Gandharva Punyatithi
gr...@cc.usu.edu
anyone know where these tapes can be purchased in the United States? Please
email me. Thank you.
Shankar Krish
playing 'mAmava meenAkshi' in subapanthuvaRALi rather than vaRALi in
his solo concerts. The posting suggested that he NEVER plays varali in
his solo concerts.
As many of you would know, the S V Temple of Pittsburgh has the
tradition of bringing musicians from India during the summer time to
teach music to those interested. The visiting violinist this year is
Sri H K Narasimhamurthy of Mysore, a disciple of Sri Parur Sundaram
Iyer and later Sri M S Gopalakrishnan; he is currently a grade A artist
at AIR Mysore.
I asked Sri Narasimhamurthy about this practice of not playing varali
and playing subapanthuvarali by his guru (I happen to take lessons this
summer). According to him, Parur Sundaram Iyer (father of MSG) have a
theory that vaRALI is sung incorrectly by everyone.
The theory is :
* Nobody sings/plays the vaRALI correctly in the context of the
gAndhAram.
* In vaRALI, suddha gAndhAram is the note and has to be used very
carefully. (Most often, this is where people messup leading to
disaster as many have commented about rendering of 'kana
kanaruchira' in 'thyagaraja aradhanas')
* During slower passages when each note is played for a longer
duration (as in viLamba or madhyama kAlam), suddha gAndhAram is
used correctly. But during the faster passages (be it in alapana or
swaraprastharam), the gandharam employed is invariably 'sAdharaNa
gAndhAram', which is the crux of the problem as per Sundaram Iyer.
The use of sAdharaNa gandharam during faster passages is not
restricted to amateurs and up-and-coming artists, but one and all
as per Sundaram Iyer.
* Sundaram Iyer was of the opinion that it is better not to play the
rAgam incorrectly, but rather play compositions in varALi in
subapanthuvaRaLi. And hence this practice.
Now, if anyone else proposes this theory and practises this theory,
that person would not even get past the audition stage in AIR and the
career is bound to be doomed.
According to him, Sundaram Iyer has had numerous arguments and
discussions with Semmangudi and others in the fifties and sixties.
Many of you may noticed that MSG always plays chalanAta in place of
nAta for compositions such as 'mahA ganapathim', 'pavanAthmaja',
'saraseeruhAsanapriyE' ..etc. Apparantly the same theory that there is
the incorrect usage of dhaivatham in nAta which should not
be used as per nAta scales.
This posting is based on my conversation with Sri H K Narasimhamurthy
and not my personal views. I thought this was an interesting theory and
decided to post it in this newsgroup, that could result in constructive
discussions in place of mud-slinging (could not resist saying so).
Shankar
Todd Michel McComb
Shankar Krish <se...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Interesting article.
>Many of you may noticed that MSG always plays chalanAta in place of
>nAta for compositions such as 'mahA ganapathim', 'pavanAthmaja',
>'saraseeruhAsanapriyE' ..etc. Apparantly the same theory that there is
>the incorrect usage of dhaivatham in nAta which should not
>be used as per nAta scales.
As per Dikshitar Kirtanamala, the first two are supposed to be in
calanAta, so this is apparently a different (possibly related)
situation. If someone would elaborate on this, I would appreciate
it. For instance, svAminAtha paripAlaya is a song I know rather
well (in nATa, of course) and I cannot imagine it to be actually
in calanAta.
Todd Michel McComb
mcc...@best.com http://www.best.com/~mccomb
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
> Sometime last year there was a posting about M S Gopalakrishnan always
> playing 'mAmava meenAkshi' in subapanthuvaRALi rather than vaRALi in
> his solo concerts. The posting suggested that he NEVER plays varali in
> his solo concerts.
>
> As many of you would know, the S V Temple of Pittsburgh has the
> tradition of bringing musicians from India during the summer time to
> teach music to those interested. The visiting violinist this year is
> Sri H K Narasimhamurthy of Mysore, a disciple of Sri Parur Sundaram
> Iyer and later Sri M S Gopalakrishnan; he is currently a grade A artist
> at AIR Mysore.
>
> I asked Sri Narasimhamurthy about this practice of not playing varali
> and playing subapanthuvarali by his guru (I happen to take lessons this
> summer). According to him, Parur Sundaram Iyer (father of MSG) have a
> theory that vaRALI is sung incorrectly by everyone.
With all due respect to Parur Sundaram Iyer's stature and his arguments, I
beg to differ on many details of the following analysis.
