Ravi Shankar denies Jasraj charge on lobbying for Bharat Ratna
RSB
-----------------------------------------------------
Ravi Shankar denies Jasraj charge on lobbying
for Bharat Ratna
BHUBANESWAR/NEW DELHI: First, Pandit Ravi Shankar was accused of
promoting his daughter. Now, he's alleged to have lobbied - successfully -
for the country's top civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna.
The latest attack comes from classical vocalist Pandit Jasraj in an interview
to The Times of India in Bhubaneshwar. It comes in the wake of Ustad
Vilayat Khan earlier accusing the sitar maestro of promoting his daughter,
Anoushka.
Reacting, Ravi Shankar said, ``I myself maintain that persons like Baba
Allauddin Khan or Uday Shankar deserved the Bharat Ratna a lot more than
I did,'' he said. ``So where is the question of lobbying for it?''
But first Pandit Jasraj's allegation: ``Ravi Shankar lobbied for the Bharat
Ratna with the help of MPs. He even went to the extent of threatening that if
he was not given the award he would quit the country.''
Then, questioning the decision to confer the Bharat Ratna on the sitarist,
Pandit Jasraj, a Padma Bhushan awardee, said there were many other
artistes in the country better suited for the honour.
Ustad Vilayat Khan, for one, he said. Then, he added, late Sanjukta
Panigrahi, who resurrected the classical Odissi dance, bringing fame for the
country the world over.
``But their names were not recommended because no one lobbied for
them,'' he said, adding he had no personal enmity with anyone but was only
highlighting what transpired.
Pandit Jasraj feels quite strongly about the issue. If this be the state of
affairs, he said, one would not be surprised to see Dawood Ibrahim become
the President of India one day or the Bharat Ratna going to painter M F
Hussein, whose creations did not show ``respect to other religions''.
But Pandit Ravi Shankar was not about to lose his cool: ``I used to get hurt
earlier but not any longer.'' Besides, he said, ``I don't believe in the `I'm the
greatest syndrome'.'' Wife Sukanya chipped in saying, ``there was no
lobbying at all. We had no clue the award was coming.''
The maestro, flanked by wife Sukanya Shankar and daughter Anoushka,
was asked about these accusations and allegations at meet organised by
SPIC-MACAY in New Delhi on Tuesday.
After rebutting the charge of lobbying, the Shankar couple moved on to the
issue of their daughter. The maestro said he feels ``happy'' when he hears
young musicians play an enchanting sapat. And the happiness is no less
when the young exponent of Indian classical music happens to be the son
or daughter of a leading vocalist or an instrumentalist, he said.
``There are only a few like Ali Akbar Khan, Amjad Ali Khan or Zakir Hussain
who are sons of fathers like Allauddin Khan, Hafeez Ali Khan or Allah
Rakha. There were hundreds of other musicians living when these masters
were performing. How many of them had the pleasure of seeing their music
live in their sons?''
Today, he is happy to see Aman and Ayan Ali, sons of sarodist Amjad Ali,
and Kaushiki, daughter of vocalist Ajoy Chakraborty, ``all the daughters and
sons who have taken to music.''
As for his daughter, he said, ``I have warned her that there's a long way to
go and this is just the beginning.'' The concert where Anoushka played with
him, said Sukanya Shankar, was ``like a chocolate given to her on her 17th
birthday. It was my idea entirely.''
Ms Shankar held the press responsible for giving her daughter so much
publicity. ``If they think her pictures make good visuals or her interviews
make for interesting reading, why should I say no? I am like any ordinary
mother, happy to see all this.''
Sajjad Khaliq
: Whats next ?
Yes indeed, what next?
: ------
: Ravi Shankar denies Jasraj charge on lobbying
: for Bharat Ratna
: BHUBANESWAR/NEW DELHI: First, Pandit Ravi Shankar was accused of
: promoting his daughter. Now, he's alleged to have lobbied - successfully -
: for the country's top civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna.
: The latest attack comes from classical vocalist Pandit Jasraj in an interview
: to The Times of India in Bhubaneshwar. It comes in the wake of Ustad
: Vilayat Khan earlier accusing the sitar maestro of promoting his daughter,
: Anoushka.
It's interesting that shortly before Anoushka Shankar released here first
CD several months ago, I expressed similar sentiments that Ravi Shankar's
marketing machine was playing on the fact his "heir apparent" was a female
in a male dominated world. What other means were there to raise Anoushka's
stature other than she was Ravi Shankar's daughter, considering that she
was, at best, a mediocre sitarist.
: Reacting, Ravi Shankar said, ``I myself maintain that persons like Baba
: Allauddin Khan or Uday Shankar deserved the Bharat Ratna a lot more than
: I did,'' he said.
Oh I see. Other than himself, Ravi Shankar can see no one else as
deserving the Bharat Ratna other than his own Guru or his brother! That's
a very objective way of looking at things!
If Ravi Shankar genuinely feels that others deserve the award more than
himself, why didn't he do the decent thing and refuse to accept it?
: Then, questioning the decision to confer the Bharat Ratna on the sitarist,
: Pandit Jasraj, a Padma Bhushan awardee, said there were many other
: artistes in the country better suited for the honour.
: Ustad Vilayat Khan, for one, he said.
For once, at least one person is showing some objectivity.
Murali Krishnaraju Datla
I for one like Vilayat Khan's music more than Ravi Shankar's but with
regards to Bharat Ratna, i think RS deserves it more than any other
living artist with, perhaps, the exception of Ali Akbar Khan-
The reason being the role that he has played as a cultural ambassador.
Pankaj Vyas
Ratna.
Just my opinion
Pankaj
Sajjad Khaliq
: I for one like Vilayat Khan's music more than Ravi Shankar's but with
: regards to Bharat Ratna, i think RS deserves it more than any other
: living artist with, perhaps, the exception of Ali Akbar Khan-
: The reason being the role that he has played as a cultural ambassador.
Ravi Shankar is not the only artist to have played the role of "cultural
ambassador". Other sitarists were already touring outside India before
Ravi Shankar made it to the west. We all know how his rise to fame in the
Western World came about, through his association with the Beatles.
Mention the term "Indian Music" to any westerner, and immediately the name
Ravi Shankar will come to mind, just as when one thinks of vacuum cleaners
one thinks of "Hoover", or photo-copiers one thinks of "Xerox".
This whole thing goes to prove what Vilayat Khan said a couple of decades
ago or more, that these awards were entirely based on things other than
merit.
kanek...@my-dejanews.com
aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Sajjad Khaliq) wrote:
> RSB (ra...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu) wrote:
>
> : Whats next ?
>
> Yes indeed, what next?
>
> : ------
>
> : Ravi Shankar denies Jasraj charge on lobbying
> : for Bharat Ratna
>
> : Allauddin Khan or Uday Shankar deserved the Bharat Ratna a lot more than
> : I did,'' he said.
>
> Oh I see. Other than himself, Ravi Shankar can see no one else as
> deserving the Bharat Ratna other than his own Guru or his brother! That's
> a very objective way of looking at things!
Ravi Shankar's statement says nothing about there being nobody else other
than Allaudin khab and Uday shankar deserving of Bharat Ratna. I see no
lack of objectivity in mentioning one's guru and brother as examples.
> If Ravi Shankar genuinely feels that others deserve the award more than
> himself, why didn't he do the decent thing and refuse to accept it?
To refuse an award by the govt. of india which represents the people of
India (whatever one's politics may be - this govt is in power through
democratic processes) would be tantamount to insulting the people of India.
