Shruti - A Reply
sma...@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:59:11 GMT
References: <1993Jan20....@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Writes
i think this is totally incorrect information. Shruti is NOT the scale
in which one sings though many common people in Carnatic music hold this
opinion (based on my experience). "shruyate iti shruti" i.e. notes in an
octave that could be distinguished from each other. It is said that there
are 22 shrutis in an octave. I am sure knowledgable people like Dr. Gangolli
and others will comment on this.
REply:
I think that it is it is not logical of any person to make a statement
such as "totally incorrect information" referring to my reply regarding the
sruthi,especially when the person has had a background of Sanskrit.
Basically, I do agree with our friend Mr. Umesh in saying that sruthi
is defined as "Shruyate yiti shruti".It means that any distinguishable
sound lying in the whole range of audible frequency is termed as sruthi.
It is also true that major authoritative books onb music such as
Sangeetha Ratnakara etc., state that there are 22 srutis.
The vedas too are known as shruti. This is because it is beleived that
the vedas were given to man by sound and not by any written matter.
Words become anologous tom many things based on the context.Also in no
way was I trying to give a technical definition of SRUTHI.Hence,I do not
see in what way it becomes incorrect to call the Adhara Shadjam (or the
lower Shadjam in the middle octave) , which we use as the base for tuning
our instruments and to base our singing as the sruthi.Obviously when a
person is asking for the sruthi of a person,he is not referring it to
the 22 srutis or to the tecnical definition of sruti or etc., etc..
Hence, it is irrelevant to speak of those in this context.It may only be
given as an additional information.Also, whatever information I had
provided in my earlier letter was based on my own experiance as a practical
student of music and not from any texts.
I think this is where we make a mistake. When a layman just interested
in classical music comes to us and asks us a question, we like to make it
look very complicated and try to give him all the technical details
the very first time. As a result he gets so confused and would never
go further, thinking it is too advanced for him. The technical details
have to be simplified and given to the layman in form acceptable by him.
It also does not mean that the facts have to be diluted. This is the main
reason for people shying away from Indian Classical music.Probably when
the person gets more involved in this music, he will be able to take in the
technical complexities.
Thank you,
SATHISH
Umesh Mokate
>From: ume...@microsoft.com (Umesh Mokate)
>Date: 22 Jan 93 20:59:11 GMT
>References: <1993Jan20....@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
>Organization: Microsoft Corporation
>Writes
>i think this is totally incorrect information. Shruti is NOT the scale
>in which one sings though many common people in Carnatic music hold this
>opinion (based on my experience). "shruyate iti shruti" i.e. notes in an
>octave that could be distinguished from each other. It is said that there
>are 22 shrutis in an octave. I am sure knowledgable people like Dr. Gangolli
>and others will comment on this.
>
>REply:
>
>I think that it is it is not logical of any person to make a statement
>such as "totally incorrect information" referring to my reply regarding the
>sruthi,especially when the person has had a background of Sanskrit.
>Basically, I do agree with our friend Mr. Umesh in saying that sruthi
>is defined as "Shruyate yiti shruti".It means that any distinguishable
>sound lying in the whole range of audible frequency is termed as sruthi.
>It is also true that major authoritative books onb music such as
>Sangeetha Ratnakara etc., state that there are 22 srutis.
>
>The vedas too are known as shruti. This is because it is beleived that
>the vedas were given to man by sound and not by any written matter.
>Words become anologous tom many things based on the context.
This is what I understand about the word Shruti:
Though in simple terms Shruti is defined as "shruyate iti shruti" and
though it means that any audible sound is called "shruti", in the
context of music it is not the case. Any sound is not called shruti when
one is referring to classical music. Also, the word shruti refers to particular
books (i.e Vedas) in the context of religion. Not any book, though orally
given, (in those days all things were transmitted by oral tradition),
is not called Shruti. Another example: Tantra means "one which
extends konwledge". So by definition, any book could be called Tantra, but
in the context of religion, only particular kind of books are called Tantra.
>Also in no
>way was I trying to give a technical definition of SRUTHI.Hence,I do not
>see in what way it becomes incorrect to call the Adhara Shadjam (or the
>lower Shadjam in the middle octave) , which we use as the base for tuning
>our instruments and to base our singing as the sruthi.Obviously when a
>person is asking for the sruthi of a person,he is not referring it to
>the 22 srutis or to the tecnical definition of sruti or etc., etc..
>Hence, it is irrelevant to speak of those in this context.It may only be
>given as an additional information.Also, whatever information I had
>provided in my earlier letter was based on my own experiance as a practical
>student of music and not from any texts.
>
Neither have I given any "technical" definition like "it is similar to
Pythagorian Delta which is obtained by ..."
>I think this is where we make a mistake. When a layman just interested
>in classical music comes to us and asks us a question, we like to make it
>look very complicated and try to give him all the technical details
>the very first time. As a result he gets so confused and would never
>go further, thinking it is too advanced for him. The technical details
>have to be simplified and given to the layman in form acceptable by him.
>It also does not mean that the facts have to be diluted. This is the main
>reason for people shying away from Indian Classical music.Probably when
>the person gets more involved in this music, he will be able to take in the
>technical complexities.
>
>Thank you,
>
>SATHISH
I disagree with your first three sentences above.
Encouraging a layman for classical music does not mean that
we give him incorrect information. I don't see why a layman will get
confused and shy away, if I tell him that, "probably you are referring
to the base-scale and not shruti. Though sometimes people refer to the
base-scale as Shruti, it is not the correct defintion. If you are
interested in knowing base-scale in which M.S.S. sings or the base-scale of
Ramani's flute, then it is so and so. As far as Shruti goes, in simple words
it is defined as distinguishable sounds in an octave. It is believed that there
are 22 such sounds in an octave." Unless I know personally, I don't
assume that the layman is dumb and finds this much information too
technical and advanced.
Umesh...
Dinkar Sitaram
(Umesh Mokate) writes:
|> Though sometimes people refer to the
|> base-scale as Shruti, it is not the correct defintion.
|>
Umesh,
In your opinion, what is the correct (Sanskrit) word for the base-scale?
Regards,
Dinkar
Dinkar Sitaram
selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering)
writes:
|> In article <1993Jan29.1...@watson.ibm.com>
|>
|> I have followed some of the articles on this topic ( not all)
|> and it appears to me that almost all the persons involved appear
|> to treat Sanskrit sources as some kind indisputable authority.
|> It is not important what is said in Sanskrit sources because
|> much of our knowledge in these matters is one of 'practical'
|> aspect.
Selva,
I am not proposing to treat Sanskrit sources as an authority. Umesh said that
in his opinion, it is incorrect to use "shruti" (a Sanskrit word) to mean
"base note of a scale". So I was just asking him what in his opinion was
the right word (in Sanskrit).
Dinkar
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
I have followed some of the articles on this topic ( not all)
and it appears to me that almost all the persons involved appear
to treat Sanskrit sources as some kind indisputable authority.
It is not important what is said in Sanskrit sources because
much of our knowledge in these matters is one of 'practical'
aspect. Some of the Sanskrit books contain the traditions
followed by people who are not knowledgeable in Sanskrit.
Thus many of the Sanskrit works ( not all) can at best be
considered as codifications of parts of then existing knowledge.
( although I don't have ready access to illustrate this
with some examples, I can cite T.A.S. Sambabdamorthy's
criticisms of Sangeeta Ratnakaram.. ). The south indian
music has its roots in Tamil traditions and PaaNar ( Tamil
bards) traditions. In fact the most ancient accounts of
musicaology can be found in Tamil ( and not Sanskrit)
[please correct me if I am wrong, since there are many
knowledgeable persons in this netgroup ].
For example what one calls sruti has a somewhat corresponding
tamil term 'oththu' ( the root sense of this term is ' to be
in consonance' ) and 'alagu' ( means 'measurement standard unit' )
In olden days ( still in vogue in some parts) in naagasuram
( also called naadhaswaram) concerts there used to be an
instrument similar to the regular naagasuram but it gives
only selected notes as basic sruti and this is called
'oththu' as well. Using thambura or the sruthi box
('oththisai petti' in tamil) as 'oththu' has become more
popular now. In instruments like veena the 'oththu' or
'sruthi' narambu (string) is called 'pakka saaraNai'
In fact the practice of tuning veena or similar instruments
is called 'paRRu_vazhi sErththal' in tamil and this practice is
mentioned in ancient Silappathikaaram ( a Tamil classic
belonging to the 300-400 A.D).
" oRRu uRuppu udaimaiyin paRRuvazhi sErththanaL"
- Silappathikaaram 13.108
[ 'oRRu uRuppu' a part which is used for oththu or sruthi
'udaimaiyin' = 'because it is there'
'paRRu_vazhi' = 'tuning based on oththu'
'sErththanaL' = 'she tuned' ]
The 'tuning' is also called 'oththu koottal' in addition to
ancient terminology of 'paRRuvazhi sErththal'.
There were also practices in 'tuning' using other instruments
like 'flute' ( kuzhal in tamil). For example Silappathkaaram
says 'narambin thIngural riRukkum kuzhalpOl' 33.22
Tamil literature also talks about tuning percussion instruments..
Much details about music is described in Tamil works which are
much earlier than most of the Sanskrit works. In fact
I think ragas and other musicological aspects were
systematically discussed first in Tamil works ( probably
the first in the world including the western music)
[ my whole response is an attempt to discourage the practice
of seeking the source to Sanskrit in all situations.
