
notation is deficient or inferior in any way. I just do not
think it is demonstrably superior to 'sa-re-ga-ma' system.
The 'sa re ga ma' stuff has stood Indian musicians in very
good stead for many centuries, so, for the purpose it is
used, it is very well suited indeed.
Regards,
-UVR.
dandeka...@gmail.com
Just imagine that you have thought of a tune while playing on the
keyboard. Like many people you are not able to identify the sa in the
tune. Remember? that is where the thread started. Now you want to
write to your friend about your creation. Using western notation, you
don't have to bother about the sa. You just communicate the tune by
identifying the keys that you pressed on the keyboard. You can not do
that using Indian notation unless you identify the scale and thus sa.
Thus Indian notation fails if you can not identify the sa. See whether
this helps you to understand what I have been trying to say.
> > Therefore the example of periodic table I have given is
> > exactly appropriate. Also fixed notes vs changing notes was only one
> > comparison of the preciseness of western notation vs Indian notation.
>
> Very well, then. Let's use your example of the periodic table.
> I think you will agree that there is no difference between calling
> the terms, "Helium", "the element that comes after Hydrogen in the
> periodic table", "the second element in the periodic table", "the
> element with an atomic weight of 2", "the element that comes before
> Lithium". Well, no difference save for the fact that some of these
> descriptions are "relative" and not "absolute".
Now imagine writing the chemical formulae in any of these relative
descriptions. Chemical formulae are models of the chemical structures
and notations are the models of the musical expression.
>
> > As I said whole symphonies for all instruments including rhythm
> > section have been written in western notation. The notation is such
> > that those symphonies can be reproduced exactly centuries later. In
> > indian context such faithful reproduction is neither attempted not
> > desired. Naturally the corresponding notation methods have evolved
> > exactly to the level of responsibility they have been given.
>
> I agree about 'not desired' insofar as one is talking about
> presentational music. 'Not attempted' is not accurate.
Can you give at least 5 examples of complete notations of any ICM
mehefil that happened in the past , that should include the rhythm,
the accompaniment, using which we should be able to recreate the
mehefil in to to. I will be very happy to retract my statement.
>
> In one of your previous posts, you mentioned Bhatkhande as
> having been the one to formalize the Indian notation. Maybe
> for Hindustani he was (I don't know). However, I think that
> if you reviewed the history of Indian music as a whole you
> may discover that this assertion is not correct.
>
> Centuries before Bhatkhande, there were musicians in the south
> attempting to write down notations of musical exercises such as
> sarali swaras or alankaaras, not to mention the lakShaNa geetas.
I was not sure of Bhatkhande therefore I wrote IIRC. I could be
wrong.
>
> >> Nobody uses Indian notation to actually play instruments/sing.
>
> *Many* musicians use the Indian notation to actually sing and play
> instruments. Admittedly, the kind of music being played/sung/
> practiced by these people is (more often than not, but NOT always)
> Indian classical music. But to claim that 'nobody uses it' is
> absolutely incorrect.
Please see my comments above. Please give reference to five notations
and I will retract my statement that nobody uses notation for actual
presentation in ICM.
> >> It is used mostly for beginners to teach them the challan of raga or for
> >> beginners to learn the notes of the song.
>
> That's just false.
That is just your opinion.
>
> >> refer to my earlier write-up on 'how to recognize Sa in a song'. In
> >> western notation I symply say play A flat. If one were to go for
> >> Indian notation, since we do not know a Sa yet in the song all we have
> >> to say is press nth key from the left. Or this fret that string on
> >> guitar. Do you think they are equally efficient.
>
> Efficient for what? Play "A flat" is not needed for Indian music,
> nor is it needed for 'determining the sa' of a song (note that
> the question was not "how do determine the 'frequency of the Sa'").
Please see my example above about the tune that is freshly composed.
>
> "Play A flat" is certainly good if all that is ever needed is to
> reproduce the same music in the SAME way every time it is played.
That is the hallmark of efficiency of musical notation. Which is
absent in Indian notation.