Mr. Vilayat khan of course has had no such compunctions in the past. It is
absurd to suggest that Ravi Shankar should not accept the recognition because
there are others equally or more worthy of it. Should Ken Wilson have
refused the nobel because Leo Kadanoff was not cited ? Should other
physicists have refused because recognition was long overdue in case of
Chandra ?
> : Then, questioning the decision to confer the Bharat Ratna on the sitarist,
> : Pandit Jasraj, a Padma Bhushan awardee, said there were many other
> : artistes in the country better suited for the honour.
>
> : Ustad Vilayat Khan, for one, he said.
>
> For once, at least one person is showing some objectivity.
>
Ravi Shankar's style is very different from Vilayat khan's to state the
obvious. Enjoyment of one's music doesnt preclude enjoyment of others'.
Rest is matter of personal taste.
It would be hard to name any other person who has singlehandedly done so
much to introduce and popularise hindustani music to the rest of the world.
Ravi Shankar certainly deserves the Bharat Ratna - which ofcourse doesnt
mean that there are no others deserving such recognition. Mr. Jasraj should
substantiate his allegations or hold his peace.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
bdixit
a sitar player needs repeating. It has been said so often by you that it
almost might take a shape of "the truth", except that these are thousands of
admirers of Indian classical music and Indian Performing Arts that hold a less
biased view of Pandit Ravi Shankar as a musician, as a sitar player and as a
person who has opened doors to many younger and less known musicians in
various countries of the world.. Vilayat Khan and his followers have nothing
to be ashamed of since he is no doubt a great master of sitar. So also many
other sitar players, Nikhil Banerjee, Balram Pathak, Abdul Halim Jafar Khan,
Buddhaditya Mukherjee, Shahid Parvez, Imrat Khan etc. However, in terms of
total contribution to performing arts "world over" there may be a few who
might equal Ravi Shankar but none excels him. Beginning 1950 I have had
occasions to meet and hear almost all "well known" musicians and I have
admired their art for different reasons. Musicians like Pandit Jasraj should
refrain from "mud slinging" because they themselves are not that much
different than those who want to advance their position "at any cost".
Animosity in the field of music in India is so well grounded that you probably
will not find any musician who does not harbor it against other musicians for
various reasons. That said, I firmly believe that Ravi Shankar receiving
Bharat Ratna is one way of recognizing his contributions to Indian Performing
Arts. ... Balwant Dixit
Daniel Fuchs
>
> I for one like Vilayat Khan's music more than Ravi Shankar's but with
> regards to Bharat Ratna, i think RS deserves it more than any other
> living artist with, perhaps, the exception of Ali Akbar Khan-
> The reason being the role that he has played as a cultural ambassador.
I agree...
I don't think the government of India gave him the award primarily for
being such a good sitar player... The cultural ambassador thing is
definitely a role he has played quite successfully. Quantity counts more
here than quality. He has done a lot for awareness in the west... It's a
political award, in a way.
Daniel
Nataraj NV
>regards to Bharat Ratna, i think RS deserves it more than any other
>living artist with, perhaps, the exception of Ali Akbar Khan-
>The reason being the role that he has played as a cultural >ambassador.
I did not know *being cultural ambassador* is the most important reason
while deciding the first Bharat Ratna thats ever given to a hindustani
musician. RS hardly represents mainstream hindustani music in INDIA. Also he
is controversial ... disregarded Indian cutural ethos. How about people who
popularised classical music in India .. certainly Pt Bhimsen Joshi or Pt
Chaurasia or Bismillah Khan deserve it better (same yard stick as MS ).
This is just another example of decadant pre-independance mentality ...
those who popularised India abroad among a tiny minority are more important
than those who served Indians. Not giving bharat ratna to Lata is the prime
example (apart from the bomb).
I've nothing against RS. He is a great musician (I still collect his LPs)
and deserves Bharat Ratna. Just that he is not the most deserving and that
its been given at the wrong time.
BTW, lot more people have heard about 'Meeting by the river'. May be VM
Bhatt is the next bharat ratna winner (if this govt survives).
Triloki Nath
This guy has no shame.
Ravi Shankar is not just a sitar player, he is a phenomenon.
If anone has elevated Indian music, it is Ravi Shankar.
Jasraj has joined the likes of Vilayat Khan in bitching about honors being
bestowed on others.
These people need to shut up and stop acting like children.
- TN
bdixit wrote in message <36E82D5E...@pitt.edu>...
>> : I for one like Vilayat Khan's music more than Ravi Shankar's but with
>> : regards to Bharat Ratna, i think RS deserves it more than any other
>> : living artist with, perhaps, the exception of Ali Akbar Khan-
>> : The reason being the role that he has played as a cultural ambassador.
>>
Seshadri Kumar
Nataraj NV wrote:
> >I for one like Vilayat Khan's music more than Ravi Shankar's but with
> >regards to Bharat Ratna, i think RS deserves it more than any other
> >living artist with, perhaps, the exception of Ali Akbar Khan-
> >The reason being the role that he has played as a cultural >ambassador.
>
> I did not know *being cultural ambassador* is the most important reason
> while deciding the first Bharat Ratna thats ever given to a hindustani
> musician. RS hardly represents mainstream hindustani music in INDIA. Also he
> is controversial ... disregarded Indian cutural ethos. How about people who
> popularised classical music in India .. certainly Pt Bhimsen Joshi or Pt
> Chaurasia or Bismillah Khan deserve it better (same yard stick as MS ).
>
> This is just another example of decadant pre-independance mentality ...
> those who popularised India abroad among a tiny minority are more important
> than those who served Indians. Not giving bharat ratna to Lata is the prime
> example (apart from the bomb).
>
The Bharat Ratna is conferred for outstanding service to the nation.Ravi
Shankar, as a cultural ambassador, certainly has done outstanding
service to the nation. If westerners know something about the music of
India it is due in large part to Ravi Shankar. What he did in those early
years certainly paved the way for greater acceptance of Indian Classical
music in the west. Ali Akbar Khan has also done a great deal in this
regard. It takes a lot of marketing savvy to pitch Indian music to a western
audience and RS certainly had the knack more than anyone else. He also
had the stature of being a leading virtuoso, even though his musicianship and
skill are often the subject of controversy. But the Bharat Ratna is not an
award for musicianship; it is for service to India. (By the way, I, too, am
not a fan of RS: I much prefer Vilayat Khan and the great Nikhil Banerjee
to him ... I keep buying as many of RS's recordings as I can to see why
so many people think he's great, but apart from a very few ... notably a
Basant Mukhari on some foreign label which was truly an emotional feast,
a masterpiece ... most have failed to leave any impress on me. Who knows
... maybe, as one always says when breaking off a relationship, the problem
is not with him, it is with me.)
Now there are doubtless many people who have served India very well by
being just in India. The musicians you have named are all highly deserving
individuals. Deciding who should get it first is never an easy task and I do
not envy the person or persons in charge of such a decision. The situation
is further complicated by the fact that every year only one person can recieve
the award. These decisions are highly subjective: each person will have a
different opinion. And people should therefore not take these awards too
seriously in the sense of ranking people. A prime example of the problems
that awards create is illustrated by the well-known Sangeetha Kalanidhi
award for Carnatic music. As most Carnatic rasikas know, this is the most
prestigious award in Carnatic music and is awarded by the Music Academy
in Madras. I think the academy faces a very tough problem...they want to
be equitable in the distribution of their awards across specializations: so,
apart from vocalists, who get most of the awards because of their apparent
primacy in the pecking order, the academy tries not to give awards to
people in the same specialty in consecutive years but tries to distribute it.
Thus if a violinist gets it this year, it is a pretty sure bet a violinist will
not
get it the next year. And this has resulted in some serious problems.