Sruthi is not something defined by some sanskrit pundit and others
follow based on this definition. In fact what is practiced
by the people is often attempted to be defined by some pundits.
Some practices of tuning etc. are very clearly given in Tamil
but these are again descriptions by tamil pundits of what is
practiced]
>
>Regards,
>Dinkar
regards
- Selva
Umesh Mokate
The correct word for base-note is Shadja or aadhaar-swara. (Thanks
to Dr. Gangolli for telling me about aadhaar-swara!)
In my first post on this thread, which was in reference to Satish's post,
I used the word base-scale instead of base-note or key-note by mistake
and we kept of using it. I realized it after reading Sriram's post with
title "shruti/base note/key note" and also after talking with Dr. Gangolli.
Umesh...
Dinkar Sitaram
(Umesh Mokate) writes:
|> The correct word for base-note is Shadja or aadhaar-swara. (Thanks
|> to Dr. Gangolli for telling me about aadhaar-swara!)
|>
base-note to be xxx?" can I say "Do you want the aadhar-shruti to be
xxx"?
Dinkar
Kumaran Santhanam
"I want the shruthi to be set to G#"
or
"I would like to sing at C shruthi"
The derivation of the word is meaningless. In modern context, it merely means
the base note (or Shadjamam (Sa)) and the other constant note (or
Panchamam (Pa)) together to produce a fifth interval to base your music on.
So, your shruthi at G# would be:
G# - Sa
D# - Pa
G# - Sa^
and your shruthi at C would be:
C - Sa
G - Pa
C - Sa^
I hope that clarifies for you the meaning of shruthi.
Kumaran
--
~| ~/ ~| ~| ~~\ ~| .~~\ ~|~~~\ .~~\ ~~\ ~| :: ksanthan@
/' | | | \ / | \__ | `-- / \__ | | \ | :: soda.berkeley.edu
| \ \_ | | / | | | | \ | | | \ | ::
| `\ __/ | | | | | \ | | | | :: "That's how it is!"
Ramesh Gangolli
Recently there has been a spirited discussion on "shruti" : what the word
does or does not mean; what it should mean etc. Since the discussion has
become (perhaps unnecessarily) dogmatic at times, I thought that I could
contribute by supplying a "kinder and gentler" perspective.
Here's a bouquet of comments that I edited out of various postings :
**********
>i think this is totally incorrect information. Shruti is NOT the scale
>in which one sings though many common people in Carnatic music hold this
>opinion (based on my experience). "shruyate iti shruti" i.e. notes in an
>octave that could be distinguished from each other. It is said that there
>are 22 shrutis in an octave.
**********
>Basically, I do agree with our friend Mr. Umesh in saying that sruthi
>is defined as "Shruyate yiti shruti".It means that any distinguishable
>sound lying in the whole range of audible frequency is termed as sruthi.
>It is also true that major authoritative books onb music such as
>Sangeetha Ratnakara etc., state that there are 22 srutis.
**********
>The vedas too are known as shruti. This is because it is beleived that
>the vedas were given to man by sound and not by any written matter.
>Words become anologous tom many things based on the context.
**********
>Though in simple terms Shruti is defined as "shruyate iti shruti" and
>though it means that any audible sound is called "shruti", in the
>context of music it is not the case. Any sound is not called shruti when
>one is referring to classical music.
**********
>Neither have I given any "technical" definition like "it is similar to
>Pythagorian Delta which is obtained by ..."
**********
>Though sometimes people refer to the
>base-scale as Shruti, it is not the correct defintion. If you are
>interested in knowing base-scale in which M.S.S. sings or the base-scale of
>Ramani's flute, then it is so and so. As far as Shruti goes, in simple words
>it is defined as distinguishable sounds in an octave. It is believed that
>there are 22 such sounds in an octave." Unless I know personally, I don't
>assume that the layman is dumb and finds this much information too
>technical and advanced.
**********
>In your opinion, what is the correct (Sanskrit) word for the base-scale?
**********
>Hence,I do not see in what way it becomes incorrect to call the Adhara
>Shadjam (or the lower Shadjam in the middle octave) , which we use as the
>base for tuning our instruments and to base our singing as the
>sruthi.Obviously when a person is asking for the sruthi of a person,he is
>not referring it to the 22 srutis or to the tecnical definition of sruti
>or etc., etc.. Hence, it is irrelevant to speak of those in this
>context............
**********
>The word sruthi may have a (historically) different meaning but to a
>large number (I would like to say vast majority, but since I have not
>conducted an opinion poll, I guess that would be unacceptable)
>of Carnatic music fans, it is synonymous with the
>base note/key note/whatever, at least in common colloquial usage.
**********************************************************************
Here's my two bits' worth :
These are interesting comments indeed.
Clearly there are many senses in which the word Shruti is being used here :
1. Shruti meaning revealed knowledge, knowledge received via the sense of
hearing, i.e. that which is communicated directly to the receiver. This is
to be contrasted with "Smruti", meaning knowledge recalled; that which is
received second hand as it were.
Let us agree at the outset that this is not the meaning which is
relevant to the subject at hand. (We ignore those who will insist that music,
being the subject of gaandharva veda, is a part of the lore referred to as
Shruti. We can at least agree that this is not what we want to talk about.)
2. Shruti meaning a tiny musical interval; how small? Ah, thereby hangs a tale,
and a seemingly endless debate. See some comments below.
3. Shruti meaning a referenced note, such as a base-note or a key-note.
The last two senses are of course the subject of the postings I excerpted
above. What is remarkable is that the is that the debate that is being
carried ou here is essentially EXACTLY THE SAME as the one carried out in
the old works on music. The basic question with which many of the classic
works on music concerned themselves is :
Is the word "shruti" to be interpreted as referring to a
particular note, or to a musical interval?
Bharata's Natya Sastra took the view that shrutis are minimal audible
musical intervals : roughly, the smallest musical interval by which a
musical note has to be raised or lowered so that the ear perceives it to
have changed to a different note. This view has been reinforced by the
writings and opinions of a number of writers including Matanga, Dattila,
Abhinavagupta, Sarangadeva, Venkatamakhin, and in our own century,
musicologists such as Bhatkhande and Brihaspati. However, although this
serves as a rough indication of what a shruti is supposed to be, none of
the writings of these authors could describe with any precision exactly
what the measure of a shruti is. Attempts to describe a physically
realisable experiment (using a veena with several wires) are described by
Bharata and Sarangadeva, but their procedure for determining the "standard
shruti" ("pramana shruti" in their words), seem to beg the question,
because their starting point is dependent on the assumption that the
reader/experimenter is cognisant with the two sacles that were apparently
well-known and widely accepted in their time : namely the Shadja-grama and
the madhyama-grama. None of these authors give a definition of these scales
based on wire length ratios, which could conceivably enable us to
reconstruct those scales and arrive at the measure of what they called a
shruti. However, many musiclogists in our century have studied their
writings and have attemted some sort of plausible reconstruction, based on
what is harmonically plausible; (indeed the ancient Hindu musicians, like
their Greek counterparts, had thoroughly grasped the principle of
consonance based on the harmonic intervals of a fifth and a fourth, a
circumstance that lends some credibility to these plausible
recontructions). The curious reader can be referred to the writings of
Bhatkhande, Brihaspati, but is warned that it is heavy work to divine their
position, since it is buried in a lot of detail, and not succinctly stated.
Mukund Lath's 1978 study of the Dattilam is more readable, and browsing
through it can enable one to get a fairly clear picture of the views of
these writers. It seems clear that : (a) the division of the octave into 22
shrutis was pretty commonly accepted. (b) the interval of a fifth (the
shadja-panchama samvada) was considered to be of 13 shrutis. (c) the
interval of a fourth (the shadja-madhyama samvada) was universally agreed to
be of nine shrutis. (d) the harmonic third, a natural interval (as anyone
who tunes a tamboura can testify) is never explicitly given a measure in
terma of shrutis. However, there is fairly clear evidence that implicitly,
this interval was ascribed the measure of seven shrutis. From such
considerations it is possible to conclude that the shruti interval was not
of a fixed invariable size throughout the octave, and that the measure of
the "pramana shruti" so-called, is plausibly about the same as the
Pythagorean comma, an interval represented by the frequency ratio 81/80.
In the ancient writings, the swaras are thus placed at incremental
intervals of shrutis. The shadja is placed at shruti #4, the rishabha at
shruti #8, gandhara at #11, madhyama at #13, panchama at #17, dhaivata at
#20 and nishada at #22. This was the shadja grama scale. Notice that the
interval between the ri and ga is note a whole tone, and similarly for the
interval between dha and ni. Indeed, it is easily concluded that these
notes are what we call to day the komal ga and komal ni, so that the
ancient shadja grama coreesponds roughly to the Kafi scale of today.
Now, as the usage of this scale became more and more established, the
semantic distinction between the words swara and shruti was not always
maintained : thus a particular swara, let's say the madhyama which strictly
speaking should have been referred to as "the swara that is 9 shrutis from
the shadja" was also simply referred to as "the ninth shruti from the
shadja". This is already the case in quite early writing; already in
Kallinatha, as quoted in Lath's book, one finds that the position of the
swara was being referred to as its shruti.