>
> The theory is :
>
> * Nobody sings/plays the vaRALI correctly in the context of the
> gAndhAram.
Agree pretty much.
>
> * In vaRALI, suddha gAndhAram is the note and has to be used very
> carefully. (Most often, this is where people messup leading to
> disaster as many have commented about rendering of 'kana
> kanaruchira' in 'thyagaraja aradhanas')
>
> * During slower passages when each note is played for a longer
> duration (as in viLamba or madhyama kAlam), suddha gAndhAram is
> used correctly. But during the faster passages (be it in alapana or
> swaraprastharam), the gandharam employed is invariably 'sAdharaNa
> gAndhAram', which is the crux of the problem as per Sundaram Iyer.
> The use of sAdharaNa gandharam during faster passages is not
> restricted to amateurs and up-and-coming artists, but one and all
> as per Sundaram Iyer.
The situation is not so simple as that. In the slower pharases, most
people I've heard, give a small oscillation to the ga, so that it becomes
somewhat higher than the Suddha gandhara of Ganamurthy, but remains still
much too low to be called a sadharana gandhara.
The problem here lies as much in the Varali ga being messed up, as in what
people perceive to be the Todi ga. Nowadays, many people, including famous
musicians, whom I shall not name, sing the Todi ga much too low to be
called sadharana. They even put in a touch of chatuSruti rishabha in it.
(This has become standard C. musicology now, thanks to some influential
people.) This lowered Todi ga is then identified as sadharana. Through an
inverse comparison, the Varali ga now appears relatively higher than it
should be, further confounding the confusion.
In fast phrases, the position of the Varali ga goes to as high as an
antara gandhara. Listen to the fast phrase "s rg rg rsn" or "srgr rss" in
almost any rendition of Varali, Subhapantuvarali and Pantuvarali. Taken
out of the larger context of the raga as a whole, I bet my last dollar,
all three phrases would sound remarkably alike. For that matter, this
phrase would sound exactly like in a host of other unrelated ragas like
Mayamalavagowla, Vasanta and Dhenuka. Instrumentalists should notice this
carefully. In an effort to play in a gAyaki style, such details are easily
passed over. I sometimes wonder what is the fascination with this phrase,
for many musicians, that conveys almost nothing about the raga. I would
much rather that musicians avoid such phrases in ragas that do not have
the suddha rishabha - antara gandhara combination. Or, at least highlight
the ga and sing it properly in the other ragas.
>
> * Sundaram Iyer was of the opinion that it is better not to play the
> rAgam incorrectly, but rather play compositions in varALi in
> subapanthuvaRaLi. And hence this practice.
For the sake of nitpicking, why not play them in a pure Varali
(Jhalavarali ?) where every ga is in the correct Suddha gandhara position?
In other words, handle the ga as in Chandrajyoti, for example. Isn't
playing Varali kritis in Subhapantuvarali only substituting one
incorrectness for another?
>
> Now, if anyone else proposes this theory and practises this theory,
> that person would not even get past the audition stage in AIR and the
> career is bound to be doomed.
>
> According to him, Sundaram Iyer has had numerous arguments and
> discussions with Semmangudi and others in the fifties and sixties.
>
> Many of you may noticed that MSG always plays chalanAta in place of
> nAta for compositions such as 'mahA ganapathim', 'pavanAthmaja',
> 'saraseeruhAsanapriyE' ..etc. Apparantly the same theory that there is
> the incorrect usage of dhaivatham in nAta which should not
> be used as per nAta scales.
I doubt if the introduction of the shatSruti dha in one or two sangatis is
sufficient to call it chalanATa. It is only if the dha is played for a
substantial portion of the alapana, a large number of the sangatis and the
kalpana swaras, that the raga can be justifiably classified as chalanATa.
The Thyagaraja kriti "ninne bhajana" has the dha in one sangati in the
pallavi, but it remains nATa nevertheless.
>
> This posting is based on my conversation with Sri H K Narasimhamurthy
> and not my personal views. I thought this was an interesting theory and
> decided to post it in this newsgroup, that could result in constructive
> discussions in place of mud-slinging (could not resist saying so).
>
> Shankar
This was meant not as mud-slinging, but was an effort at raising pertinent
questions regarding the issue at hand. No doubt Sundaram Iyer and his
pupils have already thought of such questions before. It would be
interesting to see what Sri Narasimhamurthy says about them.
S. Vidyasankar