As many here will know, the three greats of carnatic violin are held to be
Lalgudi Jayaraman, TN Krishnan, and MS Gopalakrishnan. They are all
very good musicians. The academy first awarded Krishnan, and Lalgudi
was very upset and vowed never to accept it. Many years later the academy
gave the award to MSG. What should one make of this? Does this
mean TNK is the best violinist, and that MSG became great only 20 years
later? That would be a very naive and foolish assumption. The right thing
for the academy to do would have been to have multiple awards and given
a Sangeetha Kalanidhi to Lalgudi, TNK and MSG each and solved the problem.
Bottomline: Don't take awards so seriously.
> I've nothing against RS. He is a great musician (I still collect his LPs)
> and deserves Bharat Ratna. Just that he is not the most deserving and that
> its been given at the wrong time.
>
> BTW, lot more people have heard about 'Meeting by the river'. May be VM
> Bhatt is the next bharat ratna winner (if this govt survives).
This is quite funny, thanks. But seriously, Bhatt's contributions as a
cultural ambassador are nowhere near those of RS. We must remember, too,
that when RS started popularizing Indian music in the west, most people had
no idea what the music was. Bhatt comes at a very different time, a time
when Indian classical music is generally accepted as a great art form
in the west (except when people refer to it as "ethnic music", which really
gets my goat) ... and a lot of that acceptance has to do with RS' efforts.
Perhaps someday Bhatt might have done enough to merit the award.
Today is not that day, for sure.
--
Seshadri Kumar
Graduate Student
Chemical and Fuels Engineering
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
aho...@my-dejanews.com
the (apparent) majority who prefer Vilayat Khansaab and Nikhilda to RS. But,
since far more knowledgeable people than me consider RS 'a musician of
musicians', I think I may someday discover what they find in him.
But it's important to note that artists do lobby for awards. Being in New
Delhi and playing at the PM's house certainly helps. Note the ragas
Priyadarshini (by AmjadAK) and Indira Kalyan (by HPC). (For those who do not
know, the ex-PM of India, late Indira Gandhi was called Priyadarshini by her
father.)
Promoting one's son/ daughter is also an age-old practice. HPC, SKS, AmjadAK,
JAbhisheki, NRajam and even PJ (remember Durga Jasraj accompanying her
father?) have done it and RS is no exception. Only time will tell how many of
them are worthy of carrying the father's/ mother's name. I for one was not
impressed with Shaunak Abhisheki way back in '90 but he was the pick of the
artists at the Sawai Gandharva Mahotsav in Dec '98.
Several people have complained about the unfairness of the selection criteria
of the awards. While many of the complaints have some merit, only Rais Khan
gave a communal colour to his frustration ('Muslim artists are not given the
respect they deserve by the predominantly Hindu audiences in India') and fled
to Pakistan.
Whether deserving or not, RS is the best-known Indian classical musician
throughout the world. After Gandhiji, he may be the best-known Indian in the
world. He was probably fortunate to be 'at the right place at the right
time', but his persona, his showmanship, his mastery of his craft did go a
long way in making the music we love so popular in the West that we have a
lot of non-Indian participation in this newsgroup. A majority of Indian
classical musicians incl. PJ who look to the West as the major source of
their income should really be grateful to RS for creating a part of their
market (I do acknowledge that at least for vocal music, the majority of the
audience abroad is still the Indian immigrants).
I second PJ's choice of Sanyukta Panigrahi for a Bharat Ratna for she was as
great an ambassador for Indian classical dance as RS is for music. The Padma-*
awards are given for prowess in a field and Vilayat Khansaab, Bhimsenji, Ali
Akbar Khansaab, Kumarji etc. have already received the highest award, Padma
Vibhushan. (Pl. correct me if any of these have not rec'd the PV.)
To conclude, RS probably lobbied for his award and certainly promotes his
daughter a little too blatantly, but he is the first name that would come to
my mind if I were to award a Bharat Ratna for Indian classical music since
'service to India' is the criterion. There have been far worse choices
(VVGiri, FAAhmed, RGandhi, all political choices) of Bharat Ratna recipients
in the past.
Rajan P. Parrikar
>After Gandhiji, he may be the best-known Indian in the
>world.
Do not forget the Buddha.
Warm regards,
r
achakr...@hampshire.edu
ra...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu (RSB) wrote:
> Whats next ?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Ravi Shankar denies Jasraj charge on lobbying
> for Bharat Ratna
>
> promoting his daughter. Now, he's alleged to have lobbied - successfully -
> for the country's top civilian honour, the Bharat Ratna.
Accusations come out of many parts of the human body and mind (I am trying to
avoid the details here), and are often baseless. Pandit Jasraj was a great
performer in his time, and so was Pandit Ravi Shankar. They should be honored
for their services to Indian Classical music and to many other causes.
> The latest attack comes from classical vocalist Pandit Jasraj in an interview
> to The Times of India in Bhubaneshwar. It comes in the wake of Ustad
> Vilayat Khan earlier accusing the sitar maestro of promoting his daughter,
> Anoushka.
OBVIOUSLY, Panditji has promoted his daughter Anoushka in the most blatant
and embarrasing manner, and Vilayat Khansahib has a point because even
Hidayat, the youngest, is many notches higher than Anoushka, and Khansaheb is
giving him talim and not pushing him beyond boundaries.
> Reacting, Ravi Shankar said, ``I myself maintain that persons like Baba
> Allauddin Khan or Uday Shankar deserved the Bharat Ratna a lot more than
> I did,'' he said. ``So where is the question of lobbying for it?''
Baba and Uday Shankar should have surely got that award and so should have
many other people, if a "Bharat Ratna" matters at all? Is the term "Bharat
Ratna" going to change everything about a person? I agree with Panditji that
there are other musicians in India who are more honorable and venerable than
him, but am not convinced of Ravi Shankar's political maturity. He has made
some of the most ridiculous political statements (remember the press
conference after his return from Moscow in 1963? remember the land row with
the Government of India?).
> But first Pandit Jasraj's allegation: ``Ravi Shankar lobbied for the Bharat
> Ratna with the help of MPs. He even went to the extent of threatening that if
> he was not given the award he would quit the country.''
Pandit Jasraj is known to speak off the top of his head, and taking him
seriously these days is hard for anyone who is conversant with the realities
of the world of Indian Classical music. It is ironic that all these people
are (or were) such great artists and are so uneducated and politically
underdeveloped. I shudder at the thought of what my peers from these lineages
will be like.
> Then, questioning the decision to confer the Bharat Ratna on the sitarist,
> Pandit Jasraj, a Padma Bhushan awardee, said there were many other
> artistes in the country better suited for the honour.
"Better suited" or worse, is not the issue, Mr. Jasraj. Every dog has his
day, and your time will come too. Do awards and titles matter? Why do artists
of such eminence fight like huskies fighting for an additional scrap of meat?
> Ustad Vilayat Khan, for one, he said. Then, he added, late Sanjukta
> Panigrahi, who resurrected the classical Odissi dance, bringing fame for the
> country the world over.
At least, Jasraj ji could have had the sensitivity to mention Guru Kelucharan
Mohapatra, Sanjukta's teacher since anyway, he was trying to win the Oriya
heart by making this statement in Bhubaneswar.
> ``But their names were not recommended because no one lobbied for
> them,'' he said, adding he had no personal enmity with anyone but was only
> highlighting what transpired.
He has a point here, but Pandit Ravi Shankar, as a musician deserves any award
and recognition given to him irrespective of who else gets it.