The tonic (or base note, or key-note or what have you), is today invariably
referred to as the shadja. However, this was note always the case. When the
madhyama-grama scale was in wider use, the tonic was not necessarily the
shadja, but often the madhyama note. {A remnant of this practice still
survives in present usage, when certain compositions (especially bhajans,
dohas etc.) are sung "in madhyama" i.e. with madhyama as tonic.} At that
time the tonic was referred to as the aadhara-swara, or as in Kallinatha,
the aadhara-shruti. (Yes indeed.) No doubt this is the usage that lives on
in the South, where the tonic chosen by a particular performer is referred
to as that performer's shruti. Thus a person will be asked "what is your
shruti?" or "on what shruti do you sing?" etc. In Maharashtra, the same
question will be posed as "on which soor do you sing?" or "which is your
patti?" {(this last is a reference to the patti (slat) on the harmonium.} A
similar usage prevails in the north, based on the word soor rather than on
the word shruti.
I hope that this has not bordered on being boring. One lesson to be learned
from all these postings is that when it comes to a living thing like
language, the notion of "right use" is usually not right for ever! Usage
changes, and in the final analysis, does not matter. What matters is that
we understand what the usage is, so that communication can take place with
some semblance of orderliness and appreciation.
Which brings me to my last point. Someone was raising cain about referring
to Sanskrit works, and seemed to be objecting to what he/she regarded as
undue importance given to them. Perhaps we can agree that the importance
given to them is not because they are in Sanskrit, but because they are the
the few works on music that speak to us from our past, and therefore open a
window to the way in which music might have been in those days. Many of
these works happen to be in Sanskrit, which seems to have served as the
lingua communa for a large part of Hindu literature. In principle, one
should have no objection to quoting other works in other languages as long
as they have something to say about the subject, and as long as they are
accessible to all parties to the dialogue.
>
>In your opinion, what is the correct (Sanskrit) word for the base-scale?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> [ my whole response is an attempt to discourage the practice
> of seeking the source to Sanskrit in all situations.
> Sruthi is not something defined by some sanskrit pundit and others
> follow based on this definition. In fact what is practiced
> by the people is often attempted to be defined by some pundits.
> Some practices of tuning etc. are very clearly given in Tamil
> but these are again descriptions by tamil pundits of what is
> practiced]
|> I have followed some of the articles on this topic ( not all)
|> and it appears to me that almost all the persons involved appear
|> to treat Sanskrit sources as some kind indisputable authority.
|> It is not important what is said in Sanskrit sources because
|> much of our knowledge in these matters is one of 'practical'
|> aspect.
--
Ramesh Gangolli (gang...@math.washington.edu)
Dept. of Mathematics GN-50
University of Washington
Seattle WA 98195.
Srinivasan Pichumani
>>Recently there has been a spirited discussion on "shruti" : what the word
>>does or does not mean; what it should mean etc. Since the discussion has
>>become (perhaps unnecessarily) dogmatic at times, I thought that I could
>>contribute by supplying a "kinder and gentler" perspective.
Let me point out that the only dogmatic assertion, IMO, was made by
Umesh Mokate @ Microsoft and it was the following:
--------
>i think this is totally incorrect information. Shruti is NOT the scale
---------
>>shadja, but often the madhyama note. {A remnant of this practice still
>>survives in present usage, when certain compositions (especially bhajans,
>>dohas etc.) are sung "in madhyama" i.e. with madhyama as tonic.}
What is known as "singing to madhyama sruti" in Carnatic music - a very
common practice for singing selected melodies. What it means is
that the artiste will change his key to the madhyama (the perfect fourth)
of the original and then render the rAga or melody. The practical utility
of this, while singing rAgas like nAdanAmakriyA, navarOz, punnAgavarALI,
kurinji, is the following -- these rAgas are restricted in their range
to about an octave; additionally, their mUrcchana or scale is defined as
starting from notes like P/D/N of the lower octave; hence it is more
comfortable for the performer to bump up the key
rather than stick to the original key -- the fact of the matter is,
it is in the range of the madhyama stAyi and a little beyond that the
artiste's voice performs best in terms of 'color', timbre, loudness, etc...
>>Which brings me to my last point. Someone was raising cain about referring
>>to Sanskrit works, and seemed to be objecting to what he/she regarded as
>>undue importance given to them. Perhaps we can agree that the importance
>>given to them is not because they are in Sanskrit, but because they are the
>>the few works on music that speak to us from our past, and therefore open a
>>window to the way in which music might have been in those days. Many of
>>these works happen to be in Sanskrit, which seems to have served as the
>>lingua communa for a large part of Hindu literature. In principle, one
>>should have no objection to quoting other works in other languages as long
>>as they have something to say about the subject, and as long as they are
>>accessible to all parties to the dialogue.
Ahaa! This provides the perfect point of departure for my post. While I did not
want to engage Selvakumar in debate earlier -- I was not totally sure his
agenda was Music, and I suspected that he carries his grievances too far --
I must agree with him in some respects. Namely, the exclusive reliance on
source material available in Sanskrit, the quoting of such material as though
it were "pramANa" i.e proof, and a possible consequence of such reliance -
the implication/assertion/one-upmanship that all currents of music flowed one-way
i.e North to South. My friend Srikanth Ranganathan can provide you with many
an anecdote from his days at IIT-Kanpur, where his discussions on music
with friends have led to his discovery of such "illusions".
Assuming that these are musicologically naive people, if one looks at the
Gurus, the situation is no better; it is pathetic that no North Indian
musicologist (Bhatkande/Brhaspati/Gautam/PremLata Sharma/... and their like )
to my knowledge has even bothered to look at the wealth of musical detail in the
CilappadigAram, the ancient Tamil kAppiam -- either in its original or in its
translation. Given Bharata's high admiration for the music of the South, as
evidenced in his NatyaShastra, one would think that these scholars would at least be
interested in such a work. Yet, I have not seen even one single mention
of this or other such works anywhere in their writings.
Hence, they and the students they inform, including very respected scholars like
Emmie Te Nijenhuis of The Netherlands, go onto write what is IMHO incomplete
histories/theses/presentations. For example, Ms.Nijenhuis' 1975 monograph
"Musicological Literature" -- for the Leiden (?) series on Indological Literature --
succintly talks about all the Sanskrit treatises available in India on music from
the ancient times onwards. However, there is no mention of the Tamil work in it,
as far as I can recall. Four years after writing this book, however, she
got into her work on the Carnatic music tradition of Muttusvami Dikshitar's
KamalAmbA NavAvarna kritis with the assistance of the Tantric scholar Sanjukta Gupta.
It will take much longer than that for her to get into musicological material in
Tamil, even if she is interested in such stuff. If this is the case even with such a
dispassionate and outstanding scholar, one can imagine the state of the run-of-the
-mill North Indian musicologist.
This work (it comes with 2 commentaries;one of them is like a dictionary of the hard
words in the C. -- known as "arumpada urai", and another is a detailed commentary
by a medieval scholar AdiyArkkunallAr),
according to many respected musicologists of the South like
Prof.Sambamurti, Rangaramanuja Iyengar, Prof.S.Ramanathan ..., is probably the
only Indian book that sheds light EXTENSIVELY AND IN DEPTH
on musical practice of that
entire macro region, with a good amount of Pan-Indian validity,
between the time of Bharata's Natya Shastra and Matanga's Brhaddesi in
Sanskrit (let me not get into date or wars on date here; suffice to say, that
this sequence is historically accurate). For the record, I must add here that these
people have no particular Dravidian/separatist axe to grind -- in fact, their
cultured national sentiments are models for all aspiring nationalists.
C. has been critically edited by many
famous scholars like U.V.Svaminatha Iyer, and has been translated by people
like historian Prof.V.R.Ramachandra Dikshitar (who taught for a long time
at Banaras Hindu University), and the Frenchman Alain Danielou whose translation
is titled "The Ankle Bracelet"; Danielou has said in his Foreword and elsewhere
that he got interested in the book because of his interest in Indian musicology;
and then got so much into it, that he went on to do a complete translation.
However, all these translations are more literary than musicologically oriented.
Here is where Prof.S.Ramanathan's work "CilappadigArattil Icaittamil" becomes a
seminal thesis. For his own English translation, Music in Cilappatikaram, he was
awarded a Ph.D. in 1973 by Wesleyan University, Connecticut. Of
course, he has presented this work in many forums in India much earlier -- in the
50s itself.
Now for some musical details from C. -- it will be a surprise to most
Indians that there is a completely independent set of terms for the solfaggio
that we are used to i.e the Shadja/Rshabha/.../Nishada nomenclature.
They are as follows:
Current Western Ancient Tamil
---------------------------------------------------------
Shadja Do Kural
Rshabha Re Tuttam
Gandhara Mi KaikkiLai
Madhyama Fa Uzhai
Panchama So iLi (the retroflex L)
Dhaivata La viLari
Nishada Ti tAram
In later Tamil literature, the s-r-g-m-p-d-n was used. No big deal with that.