> However, in practice, one sometimes finds that the musicians
> need to transpose a song to a different base scale, because the
> singer is not capable of (or comfortable with) singing the song
> in the original scale. Say a film song is in "B flat", but the
> singer re-singing it needs to sing it in D? At such times, I
> have seen the 'absolute'-wallahs doing some quick 'relative
> (re)calibration' of the composition to suit the singer's needs.
> Every single chord and bar in the song needs to be readjusted
> to fit into the new scale.
Absolute wallah and relative wallahs both have to figure out the new
notes to be played. Every single chord and bar in the song needs to be
readjusted. You know why? Because comes playtime, the 'beautiful'
relative floating ICM notation has to be resolved to the physical
keybaord and fretboard. Then it becomes indistinguishable from the
poor western scale.
>
> Oh, by the way, is it "B flat" or "A sharp"? :-)
>
> >> Black 3 can be Sa or Ma or Ga. Depending on where Sa starts.
> >> How do you represent a scale change in the Indian notation?
>
> You simply say that (if the 'sa' was 'black 3') "the sa is now
> black 4" and THAT'S IT! You *do not* have to go through the
> tedium of recalculating any of the remaining notes AT ALL. Once
> the 'sa' has been fixed, everything else *automatically* gets
> remapped. I think this is considerably simpler than having to
> recalculate every single chord.
You have skirted my question. How do you represent the scale change in
the Indian notation? Remember, as soon as you say my sa is black 3,
the relative notes become absolute. So the challanges of remapping do
not change.
>
> >> The indian notation captures the interval.
> >> Western notation captures both interval and absolute position.
> >> Decide which is better.
>
> I think it doesn't matter at all -- provided the 'interval'
> leads you to correctly end up with the absolute position.
>
> BTW, I want to be clear here -- I *do not* think the western
> notation is deficient or inferior in any way. I just do not
> think it is demonstrably superior to 'sa-re-ga-ma' system.
With the emphasis in the Indian music of playing by ear and the Guru
shishya parampara I think the role of indian notations in the
longevity of ICM is highly questionable.
I want to be clear here. I do think the western notation is way
superior to Indian notation. Before you freeze your opinions, request
you to read some books on musical theory. Few I find useful are:
A New Approach : Composing music by William Russo.
The complete Idiot's guide to Musical Theory. ( I find this
particularly useful ;-))
regards,
Sunil.
John Wright
> Just imagine that you have thought of a tune while playing on the
> keyboard. Like many people you are not able to identify the sa in the
> tune. Remember? that is where the thread started. Now you want to
> write to your friend about your creation. Using western notation, you
> don't have to bother about the sa. You just communicate the tune by
> identifying the keys that you pressed on the keyboard. You can not do
> that using Indian notation unless you identify the scale and thus sa.
> Thus Indian notation fails if you can not identify the sa. See whether
> this helps you to understand what I have been trying to say.
Couldn't agree with you more. For this specific need, the western system is
easier. In the ICM system I would have to find the note in the tune that I
think is sa (with the possibility of my choosing the wrong note), and then
write the notation based on that sa. It can be done, but is a little harder.
> Can you give at least 5 examples of complete notations of any ICM
> mehefil that happened in the past , that should include the rhythm,
> the accompaniment, using which we should be able to recreate the
> mehefil in to to. I will be very happy to retract my statement.
>
Again agree - it would be impossible to transcribe a whole concert and
reproduce it exactly from the script.
Where we disagree is when you continue this line and follow it up with
"hence western notation system is therefore better".
That you can notate a whole western symphony precisely does not say anything
useful about the notation system; it might say something about the music.
Take not a whole concert but just 10 seconds from an Indian alaap or a taan
of a good vocalist - say Bhimsen Joshi or KVN. It would contain a hundred
twists and turns that could never be precisely notated in any system; what
is more, the same vocalist could never repeat that exactly even if he/she
tried! A lot of Indian music - not just classical - contains much finer
movements than found in a western symphony. Look at a single symphony line
for any one instrument - say that of a single clarinet or flute - the melody
line would be seen by an Indian musician to be very very basic, fit for only
a young beginner player. When 50 western musicians have to play in a
symphony, their individual parts have to be very very simple - otherwise you
could never coordinate them to be in sync. Their music system is designed
for 50 players who never met before to come together and play a piece
together, just from printed script. None of the rich ornamentations used in
Indian Music is possible there, the instruments could never be in sync if
they tried that. Indian music does not have this need for 50
instrumentalists or singers to coordinate - hence it allows the melody to be
much more complex and richer. The Indian notation system is not expected to
record every fine detail of a music piece. If it did, the musical experience
would not reach the heights it does.