> Pandit Jasraj feels quite strongly about the issue. If this be the state of
> affairs, he said, one would not be surprised to see Dawood Ibrahim become
> the President of India one day or the Bharat Ratna going to painter M F
> Hussein, whose creations did not show ``respect to other religions''.
Hussein Sahib is a great artist and is entitled to freedom of expression as
much as Pandit Jasraj is. The statement equating this to Dawood Ibrahim
becoming the president of India is quite silly although it does not surprise
me, coming from the "sangit martand" himself. In all, I think none of these
artists have the humility to shut up for once. Ustad Vilayat Khan has been
quite graceful on this issue.
> But Pandit Ravi Shankar was not about to lose his cool: ``I used to get hurt
> earlier but not any longer.'' Besides, he said, ``I don't believe in the `I'm > the greatest syndrome'.'' Wife Sukanya chipped in saying, ``there was no
> lobbying at all. We had no clue the award was coming.''
That's another marketing tactic Shankar has mastered: To speak like one who
has attained nirvana - the blessed one. After all, this is the same person
who took the hippies for a ride.
> After rebutting the charge of lobbying, the Shankar couple moved on to the
> issue of their daughter. The maestro said he feels ``happy'' when he hears
> young musicians play an enchanting sapat. And the happiness is no less
> when the young exponent of Indian classical music happens to be the son
> or daughter of a leading vocalist or an instrumentalist, he said.
Well, as long as the sapAt is not besura, and as long as all taans are not
sapAt. Unfortunately, most sons and daughters of "leading" and famous
performers have concentrated on glamor and hype-building (or their parents
have) than their own talim and riyaz.
> ``There are only a few like Ali Akbar Khan, Amjad Ali Khan or Zakir Hussain
> who are sons of fathers like Allauddin Khan, Hafeez Ali Khan or Allah
> Rakha. There were hundreds of other musicians living when these masters
> were performing. How many of them had the pleasure of seeing their music
> live in their sons?''
Is that an issue at all? Even these musicians had equally good sons and
daughters who did not become famous (ring any bells, Mr. Shankar?).
> Today, he is happy to see Aman and Ayan Ali, sons of sarodist Amjad Ali,
> and Kaushiki, daughter of vocalist Ajoy Chakraborty, ``all the daughters and
> sons who have taken to music.''
Again, Mr. Shankar, you are getting defensive. Kaushiki is a good singer -
I'll give you that one. Mention some sons and daughters of musicians who can
actually play with some respect to the ragas in their correct form and with
some knowledge of jorh-alap and gatkari. Among some "starlets" you have
mentioned, some have not been taught the true form of "Masitkhani". Dressing
in good clothes and playing shiny sitars and sarods will not make anyone
musicians in the long run.
> As for his daughter, he said, ``I have warned her that there's a long way to
> go and this is just the beginning.'' The concert where Anoushka played with
> him, said Sukanya Shankar, was ``like a chocolate given to her on her 17th
> birthday. It was my idea entirely.''
What about the CDs?
> Ms Shankar held the press responsible for giving her daughter so much
> publicity. ``If they think her pictures make good visuals or her interviews
> make for interesting reading, why should I say no? I am like any ordinary
> mother, happy to see all this.''
Viola!
Regards,
Arnab Chakrabarty
Sarod player - NOT A MUSICIAN's SON.
DGandikota
>Arnab Chakrabarty
>Sarod player - NOT A MUSICIAN's SON.
Thank yourself that you are enrolled in an academic institution and leave the
musicians' children alone! There is nothing wrong in a successful parent
(musician) trumpeting about their children no matter how pathetic (musically)
they turn out to be in your eyes. Get a life!
Daniel Fuchs
>
> In article <7cb6ip$9s8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> aho...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >After Gandhiji, he may be the best-known Indian in the
> >world.
>
> Do not forget the Buddha.
>
True, this is an often-forgotten little fact...
Daniel
DGandikota
If Indian religious/ancient figures count Lord Krishna takes the cake in
world-wide popularity.
AKTALWAR
matters is what they did with their gift. His contributions to cross-cultural
understanding and world music are unparalleled. No wonder that he he has been
honored the world over. He is also a man of humility. During the early 80s I
had the good fortune of having several conversations with him and observing him
in social/musical gatherings. He was visibly embarrassed and changed the
subject if anyone mentioned his contributions.
It is sad that there is a controversy at all. It shows how cynical we have
become. Perhaps such cynicism is justified in a world where Kissinger gets a
nobel and Mahatma Gandhi (nominated three times) does not, or where Dr.
Chandrashekhar gets the nobel for Physics long after those who looked upto him
as their mentor got it.
DGandikota
>Perhaps such cynicism is justified in a world where Kissinger gets a
>nobel and Mahatma Gandhi (nominated three times) does not, or where Dr.
>Chandrashekhar gets the nobel for Physics long after those who looked upto
>him
>as their mentor got it.
The cynicism is partly because of the USD value plus speech/book royalties.
OTOH, Bharat Ratna is not an award of priceless jewelry ;-).
Daniel Fuchs
Does he? Aren't there more Buddhists than Hindus (Correct me if I'm
wrong)?
Daniel
malha...@cwix.com
achakr...@hampshire.edu wrote:
>
> > Ms Shankar held the press responsible for giving her daughter so much
> > publicity. ``If they think her pictures make good visuals or her interviews
> > make for interesting reading, why should I say no? I am like any ordinary
> > mother, happy to see all this.''
>
> Viola!
>
Let's see do you mean she should start playing the Viola??
Au revior :-)
Ameesh
DGandikota
>Aren't there more Buddhists than Hindus (Correct me if I'm
>wrong)?
There are 800+million hindus. Don't know how many budhists...
Sajjad Khaliq
: > But Pandit Ravi Shankar was not about to lose his cool: ``I used to get hurt
: > earlier but not any longer.'' Besides, he said, ``I don't believe in the `I'm > the greatest syndrome'.'' Wife Sukanya chipped in saying, ``there was no
: > lobbying at all. We had no clue the award was coming.''
: That's another marketing tactic Shankar has mastered: To speak like one who
: has attained nirvana - the blessed one. After all, this is the same person
: who took the hippies for a ride.
In the final analysis it is Ravi Shankar's marketing machine and all that
hype about "nirvanaa" and "peace" with which he has taken western
audiences for a ride. The sad fact is, that perception has in the minds of
western audiences, become a reality for them. Behind that peace loving
goodwill cultural ambassador is a hard-nosed businessman.
achakr...@hampshire.edu
dgand...@aol.com (DGandikota) wrote:
> >achakr...@hampshire.edu
> >Arnab Chakrabarty
> >Sarod player - NOT A MUSICIAN's SON.
>
> musicians' children alone! There is nothing wrong in a successful parent
> (musician) trumpeting about their children no matter how pathetic (musically)
> they turn out to be in your eyes. Get a life!
I really fail to understand this response. Anything with more concrete
reference to the material that I have posted would have been enjoyable, but
to ridicule (I am not even sure of that) my signature file.
Let's put this behind us, Mr. Gandikota. Quite frankly, I don't see how you
are affected by my raising these issues. If you have any problems, feel free
to waste your time and money by calling me at 413-559-4414.
Sincerely,
Arnab Chakrabarty
AKTALWAR
whom there are very many.
Nataraj NV
>Shankar, as a cultural ambassador, certainly has done outstanding
>service to the nation. If westerners know something about the music >of
>India it is due in large part to Ravi Shankar. What he did in those early
>years certainly paved the way for greater acceptance of Indian >Classical
>music in the west.