The author of C. itself uses these terms symbolically; he describes
the "kuRavai" dance by 7 cow-herdesses (Tamil "Aycchiar Kuravai"), wherein
each girl takes the ancient Tamil name of one svara; the choreographer, an old
lady, then positions the girls on the perimeter of a circle which has been
divided into 12 sectors (called "mandilam", referring to the zodiac, as well
as to the 12 semitones in an octave). The positioning is done according to
"iLikiramam" or the "cycle of fifths" (i.e Shadja-Panchama samvAda). Then
by moving the girls around the circle, the author indicates the birth of
the 4 different paNNs (i.e. musical mode) in this circle (Tamil vaTTam)
The paNNs and their modern equivalents are the following:
pAlaiyAzh harikAmbhoji
kurinjiyAzh shankarAbharanam
marutayAzh kalyANI
neytaliyAzh -- (this paN is not practicable and is hence
termed tiRanilyAzh)
cevvazhi kharaharapriya
The author (and the commentators) discuss problems relating to temperament
or intonation of the 7 notes in these paNNs and scales (pAlai)
while discussing the harp (Tamil yAzh),
assonance/consonance/dissonance (Tamil iNai/.../pagai),
shifting of tonic (Tamil kuraltiribu); the 12 tone system and 7 notes
are referred to as the older tradition while the newer tradition (Tamil
vamburai marabu) using the same setup and additionally, the concept of
mattirai (Skt. matra) which are 22 in number, is also discussed. Also,
the 7 modes which arise out of kuraltiripu, and the dropping of
one of them due to two madhyamas, are talked of.
--Srini.
ps: Please check your University library for this book of Prof.S.Ramanathan
- ML 338.R17 1979 is the LC# at our library.
pps: One of the scholars you mention, K.C.D.Brhaspati, has written quite a
rabble-rousing,incendiary article titled "Muslim influence on the Venkatamakhi school"
wherein he vents his spleen quite heavily on the South Indian
lakshanakAras (musicologists) of medieval times. While some of his points in that article
are valid, it is quite obvious that he is totally ignorant
of the Cilappadigaram and other such works.
Srini Pichumani
>>Recently there has been a spirited discussion on "shruti" : what the word
>>does or does not mean; what it should mean etc. Since the discussion has
>>become (perhaps unnecessarily) dogmatic at times, I thought that I could
>>contribute by supplying a "kinder and gentler" perspective.
Let me point out that the only dogmatic assertion, IMO, was made by
Umesh Mokate @ Microsoft and it was the following:
--------
>i think this is totally incorrect information. Shruti is NOT the scale
---------
>>shadja, but often the madhyama note. {A remnant of this practice still
>>survives in present usage, when certain compositions (especially bhajans,
>>dohas etc.) are sung "in madhyama" i.e. with madhyama as tonic.}
What is known as "singing to madhyama sruti" in Carnatic music - a very
common practice for singing selected melodies. What it means is
that the artiste will change his key to the madhyama (the perfect fourth)
of the original and then render the rAga or melody. The practical utility
of this, while singing rAgas like nAdanAmakriyA, navarOz, punnAgavarALI,
kurinji, is the following -- these rAgas are restricted in their range
to about an octave; additionally, their mUrcchana or scale is defined as
starting from notes like P/D/N of the lower octave; hence it is more
comfortable for the performer to bump up the key
rather than stick to the original key -- the fact of the matter is,
it is in the range of the madhyama stAyi and a little beyond that the
artiste's voice performs best in terms of 'color', timbre, loudness, etc...
>>Which brings me to my last point. Someone was raising cain about referring
>>to Sanskrit works, and seemed to be objecting to what he/she regarded as
>>undue importance given to them. Perhaps we can agree that the importance
>>given to them is not because they are in Sanskrit, but because they are the
>>the few works on music that speak to us from our past, and therefore open a
>>window to the way in which music might have been in those days. Many of
>>these works happen to be in Sanskrit, which seems to have served as the
>>lingua communa for a large part of Hindu literature. In principle, one
>>should have no objection to quoting other works in other languages as long
>>as they have something to say about the subject, and as long as they are
>>accessible to all parties to the dialogue.
Ahaa! This provides the perfect point of departure for my post. While I did not
of the South like Prof.Sambamurti, Rangaramanuja Iyengar, Prof.S.Ramanathan, is
probably the only Indian book that sheds light EXTENSIVELY AND IN DEPTH on musical
practice in that entire macro region, with a good amount of Pan-Indian validity,
Ramesh Gangolli
In article <1lagkp...@shelley.u.washington.edu> gang...@zeno.math.washington.edu (Ramesh Gangolli) writes:
>
>In the ancient writings, the swaras are thus placed at incremental
>intervals of shrutis. The shadja is placed at shruti #4, the rishabha at
>shruti #8, gandhara at #11, madhyama at #13, panchama at #17, dhaivata at
>#20 and nishada at #22. This was the shadja grama scale. Notice that the
>interval between the ri and ga is note a whole tone, and similarly for the
>interval between dha and ni. Indeed, it is easily concluded that these
>notes are what we call to day the komal ga and komal ni, so that the
>ancient shadja grama coreesponds roughly to the Kafi scale of today.
>--
>Ramesh Gangolli (gang...@math.washington.edu)
>Dept. of Mathematics GN-50
>University of Washington
>Seattle WA 98195.
I have discovered that in my hurry to post this article, an error has crept
in. The lines
The shadja is placed at shruti #4, the rishabha at
shruti #8, gandhara at #11, madhyama at #13, panchama at #17,
dhaivata at #20 and nishada at #22.
SHOULD READ AS FOLLOWS :
The shadja is placed at shruti #4, the rishabha at
shruti #7, gandhara at #9, madhyama at #13, panchama at #17,
dhaivata at #20 and nishada at #22.
I apologize for the error. I had meant to doublecheck this point when I
first composed the article, but when I finished it late last night, I
neglected to do so, and the error remained.
This scale corresponds to the Kafi scale, more or less. Notice that there
is a large number of consonances of intervals equal to a fifth or a fourth
: thus, the intervals sa-pa, ma-sa^, re-dha, ga-ni, are all fifths, while
the intervals sa-ma, ma-ni, ga-dha, are a fourth apart. But the notes re
and pa are not in consonance, a fact that troubled all those writers no
end. Indeed the madhayama grama was based on the desire to correct this
lacuna, but of course, it had a different lacuna in it. the dissonance that
keeps creeping in (as in the interval between re and pa above) is just one
shruti; based on harmonic experiments, it can be conjectured plausibly that
this dissonance equals the so-called Pythagorean comma (which was actually
discovered by Didymus, several years after Pythagoras, inspired by
Ptolemy's thinking on this subject). This has been dealt with, at least
implicitly by several writers, including G.H Ranade, Acharya Brihaspati,
and Mukund Lath. But I feel that the harmonic argument that supports their
view has not been explicated very clearly in the ir writing, because their
focus has not been on the harmonic/acoustical method.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>
[an excellent summary of the exchanges on this topic deleted for brevity]
>
>2. Shruti meaning a tiny musical interval; how small? Ah, thereby hangs a tale,
>and a seemingly endless debate. See some comments below.
>
>3. Shruti meaning a referenced note, such as a base-note or a key-note.
>
>The last two senses are of course the subject of the postings I excerpted
>above. What is remarkable is that the is that the debate that is being
>carried ou here is essentially EXACTLY THE SAME as the one carried out in
>the old works on music. The basic question with which many of the classic
>works on music concerned themselves is :
>
> Is the word "shruti" to be interpreted as referring to a
> particular note, or to a musical interval?
>
>
>In the ancient writings, the swaras are thus placed at incremental
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you please state which ancient writing gives the following.
Please give an estimate of its period.
>intervals of shrutis. The shadja is placed at shruti #4, the rishabha at
>shruti #8, gandhara at #11, madhyama at #13, panchama at #17, dhaivata at
>#20 and nishada at #22. This was the shadja grama scale. Notice that the
>interval between the ri and ga is note a whole tone, and similarly for the
>interval between dha and ni. Indeed, it is easily concluded that these
>notes are what we call to day the komal ga and komal ni, so that the
>ancient shadja grama coreesponds roughly to the Kafi scale of today.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Same request as above.
The 22-sruthi scale you had given is the ancient Tamil system
called 'sempaalai' and is _not_ the only one !
Silappathikaaram ( 200-300 A.D) discusses this. A detailed
commentary using extensively ancient Tamil quotations and
sources, was given by Adiyaarkku Nallar in the 11 the century.
Let me quote this song:
kuralE thuththam iLi_ivai naangum
viLari kaikkilai mumoon Raagi(th)
thaLaraa(th) thaaram uzhai_ivai eeriraNdu
enavezhum enba aRindhisi nOrE
( Chapter: vEniRkaathai, 31, 32)
What the above Tamil song says is:
kural ( sa), thuththam (ri) and iLi (pa) each has 4 maaththirai = maatra
viLari ( dha) and kaikkiLai (ga) each has 3 maaththirai (=maatra
thaaram (ni) and uzhai (ma) have each 2 maaththirai.
So say the experts steeped in music ( = paaNar)
[ The significance/beauty of the names 'kural, thuthtam, kaikkiLai..
will be given in a separate article to come ( I hope !) ]
The 22-scale you had given is the same as what the tamil called
'_sempaalai_' and it is quite ancient ( considered to have existed
in B.C.).
There were other 'paalai's as well...
It is important to recognize that 24, 27, 32, 48
and 66-scale systems were also considered ( detailed research about
these have been done by paNdithar mu. aabiraham
>
>Now, as the usage of this scale became more and more established, the
>semantic distinction between the words swara and shruti was not always
>maintained : thus a particular swara, let's say the madhyama which strictly
>speaking should have been referred to as "the swara that is 9 shrutis from
>the shadja" was also simply referred to as "the ninth shruti from the
>shadja". This is already the case in quite early writing; already in
>Kallinatha, as quoted in Lath's book, one finds that the position of the
^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you give some details on this 'Kallinatha' ?
