Warrenbuwa on lyrics and melody
Imnot Apadmashri
subject line war IMHO.
Warren:
A singer's perspective:
Vowels are where melody lives. The more vowels there are in a given
song text, the more opportunity for holding notes and deriving the
aesthetic pleasures of intonation and melodic gesture.
Consonants are where rhythm lives. The more consonants in a given
song text, the more opportunity for shaping beat clusters and deriving
the aesthetic pleasures of rhythmic tension and release.
A general rule is that the more importance is attached to text
elements in a song, the less appropriate it is to emphasize other
elements in performance. Let's look at both ends of the continuum.
High priority of text: Vedic chant, Appalachian ballads, Bob Dylan.
Low priority of text: khyal, jazz scat singing, operatic aria.
But we notice that even though the text is a high priority in the
first group, that doesn't mean that there is *no* melody, only that
the melody is simple and repetitive. This provides a framework within
which the text is more readily appreciated (text recitation in an
uninflected monotone is a sure-fire way to strip the words of meaning
in short order), is more satisfying aesthetically, and provides
mnemonic assistance. A low-priority melody doesn't mean a "crappy"
melody; it means a melody that is appropriate to a high-priority text.
And, conversely, we notice that even though the text in the latter
group is a low priority, that doesn't mean that there is no text, only
that the text is simple and repetitive. This provides a framework
within which the melody is more readily appreciated (melody lines in a
continuous unmodulated vowel become undifferentiated gestures very
rapidly), is more satisfying aesthetically, and provides mnemonic
assistance. A low-priority text doesn't mean a "crappy" text; it
means a text that is appropriate to a high-priority melody.
When I sing a song in which the text is interesting (phonetically,
poetically or in meaning) I will refrain from gratuitous twiddly bits
and elaborate virtuoso displays; when I sing a song with a fascinating
melody I will soften consonant articulation and refrain from obvious
textual "interpretation."
When I have a song with both beautiful melody and lovely text...well,
that's a nice thing!
And in a subsequent post:
> Thanks, Warren, for the thoughtful post and for choosing an
> appropriate subject line.
> > When I have a song with both beautiful melody and lovely text...well,
> > that's a nice thing!
> Begum Akhtar immediately comes to mind, but strictly in the khyal
> domain, folks, how about posting favourites?
> Offhand, garavaa maisana laage and piyaase moraa kahiyo jaay
> sandesavaa seem good starting points.
> DG
Some of my favorite drut and madhyalaya bandishes include:
Jogi jog liyo jag karan (Gorakh Kalyan)
Anganwa more naachi sanvariyaa (Shuddh Kalyan)
Vaari jaoon sakhi Shyaam sundar par (Yaman)
Pariye paay na vaake sajani (Jaunpuri)
Chalo hatho piya ab ghar naa aavo more (Patdeep)
Bansi bajaaye sundar pyaare (Shankara)
Hamari madaiyaa kaisi suni (Bihag)
Chandani raat ati bhaave sakhi (Paraj)
Painjaniyaa mori bajana laagi (Hindol)
Main to kaari aayi piya sanga rangaraliyaa (Puriya)
Balama mose karo na chhed ber ber (Gunkali)
All of these have attractive melodies and enjoyable lyrics.
Abhishek
wrote:
Wonderful post.
There is one point I would like to add to (or rather, emphasize in)
this exegesis. If we consider the two cases that Warrenji has outlined
- high priority text/low priority melody, and high priority melody/low
priority text - the low priority aspect can still be linked and may,
in fact, significantly impact the high priority component. In Bob
Dylan's case, for example, though the melody is simple, it provides an
appropriate, meaningful, and carefully constructed canvas for his text
(try singing 'blowing in the wind' to the tune of 'like a rolling
stone'). I would argue that in Khayal's case the words can, in a well
conceived bandish, provide the same synergistic effect with the
melody. Interestingly enough, I feel this is the case with a lot of
Alladiya Khan sa'ab's bandishes (Sur Sangat, comes to mind) despite
the gharana being taan-pradhan.