Thats exactly my point. I don't think that is important AT ALL. Its a side
issue. Why should Indian govt give more importance to popularising music
abroad, than in india itself? What is more important ?
And, how many in the west know/care anything about Indian music ... as a
percentage of population ? A very very tiny minority.
If popularizing music was the basis give the award to Joshi or Chaurasia. Or
even to SPIC-MACAY.
>
>Now there are doubtless many people who have served India very well >by
being just in India.
So ignore ALL of them ? So what does that indicate ... high-flying 'hep'
musicians who popularize music abroad are more deserving than down to earth
great musicians like Joshi, Mansur or Bismillah Khan who serve millions of
lowly Indians. In the final analyses bharat ratna is for serving millions
Indians ... not for educating a few thousand abroad. Period.
>The musicians you have named are all highly deserving
>individuals.
>Deciding who should get it first is never an easy task and I do
>not envy the person or persons in charge of such a decision.
Simple, pick the most respected and senior person. Pt Joshi fits the bill
perfectly. Give it to him when he can still possibly sing in public. After
all you can't give it now to Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, one of the most
respected musician of all time. Or to Puluskar for bringing classical music
to the public for the first time. Or to Mansur. RS is still well (hopefully
will keep playing for sometime, since he is one of the few I've not heard
yet ! ) and can always be given BR later ( and he deserves it, no doubt ).
May be Lalgudi or Balamurali might get it one day ... but no one can even
say MS was not the right person.
>The situation
>is further complicated by the fact that every year only one person can
>recieve the award.
I know of no such limitation.
>These decisions are highly subjective: each person will have a
>different opinion.
Yes governing is all about balancing the opinions and doing justice ( well
not that this govt knows anything about that ).
>And people should therefore not take these awards >too seriously in >the
sense of ranking people.
It is ranking ... not of people but of their service and how much gratitude
we have for them.
>As many here will know, the three greats of carnatic violin are held to >be
Lalgudi Jayaraman, TN Krishnan, and MS Gopalakrishnan. They >are all very
good musicians. The academy first awarded Krishnan, >and Lalgudi was very
upset and vowed never to accept it.
Lalgudi should have been given first ... after all he is more senoir ( as
for as I know ) and Indian ethos (ego ?) implies that the senior be awarded
first. I'm sure TN Krishnan would not have got upset if Lalgudi had got it
first.
>Bottomline: Don't take awards so seriously.
Not true. Can't compare Sangeetha Kalanidhi with Bharat Ratna. Unless, you
are talking about Indira Gandhi getting it. And surely this is not the first
time they have erred either.
> This is quite funny, thanks. But seriously, Bhatt's contributions as a
>cultural ambassador are nowhere near those of RS. We must >remember, too,
>that when RS started popularizing Indian music in the west, most >people
had
>no idea what the music was.
Its no different now. Infact most people in India hardly know about it.
>Bhatt comes at a very different time, a time
>when Indian classical music is generally accepted as a great art form
>in the west (except when people refer to it as "ethnic music", which
>really gets my goat)
Haa... how about 'world' music or finding Ravi Shankar LPs/Cds in 'popular'
or 'jazz' section, not in classical. Surely you know that in the west no one
thinks of Indian classical as 'classical' music.
Actually, we are all just talking about nothing.
Why did RS or MS get bharat ratna ? Simple, they are possibly the most well
known 'classical' names in India. The award was decided by some babus who
probably are just like common folk who listen to AR Rehman, mostly. First
time they got it right, this time they got it wrong.
I hope all the talk about RS having lobbied to get it is wrong. Otherwise,
as you say, don't take the awards seriously and I know why Mansur never got
it.
Nataraj NV
>Does he? Aren't there more Buddhists than Hindus (Correct me if I'm
>wrong)?
I beleive lots of Budhists in far east don't know Bhudha was from India.
Nataraj NV
>This guy has no shame.
>Ravi Shankar is not just a sitar player, he is a phenomenon.
>If anone has elevated Indian music, it is Ravi Shankar.
>Jasraj has joined the likes of Vilayat Khan in bitching about honors being
>bestowed on others.
>These people need to shut up and stop acting like children.
What if Jasraj's allegations are true ? I won't put that beyond RS ...
afterall RS does not have a lily white image. You should know such things
happen a lot in our country. Though, I hope thats all wrong.
DGandikota
>Anything with more concrete
>reference to the material that I have posted >would have been enjoyable,
And asked for the following.
>OBVIOUSLY, Panditji has promoted his daughter Anoushka in the most blatant
>and embarrasing manner,
What is the 'embarrasing'[sic] manner?
>even
>Hidayat, the youngest, is many notches higher than Anoushka,
Chakrabarty must've a music-O-meter hidden in his pants that objectively
rates the musical calibre of male and female musicians.
>and Khansaheb is
>giving him talim and not pushing him beyond boundaries.
Chakrabarty the cryin' babe should refer to a recent thread in RMIC where
Amjad-ali Kahn reveals his difficult relationship with his musician father.
>Unfortunately, most sons and daughters of "leading" and famous
>performers have concentrated on glamor and hype-building (or their parents
>have) than their own talim and riyaz.
>
What is so unfortunate about it outside the caste system Chakrabarty seem to
tacitly promote for the indian musicians?!
>Even these musicians had equally good sons and
>daughters who did not become famous
:-( Who gives a damn?! To be fair to Chakrabarty, I won't ask about his
parents.
>Again, Mr. Shankar, you are getting defensive
Chakrabarty talks to Pt.Shankar on this NG....(while responding to
ra...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu (RSB))
>Mention some sons and daughters of musicians who can
>actually play with some respect to the ragas in their correct form and with
>some knowledge of jorh-alap and gatkari. Among some "starlets" you have
>mentioned, some have not been taught the true form of "Masitkhani". Dressing
>in good clothes and playing shiny sitars and sarods will not make anyone
>musicians in the long run.
>
Again... Chakrabarty's obsession with the offspring goes beyond common concern.
[enough said]
DGandikota
>I think that is an insult to the intelligence of all his Western admirers, of
>whom there are very many.
>
Since there is a mention of intelligence in this post I searched for a clue (it
is easier than talking with Pt.Jasraj ;-) and found it in the header as
>References: <7cbuum$5k2$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>
which is the following post:
From: aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Sajjad Khaliq)
Newsgroups: rec.music.indian.classical
Date: 12 Mar 1999 20:54:46 GMT
Organization: Hamilton-Wentworth FreeNet
Lines: 17
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <7cbuum$5k2$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org>
References: <7c63qm$ri$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu> <7cbjtd$n60$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.212.94.66
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2-HWFN]
Rajan P. Parrikar
>Rajan P. Parrikar wrote:
>>
>> In article <7cb6ip$9s8$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> aho...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>>
>> >After Gandhiji, he may be the best-known Indian in the
>> >world.
>>
>>
>
Yes, Herr Fuchs. In his Nobel acceptance speech, C.V. Raman
talked about the achievements of ancient India and referred
to the Buddha. He also lamented the lack of acknowledgement
accorded Gautama by modern Indians and it may not be
totally out of place to quote it here (*):
"A purposeful life needs an axis or hinge to which it is
firmly fixed and yet around which it can freely revolve.
As I see it, this axis or hinge has been, in my own case,
strangely enough, not the love of science, not even the
love of Nature, but a certain abstract idealism or belief
in the value of the human spirit and the virtue of human
endeavour and achievement...I remember being powerfully
moved by the story of Siddhartha's great renunciation, of
his search for truth and of his final enlightenment...
this reading of the book fixed firmly in my mind the idea
that this capacity for renunciation in the pursuit of
exalted aims is the very essence of human greatness. This
is not an unfamiliar idea to us in India, but it is not
always easy to live up to. It has always seemed to me
a surprising and regrettable fact that the profound
teaching of the Buddha has not left a deeper impression
in the life of our country of which he was the greatest
son that ever lived."