I am reminded of Silappathikaaram's 'kaLairsEr kaNNuRRavar'
( 17:3, Adiyaarkku Nallar urai) line. In tamil 'paadu kaLam'
means a place where 'music concert' is held.
>swara was being referred to as its shruti.
>
>The tonic (or base note, or key-note or what have you), is today invariably
>referred to as the shadja. However, this was note always the case. When the
>madhyama-grama scale was in wider use, the tonic was not necessarily the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>shadja, but often the madhyama note. {A remnant of this practice still
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>survives in present usage, when certain compositions (especially bhajans,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Important point. One of the prime reasons to claim that
the Tamil music is the source of carnatic music ( and quite possibly
indian music) and carnatic music is the present state of tamizh isai.
>dohas etc.) are sung "in madhyama" i.e. with madhyama as tonic.} At that
>time the tonic was referred to as the aadhara-swara, or as in Kallinatha,
>the aadhara-shruti. (Yes indeed.) No doubt this is the usage that lives on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in the South, where the tonic chosen by a particular performer is referred
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to as that performer's shruti. Thus a person will be asked "what is your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. But it comes from Tamil tradition of 'kural' which
later acquired the 'shadjam'. 'kural kuralaaga koLLuthal'
type of expressions _clearly_ tell that 'aadhaara-sruthi'
( in Tamil 'alagu' is also used in additions to 'sruthi'
and 'maaththirai' )
>shruti?" or "on what shruti do you sing?" etc. In Maharashtra, the same
>question will be posed as "on which soor do you sing?" or "which is your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Many will argue that 'soor' is 'swara'.
In Tamil suram is used and it does _not_ originate from
'swara'. The tamil 'suram' comes from the 'flute holes'
similar to the other popularly ( then) used word
'narambu' based on 'strings on the yaazh'. It is my
_guess_ that the north indian usage of 'soor' might be
the same as from tamil word 'suram'> sura > soor.
[ the tamil word 'suram' comes from the burning
holes to make a flute as in
'senthee thoTTa karunthuzhai(k) kuzhalin'
( = the red-fire scorched black holes of flute)
The above is from 'PerumpaanaaRRupadai' a work
belonging to Sangam age ( 200 B.C to 200 A.D)
'sur', 'sureer' are heat, scorching 'oli_kuRippu'
( indicative sounds ??) Dr. Vi. Paa. Kaa Sundaram
had explained this. ]
>patti?" {(this last is a reference to the patti (slat) on the harmonium.} A
^^^^^^^^^
In Tamil it is 'kattai'.
>similar usage prevails in the north, based on the word soor rather than on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the word shruti.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I believe that soor is not related to swara. The meaning of
Skt. swara is that 'it is sweet by itself' ( an exquisite
meaning indeed). But the Tamil origin is different for sure.
>
>I hope that this has not bordered on being boring. One lesson to be learned
>from all these postings is that when it comes to a living thing like
>language, the notion of "right use" is usually not right for ever! Usage
>changes, and in the final analysis, does not matter. What matters is that
>we understand what the usage is, so that communication can take place with
>some semblance of orderliness and appreciation.
>
>Which brings me to my last point. Someone was raising cain about referring
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to Sanskrit works, and seemed to be objecting to what he/she regarded as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you are referring to my comments as you have
attached a part of my posting at the end.
First, I did _not_ object to referring to Skt.
Please read my words _carefully_. I said Skt. works
seemed to be treated as some authority _in all cases_
which is not correct, in my opinion. ( see my words below).
>undue importance given to them. Perhaps we can agree that the importance
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>given to them is not because they are in Sanskrit, but because they are the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the few works on music that speak to us from our past, and therefore open a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>window to the way in which music might have been in those days.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Precisely for this reason I feel that Tamil should be
consulted. Please undertand that Sanskrit works on
music are not oldest or the best in illuninating a point
and in some cases
better light might come from Tamil and in some cases
it can be significantly older than the Sanskrit works
on that topic.
( please don't treat this as 'rabid tamil fanaticism'
as one of the readers of this net wrote to me in a
private e-mail)
>Many of
>these works happen to be in Sanskrit, which seems to have served as the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>lingua communa for a large part of Hindu literature. In principle, one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some are in Sanskrit and it is valuable. But some are
in Tamil and I think it is important to understand
this . What is more,
The Tamil musical singing traditions ( living) span
1200 years _continuous_ which Sanskrit can not claim
except the Sama Veda which is very limited in terms
of musical variety and richness compared to Thevaram.
Thevaram songs were written in a paN/raagam and sung
traditionally. First sahityams were thus in Tamil
Thevarams. There are about 24 paN's which are in
vogue although there were supposed to be 103 paNs.
Similar comments can be made about tala..
Further, what has 'Hindu' literature to do with it?
At least Tamil was called from ancient times as 'muththamizh'
'three-glory-tamil' ( literature-music-dance/drama)
where music appears prominantly right at the centre :)
What do you mean by 'Skt. was a lingua franca for a
large part of Hindu literature' ??!! You mean a large
part of hindu literatue is in skt. So too tamil, Marathi,
Bengali.. Can I call Tamil lingua franca of USA because
Tamils are in many major cities of USA, they read
speak Tamil, buy Tamil magazines etc..? What has this
to do with music, anyway ?
>In principle one
>should have no objection to quoting other works in other languages as long
>as they have something to say about the subject, and as long as they are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^(1)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>accessible to all parties to the dialogue.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^(2)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree with (1) whole heartedly. There are some practical
difficulties about (2). I have many books in english,skt. and
tamil at home in India, but don't have access to it here.
>
>
-------------the following are the comments of Selva in response---------------
>
>>
>>In your opinion, what is the correct (Sanskrit) word for the base-scale?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>> [ my whole response is an attempt to discourage the practice
>> of seeking the source to Sanskrit in all situations.
>> Sruthi is not something defined by some sanskrit pundit and others
>> follow based on this definition. In fact what is practiced
>> by the people is often attempted to be defined by some pundits.
>> Some practices of tuning etc. are very clearly given in Tamil
>> but these are again descriptions by tamil pundits of what is
>> practiced]
>
>
>|> I have followed some of the articles on this topic ( not all)
>|> and it appears to me that almost all the persons involved appear
>|> to treat Sanskrit sources as some kind indisputable authority.
>|> It is not important what is said in Sanskrit sources because
>|> much of our knowledge in these matters is one of 'practical'
>|> aspect.
>
>
_______________the above was Selva's comments____________________
>
>--
>Ramesh Gangolli (gang...@math.washington.edu)
>Dept. of Mathematics GN-50
>University of Washington
>Seattle WA 98195.
Regards
-Selva
Ramesh Gangolli
for the style and content. Just to clarify my own position on some of these
issues, a position perhaps not made clear in my previous posting, I am
appending a few comments, with references to Srini's posting.
In article <1lbvpn...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> sr...@engin.umich.edu (Srinivasan Pichumani) writes:
>
>What is known as "singing to madhyama sruti" in Carnatic music - a very
>common practice for singing selected melodies. What it means is
>that the artiste will change his key to the madhyama (the perfect fourth)
>of the original and then render the rAga or melody. The practical utility
>of this, while singing rAgas like nAdanAmakriyA, navarOz, punnAgavarALI,
>kurinji, is the following -- these rAgas are restricted in their range
>to about an octave; additionally, their mUrcchana or scale is defined as
>starting from notes like P/D/N of the lower octave; hence it is more
>comfortable for the performer to bump up the key
>rather than stick to the original key -- the fact of the matter is,
>it is in the range of the madhyama stAyi and a little beyond that the
>artiste's voice performs best in terms of 'color', timbre, loudness, etc...
So far as Hindustani practice is concerned, I believe there is another
motivation for shifting the tonic to madhyama. It is that in many
situations where male and female voices are performing in unison, (as for
examples in the case of Bhajan singing traditions in Maharashtra, domestic
folk songs in Rajasthan etc.), a negotiation of the tonic is essential for
success, and it is to verify that the choice of the madhyama is natural and
convenient, as long as the melody is structured to have a reasonably
limited range. I believe that this reason is quite a significant factor,
and perhaps partly explains why Bhajans and other folk-song forms such as
Maand, Chaiti etc. are often sung with madhyama as tonic. You are quite
right in pointing out that such melodies have a more restrictive melodic
range. Incidentally, this is not very Raga dependent. I have several
examples in my collection of pieces sung in madhyama, in ragas which
normally would exploit a much bigger melodic range than is done in these
specific pieces. It is as if, knowing that the piece is to be sung in
madhyama, the arranger or composer has set it with a more limited range on
purpose.
> >Ahaa! This provides the perfect point of departure for my post. While I
>did not want to engage Selvakumar in debate earlier -- I was not totally
>sure his agenda was Music, and I suspected that he carries his grievances
>too far -- I must agree with him in some respects. Namely, the exclusive
>reliance on source material available in Sanskrit, the quoting of such
>material as though it were "pramANa" i.e proof, and a possible consequence
>of such reliance - the implication/assertion/one-upmanship that all
>currents of music flowed one-way i.e North to South. My friend Srikanth
>Ranganathan can provide you with many an anecdote from his days at
>IIT-Kanpur, where his discussions on music with friends have led to his
>discovery of such "illusions".