An intelligent musician may chose to use the phonetic and/or literary
properties of the words in his bol-ang improvisation. After all we're
all familiar with Vinayakbuwa's word-play in his Adana in honor of
Lady Linlithgow (if you're not then you're really missing out on a
good laugh*). Bol banav and bol baant provide greater scope for
emphasizing the literary aspects of the text. While in bol taans
(Gajananbuwa's predilection and specialty - going back to the original
posting by Vinay) the literal meaning of a word will naturally be over-
ridden by the demands of the upaj melody and its interplay with
rhythm. In the latter case, the words are meant to contribute to the
*architectural* qualities of the said taans.
As an aside, I find no aesthetic problem listening to Pt. Bhimsen
Joshi warbling the words of his bandishes - it would be akin to
faulting Picasso for not drawing anatomically correct human figures in
his painting. I *would* have a problem if the same was done by Begum
Akhtar or Mehdi Hassan. Conversely, I have been put off multiple times
with khayaliyas, from a certain so called 'lyrical' Gharana, who are
very precise with their pronunciation, but deliver platitudes in the
musical department.
Expectations and frame of reference are paramount when approaching any
work of art.
Abhay
Doesn't the sound of the words make a difference, as well as the fit
of the lyrical pattern to the musical pattern? When I think back over
the bandish-es where the lyrics have made an impact on me as a
listener, some of the ones that readily spring to mind are:
- sakhii shyaam nahii.n aaye (Chhaya Malhar)
- deva deva satsa.ng (Sawani)
- sahelaa re aao mil gaa_e.N (Bhoop)
- pag na chalat sakhii (Salagawarali)
- saa.Nchii kahat huu.N mai.n (Lalat)
- o narahar naaraayaNa (Bibhas)
- bolan laagii koyaliyaa (Kalavati)
If I think about what is common to all these, it is not so much the
poetic quality of the lyrics (some of them, in fact, wouldn't rank
very high on a literary scale) as it is the *sound* of the words and
the way they fit perfectly into the contours of the raaga in question.
The words and the music seem to be in perfect alignment in these
compositions and the sounds and cadences of the words are very
pleasing to the ear. This is by no means true of all/most khyal
bandish-es.
In compositions like these, it would be sad if the words were not
enunciated clearly by the singer, but these are bandish-es where all
the singers I have heard show clarity of enunciation (yes, even Mansur
and BJ!). Maybe some singers vary their enunciation depending on how
far *they* like the lyrics!
Warm regards,
Abhay
vinay pande
wrote:
==================================
i think warren should have the last word here...he makes enormous
sense. so i have copied his note below once again so it doesnt get
lost in the noise of this discussion ( to which i acknowledge i have
made some humble contribution!)
vinay
Warren
Wow. Hearing myself repeated by so many people is eerily like being
accompanied by a sarangiya of exceptional calibre!
I would like to contribute more to this thread, but I'm chicken-with-
its-head-chopped-off busy at the moment. I'll get back within 36
hours or so.
WS
Abhik Majumdar
All the more reason for you to change your first name to Harland,
perhaps? (Recall Rajan making a similar observation once).
Abhik
vinay pande
>
> - Show quoted text -
we have to interpret that as a compliment....
being accompanied by a sarangiya is a good thing.
being accompanied by a cacophonium is not.
v
Sanjeev Ramabhadran
> being accompanied by a sarangiya is a good thing.
> being accompanied by a cacophonium is not.
What is a cacophonium?
Sanjeev
Imnot Apadmashri
asked:
> What is a cacophonium?
As far as I can make out, it is a harmonium-hater's leper's bell.
DG
vinay pande
okay lets be nice there was an attempt in uttar bharat to rename it
"har har muhaniya". it didn't catch.