(*) see "Journey Into Light" by G. Venkataraman.
Warm regards,
r
ps: I hope in this post I have not violated any of commandments
printed in St. Seshadri Kumar's "A Guide to Posting in RMIC
without being intimidatory and without offending the West and/or
the white man."
DGandikota
>Why should Indian govt give more importance to popularising music
>abroad, than in india itself? What is more important ?
Both are important. It was said that at one time the biggest US export was
entertainment (hollywood movies and rock music). The GoI should be able to give
at least two Bharat Ratnas each year--one for service to Indians in India and
another for service to Indians from abroad. Also, they can award for more
categories with different prize monies. Obviously Indians receiving the award
for service in India deserve more omney as long as this is a GoI (taxpayer
funded) deal.
Daniel Fuchs
this:
It's from a recent article about misperceptions of India and things
Indian (like the London-based Kathak dancer who went to give a workshop
in a British school to find out everyone had pepared for an American
Indian).
This is about a journalist (I'm not sure, at least someone who should
know a bit better, being with the Indo-German society) calling India
"The Land of Buddhists", referring to Gandhiji, Tagore and Radhakrishnan
as "modern-day buddhists" and talking about "specifically indian (i.e.
buddhist) ways of thinking.... All this in a radio program about the
perception of India in european music.
This guy was obviously a bit too well aware of the fact that the Buddha
came from India....
Here's the original (sorry, too lazy to translate it, I will if someone
insists):
"Solche und ähnliche Beispiele für Verwechslungen des Indischen lassen
sich in großer Zahl bis in die Gegenwart hinein finden. 1987 gibt
Nikolaus de Palézieux in einer Rundfunksendung über "Die
Indien-Rezeption in der europäischen Musik" Indien als das "Land der
Buddhisten" aus, führt "spezifisch indische (und das heißt:
buddhistische) Denkweisen" an und läßt kurzerhand indisch, "um genau zu
sein, buddhistisch" sein.
Diese Verwechslung des Buddhismus, dessen Bedeutung in Indien bereits um
das Jahr 1000 erlosch , mit dem Hinduismus wird fatal, wenn Palézieux
"Buddhisten der neueren Zeit, wie Tagore, wie Gandhi und Radhakrishnan"
aufzählt. Keiner der drei war Buddhist (Gandhi hat sich 1921 sogar
schriftlich zum Hindutum bekannt ), sondern alle drei Namen stehen für
religiöse Erneuerungsbestrebungen in Indien. Auf jeden Fall ist das
spezifisch Indische keineswegs das Buddhistische."
(written by Michael Grosse)
Regards,
Daniel
Rajan P. Parrikar
>
>Alright, Parrikar-Sahib, let's see if your German is good enough for
>this:
>Here's the original (sorry, too lazy to translate it, I will if someone
>insists):
Dear Herr Fuchs,
Please translate when time permits.
r
Anil Nirgudkar
Jasraj were exactly what he said?
Has anyone thought of the fact that the media might have extrapolated few
words into serious allegations?
I definitely believe that Pandit Jasraj made comments regarding Bharat Ratna
award to Pandit Ravi Shankar. However, the precise nature of the comments
is essential here because a dangerous extrapolation will be harmful to
Indian Classical Music at large.
I personally think that Pandit Jasraj should be interviewed by Times of
India or other prominent newspaper to clarify in exact terms what his
feelings regarding the award are.
Here all of us are making opinions about these allegations without giving
the slightest consideration to whether these allegations are completely and
truly 100% correct.
I am not implying anything. But I think we should consider that
possibility?????????
Daniel Fuchs
>
> In article <36EAA5...@stud.uni-goettingen.de>, Daniel Fuchs writes:
> >
> >Alright, Parrikar-Sahib, let's see if your German is good enough for
> >this:
> <deleted>
>
> >Here's the original (sorry, too lazy to translate it, I will if someone
> >insists):
>
> Dear Herr Fuchs,
>
> Please translate when time permits.
>
> r
Alright, Alright....
"This and other examples of misperceptions of India can be found in
great number upto the present day. In 1987 Nikolaus de Palezieux refers
to India as "the land of buddhists" in a radio program on the perception
of India in European music, mentions "specifically indian (i.e.
buddhist) ways of thinking" and interprets "indian" as "to be precise,
buddhist".
This confusion of Buddhism, which lost influence in India around the
year 1000, with Hinduism turns fatal when Palezieux refers to Gandhi,
Tagore and Radhakrishnan as "modern day buddhists". None of them was a
buddhist (Gandhi having declared himself to be a Hindu in writing in
1921), but all three stand for movements of religious innovation in
India. In any way, the specifically "indian" is not buddhist (in this
context) (addition mine)"
Something like that. You can have the entire article (but only in
German, you'l have to find someone to read it to you... It mentions a
number of other examples from baroque operas to more recent
misunderstandings of what "indian" is all about.
Regards,
Daniel
Ashok
says...
>
>Alright, Parrikar-Sahib, let's see if your German is good enough for
>this:
>This guy was obviously a bit too well aware of the fact that the Buddha
>came from India....
Folks, it is just small-time Indian imperialism to claim to be the
land of the Buddha. Buddha came from Nepal. :)
>Here's the original (sorry, too lazy to translate it, I will if someone
>insists):
It is quite entertaining to see what the automatic translators do.
There are a couple on the net. You may not mind looking at the
translations these programs did. It's fun to read. I give them
below:
>"Solche und ähnliche Beispiele für Verwechslungen des Indischen lassen
>sich in großer Zahl bis in die Gegenwart hinein finden. 1987 gibt
>Nikolaus de Palézieux in einer Rundfunksendung über "Die
>Indien-Rezeption in der europäischen Musik" Indien als das "Land der
>Buddhisten" aus, führt "spezifisch indische (und das heißt:
>buddhistische) Denkweisen" an und läßt kurzerhand indisch, "um genau zu
>sein, buddhistisch" sein.
>
>Diese Verwechslung des Buddhismus, dessen Bedeutung in Indien bereits um
>das Jahr 1000 erlosch , mit dem Hinduismus wird fatal, wenn Palézieux
>"Buddhisten der neueren Zeit, wie Tagore, wie Gandhi und Radhakrishnan"
>aufzählt. Keiner der drei war Buddhist (Gandhi hat sich 1921 sogar
>schriftlich zum Hindutum bekannt ), sondern alle drei Namen stehen für
>religiöse Erneuerungsbestrebungen in Indien. Auf jeden Fall ist das
>spezifisch Indische keineswegs das Buddhistische."
>
>Daniel
Babelfish.altavista.com came up with
Such and similar examples of mistakes of the Indian one can be found in large
number into the present inside. 1987 output Nikolaus de Palézieux in a broadcast
transmission over " the India indien-Rezeption in the European music " India as
the " country of the Buddhisten ", lead " specifically Indian (and is called: " on and
short hand leaves buddhistische) ways of thinking Indian to be over exact " be
buddhistisch ".