Unfortunately, the tendency, to regard something as "pramana" just because
it is in Sanskrit, is widespread, and I believe, deplorable. I think it is
partly because not enough people understand Sanskrit well enough. A
charlatan with a little knowledge of Sanskrit can make it go a long way,
especially if the audience is conditioned to respect Sanskrit per se,
because of its rich cultural, literary and (above all) mythological/religious
associations and because of the appeal of such associations to the Indian
psyche.
>Assuming that these are musicologically naive people, if one looks at the
>Gurus, the situation is no better; it is pathetic that no North Indian
>musicologist (Bhatkande/Brhaspati/Gautam/PremLata Sharma/... and their
>like ) to my knowledge has even bothered to look at the wealth of musical
>detail in the CilappadigAram, the ancient Tamil kAppiam -- either in its
>original or in its translation. Given Bharata's high admiration for the
>music of the South, as evidenced in his NatyaShastra, one would think that
>these scholars would at least be interested in such a work. Yet, I have not
>seen even one single mention of this or other such works anywhere in their
>writings.
It is regrettable that the CilappadigAram has been largely ignored, and I
would be very happy to see this lack mended by some really first rate
scholar nurtured in the southern milieu, who is familiar with ancient
Tamil. As for the musicologists you mention above, I have the following
comments :
1. Bhatkhande actually had great reverence for the musical tradition of the
south, and repeatedly pays compliments to the care and discipline with
which musicological questions are raised and discussed in that tradition.
It is well-known that he got his inspiration for his thaat system of
classification from Venkatamakhi's work, and his personal encounter with
Subbarama Shastri Dikshitar. Perhaps he was completely unaware of the
existence and significance of the CilappadigAram. In any case, his
background would not have allowed him to take it into consideration, nor is
it clear whether the work would have had a direct relation to his main
objective : arriving at a reasonable paradigm for dealing with questions of
systematics for Hindustani music.
2. Brhaspati is too parochial on the north-south issue (and perhaps on many
others) I think; in general his writing has an air of papal infallibility
that I find difficult to reconcile with my own training and tastes. In
spite of this, there are some interesting ideas in his work, which I
referred to in my posting on Shruti.
3. Prem Lata Sharma has been occupied in a careful citical edition of
Sarngdeva's work. Time is surely a factor in one's life.
All this is not in any sense an apologia for what seems to me to be an
obvious lack of awareness among North Indian scholars when it comes to
understanding the influences of works like the CilappadigAram.
>Hence, they and the students they inform, including very respected
scholars like Emmie Te Nijenhuis of The Netherlands, go onto write what is
>IMHO incomplete histories/theses/presentations. For example, Ms.Nijenhuis'
>1975 monograph "Musicological Literature" -- for the Leiden (?) series on
>Indological Literature -- succintly talks about all the Sanskrit treatises
>available in India on music from the ancient times onwards. However, there
>is no mention of the Tamil work in it, as far as I can recall. Four years
>after writing this book, however, she got into her work on the Carnatic
>music tradition of Muttusvami Dikshitar's KamalAmbA NavAvarna kritis with
>the assistance of the Tantric scholar Sanjukta Gupta. It will take much
>longer than that for her to get into musicological material in Tamil, even
>if she is interested in such stuff. If this is the case even with such a
>dispassionate and outstanding scholar, one can imagine the state of the
>run-of-the-mill North Indian musicologist.
I feel that this is at least partly the result of the fact that the
tradition of criticism and scholarship in Indic Studies which she
represents stems from the nineteenth century "Discovery of India" by Max
Muller and other European Scholars, whose focus was inevitably on Sanskrit
for a variety of natural reasons. I believe that the effects (and perhaps
even the attitudes) that you mention are among the several (probably
unintentional) legacies of their work.
>C. has been critically edited by many >famous scholars like U.V.Svaminatha
>Iyer, and has been translated by people >like historian
>Prof.V.R.Ramachandra Dikshitar (who taught for a long time >at Banaras
>Hindu University), and the Frenchman Alain Danielou whose translation is
>titled "The Ankle Bracelet"; Danielou has said in his Foreword and
>elsewhere.......
>Here is where Prof.S.Ramanathan's work "CilappadigArattil Icaittamil"
>becomes a seminal thesis. For his own English translation, Music in
>Cilappatikaram, he was awarded a Ph.D. in 1973 by Wesleyan University,
>Connecticut. Of course, he has presented this work in many forums in India
>much earlier -- in the 50s itself.........
>ps: Please check your University library for this book of Prof.S.Ramanathan
- ML 338.R17 1979 is the LC# at our library.
am much obliged for these references, which I will file for future
reference.
William Alves
> The shadja is placed at shruti #4, the rishabha at
> shruti #7, gandhara at #9, madhyama at #13, panchama at #17,
> dhaivata at #20 and nishada at #22.
I am interested in the source and derivation of this system. Does this
mean that a shruti is an interval equivalent to 1/22 of an octave (i.e.
2^(1/22))? If so, could I then derive the above pitches, given a tuning
frequency, just as I could in Western equal temperament. If that is what
the theorists say or imply, has it been established by frequency analysis
that this is what is done in practice? If so, on what instruments? (Please
note, I am not questioning your information. I truly do not know the
answer and am interested in any further sources on the subject.)
>this dissonance equals the so-called Pythagorean comma (which was actually
>discovered by Didymus, several years after Pythagoras, inspired by
>Ptolemy's thinking on this subject).
Actually, I don't know of any evidence that Didymus or any other Greek
discovered the so-called Pythagorean comma. What we know about ancient
Greek theory shows that they did not have a twelve-tone tuning system,
however, which is the basis for the comma. That came in the Middle Ages,
and Boethius is the first writer that I know of that defines the comma
in the modern sense.
>This has been dealt with, at least
>implicitly by several writers, including G.H Ranade, Acharya Brihaspati,
>and Mukund Lath.
Could you provide more detailed references (especially of works in English)?
>But I feel that the harmonic argument that supports their
>view has not been explicated very clearly in the ir writing, because their
>focus has not been on the harmonic/acoustical method.
Could you explain these arguments and methods (or just point me to the
appropriate reference).
Thanks for your help on this topic.
Bill Alves
P J Narayanan
shouldn't let the subject go by without a response, lest the netters
forget me ;-)
RG:
>Unfortunately, the tendency, to regard something as "pramana" just because
>it is in Sanskrit, is widespread, and I believe, deplorable. I think it is
>partly because not enough people understand Sanskrit well enough. A
>charlatan with a little knowledge of Sanskrit can make it go a long way,
>especially if the audience is conditioned to respect Sanskrit per se,
>because of its rich cultural, literary and (above all) mythological/religious
>associations and because of the appeal of such associations to the Indian
>psyche.
Very true. It has come to be that aa Sanskrit slokam can shut all
opposition and win your point, even if it doesn't quite say what you
want to. A combination of blind respect and ignorance, I guess.
SP:
>>Assuming that these are musicologically naive people, if one looks at the
>>Gurus, the situation is no better; it is pathetic that no North Indian
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>musicologist (Bhatkande/Brhaspati/Gautam/PremLata Sharma/... and their
>>like ) to my knowledge has even bothered to look at the wealth of musical
>>detail in the CilappadigAram, the ancient Tamil kAppiam -- either in its
>>original or in its translation. Given Bharata's high admiration for the
>>music of the South, as evidenced in his NatyaShastra, one would think that
>>these scholars would at least be interested in such a work. Yet, I have not
>>seen even one single mention of this or other such works anywhere in their
>>writings.
RG:
>All this is not in any sense an apologia for what seems to me to be an
>obvious lack of awareness among North Indian scholars when it comes to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>understanding the influences of works like the CilappadigAram.
Or South Indian!! Indian musicologists at large are either ignorant of
or ignore the existence of a sophisticated music tradition in the
South which, in all likelihood, has influenced today's "Indian music
sytem" greately. We don't see more than one S. Ramanathan studying the
ancient Tamil texts for their musicological content.
>1. Bhatkhande actually had great reverence for the musical tradition of the
>south, and repeatedly pays compliments to the care and discipline with
>which musicological questions are raised and discussed in that tradition.
> Perhaps he was completely unaware of the
>existence and significance of the CilappadigAram.
Give the nature of things, it is very likely that Bhatkhande was
completely unaware of Cilappatikaram. Today, we live in interesting
times, where information dissemination is easy. I hope serious
scholars are studying/will study the ancient southern texts and we
will get a clear picture of the music of those times and its influence
on music today.
RG:
>I feel that this is at least partly the result of the fact that the
>tradition of criticism and scholarship in Indic Studies which she
>represents stems from the nineteenth century "Discovery of India" by Max
>Muller and other European Scholars, whose focus was inevitably on Sanskrit
>for a variety of natural reasons. I believe that the effects (and perhaps
>even the attitudes) that you mention are among the several (probably
>unintentional) legacies of their work.
So true! One man (essentially) has left such a legacy. Even with all
his good intentions (which are questioned BTW), Max Muller could not
have known everything that can be known today. I hope serious and
dispassionate study is in progress on all aspects of Indology.