You can appreciate it only if you took an Indian music piece and tried to
notate it in western system and get someone else to reproduce the music out
of that script. The result would be quite different to the original, and
would be no better than if it was notated in the Indian system.
Regards- JW
dandeka...@gmail.com
> <dandekar.shr...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Just imagine that you have thought of a tune while playing on the
> > keyboard. Like many people you are not able to identify the sa in the
> > tune. Remember? that is where the thread started. Now you want to
> > write to your friend about your creation. Using western notation, you
> > don't have to bother about the sa. You just communicate the tune by
> > identifying the keys that you pressed on the keyboard. You can not do
> > that using Indian notation unless you identify the scale and thus sa.
> > Thus Indian notation fails if you can not identify the sa. See whether
> > this helps you to understand what I have been trying to say.
>
> Couldn't agree with you more. For this specific need, the western system is
> easier. In the ICM system I would have to find the note in the tune that I
> think is sa (with the possibility of my choosing the wrong note), and then
> write the notation based on that sa. It can be done, but is a little harder.
>
> > Can you give at least 5 examples of complete notations of any ICM
> > mehefil that happened in the past , that should include the rhythm,
> > the accompaniment, using which we should be able to recreate the
> > mehefil in to to. I will be very happy to retract my statement.
>
> Again agree - it would be impossible to transcribe a whole concert and
> reproduce it exactly from the script.
Good that we agree on something.
>
> Where we disagree is when you continue this line and follow it up with
> "hence western notation system is therefore better".
>
> That you can notate a whole western symphony precisely does not say anything
> useful about the notation system; it might say something about the music.
> Take not a whole concert but just 10 seconds from an Indian alaap or a taan
> of a good vocalist - say Bhimsen Joshi or KVN. It would contain a hundred
> twists and turns that could never be precisely notated in any system; what
> is more, the same vocalist could never repeat that exactly even if he/she
> tried!
As I have said elsewhere the ICM's intention is to develop an idea
based on a basic structure and expand it extempore. Even if the same
singer sings the same raag on two different occassion the expressions
could be very different. But I don't think that has anything to do
with the superiority or inferiority of western notation. Western
notation may not be able to capture all the nuances, but Indian
notation will not be able to capture even half of what western
notation can do. So out of two inadequate tools, if one does 10 things
and another does 20, the one doing 20 is definitely superior. A hammer
with a nail extractor is definitely better than a plain hammer,
irrespective of whether they are being used to hammer nails in coffin
or building a space shuttle.
> A lot of Indian music - not just classical - contains much finer
> movements than found in a western symphony. Look at a single symphony line
> for any one instrument - say that of a single clarinet or flute - the melody
> line would be seen by an Indian musician to be very very basic, fit for only
> a young beginner player. When 50 western musicians have to play in a
> symphony, their individual parts have to be very very simple - otherwise you
> could never coordinate them to be in sync. Their music system is designed
> for 50 players who never met before to come together and play a piece
> together, just from printed script. None of the rich ornamentations used in
> Indian Music is possible there, the instruments could never be in sync if
> they tried that. Indian music does not have this need for 50
> instrumentalists or singers to coordinate - hence it allows the melody to be
> much more complex and richer. The Indian notation system is not expected to
> record every fine detail of a music piece. If it did, the musical experience
> would not reach the heights it does.
Those are precisely the reasons for the western notation maturing to
the level it is today, indian notation remaining at the rudimentary
level. Development of each of them remained in synch with the
expectations from them.
> You can appreciate it only if you took an Indian music piece and tried to
> notate it in western system and get someone else to reproduce the music out
> of that script. The result would be quite different to the original, and
> would be no better than if it was notated in the Indian system.
I disagree. The fidelity of the tune played using the western notation
with the original will be much better than the indian notation. Both
are inadequate but Indian notation is more inadequate.
It is good to be having such discussions.
regards,
Sunil