This mistake of the Buddhismus, whose meaning in India already went out around
the year 1000, with the Hinduismus becomes fatal, if Palézieux " Buddhisten of the
more recent time, like Tagore, as Gandhi and Radhakrishnan " enumerate. None
of the three was Buddhist (Gandhi has itself 1921 even in writing to the Hindutum
well-known), but all three names is for religious renewal efforts in India. In any
case one is not the specifically Indian by any means Buddhisti.
translation-experts.com offers:
such and similar examples at confusions of the indian let himself in big number till
in the present into find. 1987 gives Nicholas [de]
[Palézieux] in a broadcast over "the India-reception desk close by European music"
India when the "land the Buddhist" outfield,
guides "specific indian (and that is: [buddhistische]) [Denkweisen]" at and lets on
the spot indian, "about exact to being,
[buddhistisch]" being.
this confusion of the Buddhism, of meaning in India already about the year 1000
expired, with those Hinduism becomes fatal,
when [Palézieux] "Buddhist the newer time, how [Tagore], how [Gandhi] and
[Radhakrishnan]" [aufzählt]. neither the three was
Buddhist([Gandhi] has himself 1921 even written to the Hindu well-known), but all
three names stand at religious
[Erneuerungsbestrebungen] in India. on each fall am the specific indian by no means
the [Buddhistische.]"
Ashok
Sajjad Khaliq
: Has anyone given a thought to the fact the the allegations made by Pandit
: Jasraj were exactly what he said?
Unfortunately, here in the western world we're so used to taking
anything in the press at face value (unless it's the National Enquirer
etc). So we can't be blamed for this.
: Has anyone thought of the fact that the media might have extrapolated few
: words into serious allegations?
Again, taking what was reported inthe Indian press at face value, Pandit
jasraj did not make any allegations against Ravi Shankar. Pandit Jasraj,
and Vilayat Khan also, simply expressed an opinion. At least here in the
West, freedom of expression of opinions is a right.
: I definitely believe that Pandit Jasraj made comments regarding Bharat Ratna
: award to Pandit Ravi Shankar. However, the precise nature of the comments
: is essential here because a dangerous extrapolation will be harmful to
: Indian Classical Music at large.
: Here all of us are making opinions about these allegations without giving
: the slightest consideration to whether these allegations are completely and
: truly 100% correct.
The blame should lie with the Indian press if the statements of Pandit
Jasraj have not been truthfully reported. Until I hear or read otherwise,
I will take the reports at face value.
Daniel Fuchs
>
> It is quite entertaining to see what the automatic translators do.
> There are a couple on the net. You may not mind looking at the
> translations these programs did. It's fun to read. I give them
> below:
>
I'm no professional translator, but I do hope my translation is a touch
better... ;-)
Daniel
aho...@my-dejanews.com
'Letters' section of the Sat., Mar 13 issue of the 'Indian Express', the
DnyAnpIth award winner Dr Girish Karnad has stated that he, along with
several noted musicians incl. Bhaskar Chandavarkar, had been lobbying the
Indian Govt for many years to bestow the Bharat Ratna on RS and that he is
not aware of any efforts by RS himself. He goes on to condemn PJ for his envy
or jealousy (I forget which).
Regards,
Ashwin Honkan
S44218
Bharat Ratna I read the article a couple of days ago in the Times of India in
which the Jasraj inteview took place. You can get it off their webserver. So,
I guess you can read exactly what Jasraj said and decide what you want to make
of Jasraj's words. If he has any real solid proof to his allegations -- and he
didn't it in the Times article -- then maybe one should be wondering about the
selection process for a Bharat Ratna, whatever that may be.
I guess this just points to the real sad state of classical music nowadays with
the illness and eminient retirement of Pt. Bhimsen Joshi and the name calling
going on between Vilayat, Jasraj, and Ravi Shankar. It seems Indian classical
music is losing or has lost musicans who are real visionaries with a strong
sense of where our music should be going in the 21st century and what are the
standards to which future musicians aspire.
*Sigh*... Going back to listen HMV's new release of MS's fundraising concert in
New Delhi in 1997. Even if her voice is faltering at the age of 80, one can
still understand why she rightly was awarded the Bharat Ratna.
Yours,
Sandip.
achakr...@hampshire.edu
dgand...@aol.com (DGandikota) wrote:
> achakr...@hampshire.edu spake thusly:
> >Anything with more concrete
> >reference to the material that I have posted >would have been enjoyable,
>
> And asked for the following.
> >OBVIOUSLY, Panditji has promoted his daughter Anoushka in the most blatant
> >and embarrasing manner,
>
> What is the 'embarrasing'[sic] manner?
Mr. Gandikota, since you seem to have an astounding ability to not comprehend
writing of most kinds, let me address it all to you. This will be my final
post to this thread, and since I have already given you my e-mail address and
phone number, you may contact me if you feel so strongly about this issues
and apparently, share "my obsessions". How has Ravi Shankar promoted his
daughter in an "embarrasing" manner? Although I am quite tired of this thread
myself, how could you be left deprived of the responses that you so aptly
called for?
1. By focusing the thrust of his marketing/promotional machinery on his
daughter.
2. ... by letting Anoushka Shankar perform at leading venues with him and solo
when (believe me, I have heard her CD) her playing is often inappropriate in
terms of raga treatment and other factors that determine the palatability of a
musical performance such as - sound technique, right hand (mizraab) techniques
and also basic issues of structure around which raga performances revolve
(Panditji knows those better than any of us).
> >even
> >Hidayat, the youngest, is many notches higher than Anoushka,
>
> Chakrabarty must've a music-O-meter hidden in his pants that objectively
> rates the musical calibre of male and female musicians.
Male and female? Where did this crop from? If you are saying that
Chakrabarty's ears rest in his pants, it might take the "conversation" in a
totally different direction. However, that would be a very hyperbolic
statement and in little conformity to the existing medical and biological
theories. Rating musical calibre is not my profession. However, I can
distinguish between good sitar playing and bad playing as and when I hear it.
> >and Khansaheb is
> >giving him talim and not pushing him beyond boundaries.
>
> Chakrabarty the cryin' babe should refer to a recent thread in RMIC where
> Amjad-ali Kahn reveals his difficult relationship with his musician father.
It is spelled "Khan". RMIC ain't no bible of Indian Musicology. Amjad Ali
Khan Sahib was born in 1946 when his father was almost 60 years old. There
are also other factors along with that which might contribute to determining
the nature of the "difficulties" in that relationship. It is not really your
business or mine to look into that. What happened is history because Amjad
Ali Khan was nothing short of a phenomenon when he entered the arena.
> >Unfortunately, most sons and daughters of "leading" and famous
> >performers have concentrated on glamor and hype-building (or their parents
> >have) than their own talim and riyaz.
> >
> What is so unfortunate about it outside the caste system Chakrabarty seem to
> tacitly promote for the indian musicians?!
This "Caste System" (very rightly put) is not my creation, but that of those
musicians who go out of their way to put their children, not necessarily very
good, on the map, and ignore their other students (Have you heard of Narendra
Nath Dhar, Mukesh Sharma, Sunando Mukherjee, Arnab Ghose and Abhik Sarkar who
are all fine sarodiyas?). Are they not automatically dropped into a lower
position in the hierarchical system of Indian Classical Music because they
are not the sons of their guru (those who know these musicians know they all
have a common guru)?
There are at least four 'castes' that I can think of:
1. Sons/daughters of famous maestros who take them places. (example. A.
Shankar, Bangash Duo, Rakesh Chaurasia, Omprakash Chaurasia, Rahul Sharma,
Asis Khan... the list goes on).
2. Sons and daughters and students of maestros who don't or can't do anything
for their kids or students although they try and treat them alike(!).
(example. Nayan Ghosh, Buddhadev Dasgupta, Anindo Chatterjee, Anand
Murdeshwar, Dhruba Ghosh, Ajoy Chakrabarty, Aneesh Pradhan, Anirban
Dasgupta, Prattyush Banerjee, Maloy Mukherjee, Sanjoy Mukherjee, Debashis
Sarkar, Monir Hossain.... endless list). They are usually self made men and
women.