I think dispassionate is the keyword here. That is the aspect readers
question about Selva, IMHO. The best way to get respect for ancient
Tamil works is by presenting stuff from it. I am eagerly awaiting the
articles Selva has promised to write.
It is the nature of arts that they go through phases of ups and downs.
It is also common for the person or event that brought about a recent
up-phase to attain great prominence and for the past to recede to the
background. It is in this context that Purandaradasa is called the
"sangeetha pithamaha" and T-D-S are called the "trinity." Very little
can be gained by calling these into question, IMHO; after all they did
make seminal contributions to music. The only way I know to bring the
receded past into prominence is studying it and presenting it
dispassionately; certainly not by passionately opposing status quo. I
don't believe a few people intentionally schemed to make things as
they are today; it's another quirk of histoy that one can "fix" only
by proper study.
PJN
--
---
Robotics Institute, CMU p...@cs.cmu.edu
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
---
Srinivasan Pichumani
washington.edu (Ramesh Gangolli) writes:
>Maand, Chaiti etc. are often sung with madhyama as tonic. You are quite
>right in pointing out that such melodies have a more restrictive melodic
>range. Incidentally, this is not very Raga dependent. I have several
>examples in my collection of pieces sung in madhyama, in ragas which
>normally would exploit a much bigger melodic range than is done in these
>specific pieces. It is as if, knowing that the piece is to be sung in
>madhyama, the arranger or composer has set it with a more limited range on
>purpose.
That's interesting! In Carnatic music, however, singing to madhyama sruti
is 99% rAga dependent as far as I know i.e the musician will shift
keys only when singing Kurinji/Punnagavarali/Navaroz etc.
The only exception I can think of is a raga like Yadhukulakambhoji.
While kritis in this rAga are normally sung to regular sruti, I can remember
an utsava sampradaya kriti (i.e a composition specifically meant for rituals
or festivals) or mangaLa kriti (ending composition) being sung to madhyama
sruti.
>Unfortunately, the tendency, to regard something as "pramana" just because
>it is in Sanskrit, is widespread, and I believe, deplorable. I think it is
>partly because not enough people understand Sanskrit well enough. A
>charlatan with a little knowledge of Sanskrit can make it go a long way,
>especially if the audience is conditioned to respect Sanskrit per se,
>because of its rich cultural, literary and (above all) mythological/religious
>associations and because of the appeal of such associations to the Indian
>psyche.
Consider this:
Thomas Coburn, a Western scholar of Indian purANic lore and books such as
the "devI mAhAtmya" has remarked that for some strata of Indian society
simply hearing, not understanding, the cultured Sanskrit language, bordered
on being a NUMINOUS experience.
>Subbarama Shastri Dikshitar.
A small correction here. It should be Subbarama Dikshitar, whose maternal
grandfather, Balusvami Dikshitar, was the younger brother of
Muttusvami Dikshitar. Subbaraya Shastri, on the other hand, was the son of
the composer Shyama Shastri, and an excellent composer himself.
>2. Brhaspati is too parochial on the north-south issue (and perhaps on many
>others) I think; in general his writing has an air of papal infallibility
>that I find difficult to reconcile with my own training and tastes. In
>spite of this, there are some interesting ideas in his work, which I
>referred to in my posting on Shruti.
I was surprised by the vehemence with which he slams Pt.Bhatkande himself.
>3. Prem Lata Sharma has been occupied in a careful citical edition of
>Sarngdeva's work. Time is surely a factor in one's life.
It looks like her lectures from the 60s onwards have been very well received
at the Music Academy, Madras. She does put things very well in perspective
in one particular lecture, whose transcript appears in the 1960 Journal. It
is titled "The Grama system of Bharata and its distortion in medieval times".
She is not selective in her criticism like KCDBrhaspati... and rakes everyone
over the coals in a subdued manner.
>I feel that this is at least partly the result of the fact that the
>tradition of criticism and scholarship in Indic Studies which she
>represents stems from the nineteenth century "Discovery of India" by Max
>Muller and other European Scholars, whose focus was inevitably on Sanskrit
>for a variety of natural reasons. I believe that the effects (and perhaps
>even the attitudes) that you mention are among the several (probably
>unintentional) legacies of their work.
In the particular case that I mentioned, namely Emmie Te Nijenhuis's research,
it seems more restricted to what her informers told her or guided her to.
I have been following Indological research quite closely in an overall sense
and can assure you that Max Mueller's and similar methodologies have been
long updated. The criticism of his work itself is somewhat unfair
since he suspends judjement in many places and very
cautiously treads on matters such as what exactly "Aryan" and so on means..
Similarly, there was yet another period when there was an over-emphasis on
matters such as exact chronologies, pinning down the authorships/attributions,
critical editions etc...
An example of the updated methods is the following: Prof.Daniel Ingalls of
Harvard, who has done yeoman service to Sanskrit -- in terms of compiling and
translating the "Anthology of Sanskrit Court Poetry", and researching the
Navya-nyaya ("new logic") schools of the Bengal/Bihar region in his
"Materials for the study of Navya Nyaya", felt that there were extraneous
influences in early/medieval classical Sanskrit poetry about which he didn't
have a clue. Somewhat on his insistence, his student, Prof.George Hart at
UCBerkeley, originally a Sanskritist himself, went on to study Ancient Tamil
in depth - and probably other South Indian languages - and literature in
Prakrit, in order to write a book that epitomizes cross-cultural/lingual
research.
The real nightmare ensues when Indians themselves adopt such Western
methodologies as "critical research" as opposed to the traditional
Indian "consensus research" (Skt samanvaya), and then go on to perform
it in an incomplete manner and write parochial histories.
--Srini.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
> [ some lines deleted ]
>>>Which brings me to my last point. Someone was raising cain about referring
>>>to Sanskrit works, and seemed to be objecting to what he/she regarded as
>>>undue importance given to them. Perhaps we can agree that the importance
>>>given to them is not because they are in Sanskrit, but because they are the
>>>the few works on music that speak to us from our past, and therefore open a
>>>window to the way in which music might have been in those days. Many of
>>>these works happen to be in Sanskrit, which seems to have served as the
>>>lingua communa for a large part of Hindu literature. In principle, one
>>>should have no objection to quoting other works in other languages as long
>>>as they have something to say about the subject, and as long as they are
>>>accessible to all parties to the dialogue.
>
>Ahaa! This provides the perfect point of departure for my post. While I did not
>want to engage Selvakumar in debate earlier -- I was not totally sure his
>agenda was Music, and I suspected that he carries his grievances too far --
With all respect to you, Sir, I think it is an unfair
comment. :) It is perfectly understandable that one may not
agree with my views, or my viwes might be quite incorrect,
but I object to your implication
that 'my agenda was not music' :( My objections are
twofold, first your implication that I have 'an agenda'
which gives a bad connotation, second that it 'was _not_
music'.
But I am _very_ glad that you wrote this reply. My
intentions were identically same ( if I may say so ?)
as you have expressed
in this excellent reply. If some were to write as you did,
I would _not_ have ventured to post anything in this netgroup
other than reading, enjoying, learning..
>I must agree with him in some respects. Namely, the exclusive reliance on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks ( in _all_ respects :) ) _really_ .
>source material available in Sanskrit, the quoting of such material as though
>it were "pramANa" i.e proof, and a possible consequence of such reliance -
>the implication/assertion/one-upmanship that all currents of music flowed one-way
>i.e North to South. My friend Srikanth Ranganathan can provide you with many
>an anecdote from his days at IIT-Kanpur, where his discussions on music
>with friends have led to his discovery of such "illusions".
This is _precisely_ what I had wanted to say. May be in my
crude way of expressing, got lost. If only such deeply
knowledgeable persons as your goodself were to express these
views, mere rasikans like myself need NOT enter into discussions
spoiling the 'harmony' of this netgroup.
>
>Assuming that these are musicologically naive people, if one looks at the
>Gurus, the situation is no better; it is pathetic that no North Indian
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Glad to know that some persons as your self points this out.
>musicologist (Bhatkande/Brhaspati/Gautam/PremLata Sharma/... and their like )
>to my knowledge has even bothered to look at the wealth of musical detail in the
>CilappadigAram, the ancient Tamil kAppiam -- either in its original or in its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>translation. Given Bharata's high admiration for the music of the South, as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>evidenced in his NatyaShastra, one would think that these scholars would at least be
>interested in such a work. Yet, I have not seen even one single mention
>of this or other such works anywhere in their writings.
It is my view that some of the indians who know both Tamil
and another north indian language should probably write
articles or books in the north indian languages ( it goes
for non-tamil south indian languages too), so that there is
greater understanding. If properly done, some of these works
will earn 'pioneer' status.
I also think it would be of great value to write Tamil
articles and books about what is available in Skt and other
languages by those who are knowledgeable both in music and the
concerned languages. These will be true contributions.
>
>Hence, they and the students they inform, including very respected scholars like
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Extremely important point !!
>Emmie Te Nijenhuis of The Netherlands, go onto write what is IMHO incomplete
>histories/theses/presentations. For example, Ms.Nijenhuis' 1975 monograph
>"Musicological Literature" -- for the Leiden (?) series on Indological Literature --
>succintly talks about all the Sanskrit treatises available in India on music from
>the ancient times onwards. However, there is no mention of the Tamil work in it,
>as far as I can recall. Four years after writing this book, however, she
>got into her work on the Carnatic music tradition of Muttusvami Dikshitar's
>KamalAmbA NavAvarna kritis with the assistance of the Tantric scholar Sanjukta Gupta.