3. Students of very famous (superstar) masters who are sidelined by the
"offspring", and some of who make it to some prominence (examples Rupak
Kulkarni, Asoke Roy, Shubha Mudgal, Mukesh Sharma, Uday Bhawalkar, Naren Dhar
etc). They can be self-made though some ride on their child-prodigy image for
the rest of their lives.
4. Children of great and famous musicians who are truly great themselves and
have received their due recognition (example. Ali Akbar Khan, Amjad Ali Khan,
Zakir Hussain, Keramatulla Khan, Budhaditya Mukherjee, Vilayat Khan, Imrat
Khan).
Then of course, there are good-for-nothing "howl greater than bite" disciples
like myself who abound on RMIC.
There is a "caste system" and it is the creation of those people who do not
judge music for what it is worth but just music by who is playing it.
> >Even these musicians had equally good sons and
> >daughters who did not become famous
>
> :-( Who gives a damn?!
There are people who do. People with some sense of objectivity and those who
do not take people on just for the sake of a cheap-ass argument.
> To be fair to Chakrabarty, I won't ask about his
> parents.
I don't really understand what you mean here, sire. However, let me tell you
that my parents are retired University professors who taught Chemical
Technology and Astrophysics repectively, and one of them learnt and practiced
hindustani kheyal under Dr. Prabha Atre (since you really want to know). And,
I would prefer that you do not make another joke about my parents.
> >Again, Mr. Shankar, you are getting defensive
>
> Chakrabarty talks to Pt.Shankar on this NG....(while responding to
> ra...@vtaix.cc.vt.edu (RSB))
I know who Ravi Boppe is quite well, (we share our birthplace and childhood
neighborhoods) at least in the public eye. So please stop taking me on and
devote your time to something more meaningful. I have written on this thread
as some of these issues constitute the topics of my academic research and I
feel strongly about it being a part of the whole game. Where do you fit in?
> Again... Chakrabarty's obsession with the offspring goes beyond common concern.
As much as your obsession with Chakrabarty's pants, obsessions, and wailin'
goes beyond common concern, sire.
regards,
A
PS: I WILL NOT RESPOND TO FURTHER RESPONSES TO THIS UNLESS THEY ARE ON A
PRIVATE BASIS. ALSO, THIS IS MY LAST CONTRIBUTION TO THIS THREAD AS I HAVE
ALREADY MENTIONED.
DGandikota
I don't see why one has to single out Pt.Shankar for promoting his daughter. So
far nothing but charges of 'embarrassment' were made. Perhaps Bharat Ratna is
given to these 'quintessentially' indian/bharatiya characteristics to promote
one's family ahead of others even in the creative arts (if there were such
category for classical musicians).
Perhaps classical music ala Pt.Shankar/Jasraj is not sacred at all. It is like
the entertainment business. Does anyone question why a movie producer would
hire their daughter/son/wife/relative? Why should anyone unconnected with
Indian realities of life criticize this? IOW, if caste-system were already
prevalent in the musical scene, people like Chakrabarty should refrain from
organizing concerts of these casteists or promoting their work. I personally
prefer to stay away from concerts I suspect as 'fixed' by the top echelon in
the music business.
>There is a "caste system" and it is the creation of those people who do not
>judge music for what it is worth but just music by who is playing it.
This is the most agreeable statement Chakrabarty ever made.
>one of them learnt and practiced
>hindustani kheyal under Dr. Prabha Atre (since you really want to know).
I've no interest in the personal details of Chakrabarty. However, I do sense
pride in the above statement about his parents which is really the point I'm
trying to make--successful parents and children have strong bonds!
>I would prefer that you do not make another joke about my parents.
What joke? There is no fun in laughing at anyone who laughs at strangers or
celebrities.
>I have written on this thread
>as some of these issues constitute the topics of my academic research and I
>feel strongly about it being a part of the whole game.
Don't we all? Research or not, I don't see objectivity in Chakrabarty's posts.
>Where do you fit in?
Not in Chakrabarty's bibliography for any price.
>I WILL NOT RESPOND TO FURTHER RESPONSES TO THIS UNLESS THEY ARE ON A
>PRIVATE BASIS.
Good. I read all my email except from spammers.
Vasudevan Srinivasan
> >Daniel Fuchs <dfu...@stud.uni-goettingen.de>
>
> >Aren't there more Buddhists than Hindus (Correct me if I'm
> >wrong)?
>
> There are 800+million hindus. Don't know how many budhists...
Sticking strictly to stats:
780 mln Hindus worldwide and 910 K followers in USA
323 mln Buddhists worldwide and 780K followers in USA
Daniel Fuchs
I stand corrected.
D.
Keith Erskine
: I guess this just points to the real sad state of classical music nowadays with
: the illness and eminient retirement of Pt. Bhimsen Joshi and the name calling
: going on between Vilayat, Jasraj, and Ravi Shankar.
I have not heard Ravi Shankar call anyone names in this or any other
incident. What I do find extremely sad, is that Ravi Shankar &
Ali Akbar Khan, though they live within 100-200 miles of each other,
rarely if ever concertize together due to long standing grudges
over concert volume levels (Concert for Bangladesh) & authorship
of ragas & compositions. I find the missed opportunities a disservice
to their guru. The one recording I have of the two together, Mishra Piloo,
is a wonderful duet. The interplay between the two is more closely coupled
in intricately intertwined than any other ICM duet I have heard, clearly
from years of daily training together with their guru.
I find the "living legend" Jasraj's complaints quite distasteful,
a worse reflection on himself than anyone else. Ravi Shankar is
certainly the most prominent ICM artist in the US, probably the only
widely recognized name other than Zakir Hussain, and to a lesser
extent, Ali Akbar Khan. I suspect the same is true abroad. I think
his musical efforts are amongst the very best as well, particularly
his orchestral ICM, the violin/sitar duet with Menuhin (RIP), the
flute/sitar duet with Rampal, etc etc etc.
re: Ravi Shankar pushing Anoushka
Having heard Anoushka live & on her CD, I think she has ample talent &
experience for her current level of exposure. When she performed
Kirwani solo at WOMAD 98 in Seattle, she played flawlessly & passionately,
and received a well deserved huge standing ovation from the audience.
It seems to me the she does not improvise so much, but mostly plays
wonderful gats, toras, & taans composed by her father. I find that this
increased focus on compositions rather than improvisation a musically valid
expression on its own merit, particulary when the compositions are by RS!
The taans she performs on Kirwani, both live & on her CD, are absolutely
beautiful & exciting! Similarly, I also enjoy American jazz music
when they have more precomposed material instead of the traditional
16 bar melody, trade solos for 20 minutes, melody, and out.
Certainly other sitarists are equal or better to Anoushka and do not
receieve the benefit of RS' patronage. Those sitarists had best
pick their parents more carefully in their next life rather than
complain about lack of equity. :-) (Ravi Shankar has shared the
concert stage with other students, such as Shubendra Rao, Anoushka
is certainly not the first). If it gives Ravi Shankar pleasure to
hear his daughter perform in concert, and to help her produce what
I find a very strong initial recording, then good for both of them.
As much pleasure as RS has brought by popularizing ICM to the world,
he deserves every bit of pleasure he derives from introducing his
daughter to the concert stage. After all, Pt. Shankar is very
advanced in age, if he were to wait much longer to introduce her
(I'm NOT implying he has introduced her prematurely), he might not be
here to do it.
Keith Erskine
I don't speak for HP, and vice-versa.