>It will take much longer than that for her to get into musicological material in
>Tamil, even if she is interested in such stuff. If this is the case even with such a >dispassionate and outstanding scholar, one can imagine the state of the run-of-the
>-mill North Indian musicologist.
>
>This work (it comes with 2 commentaries;one of them is like a dictionary of the hard
>words in the C. -- known as "arumpada urai", and another is a detailed commentary
>by a medieval scholar AdiyArkkunallAr), according to many respected musicologists
>of the South like Prof.Sambamurti, Rangaramanuja Iyengar, Prof.S.Ramanathan, is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have read ( a long time ago) several books of Prof. Sambamurti
and he is undoubtedly a very great scholar and he is one of the few
who had actively participated in the annual paN araaichchi ( Tamil
Musical Research) proceedings of the Tamil isai and _knows_ the
depth and breadth of Tamil musical traditions. But even he, as per
my recollections does _not_ give adequate emphasis in his books
although he had mentioned about Tamil traditions and some
terminologies. [ my comments are based on seeing recently
a compilation of the proceedings of the paN araichchi between
1949 and 1974 and considering how well he was
informed by the 'Othuvaars' ( traditional singers of Thevarams
set to music in the 7-8th century A.D) ].
>probably the only Indian book that sheds light EXTENSIVELY AND IN DEPTH on musical
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>practice in that entire macro region, with a good amount of Pan-Indian validity,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>between the time of Bharata's Natya Shastra and Matanga's Brhaddesi in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am glad you pointed this out. :)
>Sanskrit (let me not get into date or wars on date here; suffice to say, that
>this sequence is historically accurate). For the record, I must add here that these
>people have no particular Dravidian/separatist axe to grind -- in fact, their
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What does this mean ? :) :)
[ interesting comment ! :) ]
>cultured national sentiments are models for all aspiring nationalists.
>
>C. has been critically edited by many
>famous scholars like U.V.Svaminatha Iyer, and has been translated by people
>like historian Prof.V.R.Ramachandra Dikshitar (who taught for a long time
>at Banaras Hindu University), and the Frenchman Alain Danielou whose translation
>is titled "The Ankle Bracelet"; Danielou has said in his Foreword and elsewhere
>that he got interested in the book because of his interest in Indian musicology;
>and then got so much into it, that he went on to do a complete translation.
>However, all these translations are more literary than musicologically oriented.
>Here is where Prof.S.Ramanathan's work "CilappadigArattil Icaittamil" becomes a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Prof. S. Ramanathan is in the line of Mu. Abraham PaNdithar,
and Vipulaanada AdigaL in this research and many of Prof.
Ramanathan's research had been improved by Dr. Vi. Paa. Kaa.
Sundaram ( one of the editorial borad members of the Tamil
journal called Senthamizh Chelvi which had been in publication
for more than 60 years). His book in Tamil 'pazham thamizh isai'
is an excellent one in term of authentic contents, but somewhat
less than satisfactorily edited in my opinion.
>seminal thesis. For his own English translation, Music in Cilappatikaram, he was
>awarded a Ph.D. in 1973 by Wesleyan University, Connecticut. Of
>course, he has presented this work in many forums in India much earlier -- in the
>50s itself.
Vipulananda AdigaL ( who was born about 101 year ago) was a
scholar who published a valuable work ( in Tamil) called
'yaazh nool' with a wealth of info. This was published in 1947.
( I'm planning to write a small article on him; its
'my agenda' :) wrong ? - an honest question)
>
>Now for some musical details from C. -- it will be a surprise to most
>Indians that there is a completely independent set of terms for the solfaggio
>that we are used to i.e the Shadja/Rshabha/.../Nishada nomenclature.
>They are as follows:
> Current Western Ancient Tamil
>---------------------------------------------------------
> Shadja Do Kural
> Rshabha Re Tuttam
> Gandhara Mi KaikkiLai
> Madhyama Fa Uzhai
> Panchama So iLi (the retroflex L)
> Dhaivata La viLari
> Nishada Ti tAram
>In later Tamil literature, the s-r-g-m-p-d-n was used. No big deal with that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From SEndhan Thivaakaram ( thesaurus-type) of 8th Century A.D:
'sa'vvum 'ri'vvum 'ga'vvum 'ma'vvum
'pa'vvum 'dha'vvum 'ni'vvum enRivai
Ezhum avaRRin ezhuththE yaagum
[ chapter: 'olippeyar thoguthi' (= collection of names of
sounds)]
>
>The author of C. itself uses these terms symbolically; he describes
>the "kuRavai" dance by 7 cow-herdesses (Tamil "Aycchiar Kuravai"), wherein
>each girl takes the ancient Tamil name of one svara; the choreographer, an old
>lady, then positions the girls on the perimeter of a circle which has been
>divided into 12 sectors (called "mandilam", referring to the zodiac, as well
>as to the 12 semitones in an octave). The positioning is done according to
>"iLikiramam" or the "cycle of fifths" (i.e Shadja-Panchama samvAda). Then
>by moving the girls around the circle, the author indicates the birth of
>the 4 different paNNs (i.e. musical mode) in this circle (Tamil vaTTam)
>The paNNs and their modern equivalents are the following:
> pAlaiyAzh harikAmbhoji
> kurinjiyAzh shankarAbharanam
> marutayAzh kalyANI
> neytaliyAzh -- (this paN is not practicable and is hence
> termed tiRanilyAzh)
> cevvazhi kharaharapriya
>The author (and the commentators) discuss problems relating to temperament
>or intonation of the 7 notes in these paNNs and scales (pAlai)
>while discussing the harp (Tamil yAzh),
>assonance/consonance/dissonance (Tamil iNai/.../pagai),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It would be nice if some one can write on these.
'iNai, natpu, pagai..' !!
>shifting of tonic (Tamil kuraltiribu); the 12 tone system and 7 notes
>are referred to as the older tradition while the newer tradition (Tamil
>vamburai marabu) using the same setup and additionally, the concept of
>mattirai (Skt. matra) which are 22 in number, is also discussed. Also,
>the 7 modes which arise out of kuraltiripu, and the dropping of
>one of them due to two madhyamas, are talked of.
>
>--Srini.
>
>ps: Please check your University library for this book of Prof.S.Ramanathan
>- ML 338.R17 1979 is the LC# at our library.
>
>pps: One of the scholars you mention, K.C.D.Brhaspati, has written quite a
>rabble-rousing,incendiary article titled "Muslim influence on the Venkatamakhi school"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>wherein he vents his spleen quite heavily on the South Indian
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>lakshanakAras (musicologists) of medieval times. While some of his points in that article
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Interesting !!:)
>are valid, it is quite obvious that he is totally ignorant
>of the Cilappadigaram and other such works.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My main 'agenda' was to contribute towards removing this
'ignorance' in a small way. ithu oru thappaa aiyaa ? ( = Is this
a crime Sir ?)
regards
- Selva
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>
>>>Recently there has been a spirited discussion on "shruti" : what the word
>>>does or does not mean; what it should mean etc. Since the discussion has
>>>become (perhaps unnecessarily) dogmatic at times, I thought that I could
>>>contribute by supplying a "kinder and gentler" perspective.
>
>Let me point out that the only dogmatic assertion, IMO, was made by
>Umesh Mokate @ Microsoft and it was the following:
>--------
>>i think this is totally incorrect information. Shruti is NOT the scale
>---------
>
>>>shadja, but often the madhyama note. {A remnant of this practice still
>>>survives in present usage, when certain compositions (especially bhajans,
>>>dohas etc.) are sung "in madhyama" i.e. with madhyama as tonic.}
>
>What is known as "singing to madhyama sruti" in Carnatic music - a very
>common practice for singing selected melodies. What it means is
>that the artiste will change his key to the madhyama (the perfect fourth)
>of the original and then render the rAga or melody. The practical utility
>of this, while singing rAgas like nAdanAmakriyA, navarOz, punnAgavarALI,
>kurinji, is the following -- these rAgas are restricted in their range
Some of these are extremely close to ( or same as)
paNs in which Thevaram songs are sung. The 'kolli'
paN is identified as navarOz etc..
I know the Tamil paN 'kurinji' is close but not same as
harikaambodhi, can anyone shed light on the origin of
kurinji raagam and its history ?
>to about an octave; additionally, their mUrcchana or scale is defined as
>starting from notes like P/D/N of the lower octave; hence it is more
>comfortable for the performer to bump up the key
>rather than stick to the original key -- the fact of the matter is,
>it is in the range of the madhyama stAyi and a little beyond that the
>artiste's voice performs best in terms of 'color', timbre, loudness, etc...
>
>
[Rest of the response of 'Srini' deleted ]
>--Srini.
>
>ps: Please check your University library for this book of Prof.S.Ramanathan
>- ML 338.R17 1979 is the LC# at our library.
>
>pps: One of the scholars you mention, K.C.D.Brhaspati, has written quite a
>rabble-rousing,incendiary article titled "Muslim influence on the Venkatamakhi school"
>wherein he vents his spleen quite heavily on the South Indian
>lakshanakAras (musicologists) of medieval times. While some of his points in that article
>are valid, it is quite obvious that he is totally ignorant
>of the Cilappadigaram and other such works.
Regards
- Selva