Yaman or Yaman Kalyan
sha...@my-deja.com
(hindustani) ICM, Kalyan refers to the "Thaat" from where other rag(s)
of the same thaat are derived ... and Yaman is one of them.
Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Duphly
there is Tivra Ma and Shuddha Ma in special phrases, Yaman uses only Tivra Ma.
There you can see that the Thaat-System has its limitations.
Diez Eichler, Frankfurt (Germany)
buh...@ecn.ab.ca
P M G m G R S (M=tivra m = shudha). there's more to it, but i'll leave
that to the more experienced people in the group.
ajb
sha...@my-deja.com wrote:
: Are these two the same? From my limited understanding of
: Thanks.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Buhr buh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Savour the Irony! bu...@infinity.gmcc.ab.ca
http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~buhrger
naniwadekar
sha...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Are these two the same? From my limited understanding of
> (hindustani) ICM, Kalyan refers to the "Thaat" from where other rag(s)
> of the same thaat are derived ... and Yaman is one of them.
>
derived from that thaat. Raag Todi is derived from thaat Todi, and so
on. I think some people call the raag which has the same name as its
thaat, as the main raag of that thaat. So raag aasaavari (a Gundecha
bros version is available) is the main raag of thaat aasaavari, going
by this logic.
The only exception is thaat kalyaan. Its "main" raag does not carry the
same name, viz, "kalyaan". But its name is "Yaman". The great Kumar
Gandharva rebelled against this. The raag which we call Yaman, he used
to call it Kalyan. On side A of one of his LPs, he has sung first
shree-kalyan, then shree, and finally kalyan (or Yaman). His "mukh tero
kaaro" is a kalyaan masterpiece. Bhimsen's Yaman-Kalyan on an LP is
also a masterpiece. I think the LP is dated 1967, or there-abouts. The
back-cover of the LP says Bhimsen was 35 when he cut that LP. That
means 1967. But on the record, year 1965 is mentioned. Some such cock-
up. I can't recall the exact details.
Mohan Nadkarni has pointed out that Bhimsen incorporated Kesarbai's
robust style in his singing. It is one of the few worth-while
statements, coming from an Indian music critic. I can tell you some
really funny stories about morons like Raghava Menon of ToI. But let
that pass. My idols Govindrao Tembe and Vamanrao Deshpande beat /
ploughed a lonely furrow in providing us with good music criticism. It
forces us to look to Samuel Langford, Ernest Newman, Neville Cardus,
Bernard Shaw etc for good writing on music. Indian scene is pathetic.
Coming back to Bhimsen-Kesarbai, his YamanKalyan LP was his fifth LP
release. It is the first one in which the robust style makes itself
felt in such a compelling fashion. It is his best LP, IMO. Better than
his third LP offerring of Malkauns. In his fourth LP of Todi, Bhimsen
has hinted at the robust style he was soon to acquire. His Todi also
contains the most preternatural passages you get to hear in Bhimsen's
LP offerrings.
- nani (dhananjay naniwadekar)
Todd Michel McComb
naniwadekar <nan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The exception is thaat kalyaan. Its "main" raag does not carry
>the same name, viz, "kalyaan". But its name is "Yaman". The great
>Kumar Gandharva rebelled against this.
Not only him. B. Subba Rao lists this raga under Kalyan in Raganidhi.
Of course, he says it is also called Yaman (or Eman).
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
Todd Michel McComb
naniwadekar <nan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Was Mr Subba Rao discussing (North) Indian CM ? Or was he discussing
>South Indian Music and mentioned kalyani - yaman connection ?
His raga encyclopedia attempts to detail ragas in both traditions.
He has separate sections for Hindustani and Carnatic descriptions
under each raga name. The facts I mention pertain specifically to
the Hindustani descriptions. The book is a classic, printed first
in 1965.
Todd McComb
mcc...@medieval.org
naniwadekar
mcc...@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:
> Not only him. B. Subba Rao lists this raga under Kalyan in Raganidhi.
> Of course, he says it is also called Yaman (or Eman).
>
> Todd McComb
> mcc...@medieval.org
>
>
South Indian Music and mentioned kalyani - yaman connection ?
I had never before heard of B Subba Rao, and I am not jumping to any
conclusion. But an explanation from you would be of help. I think Veena
Sahasrabuddhe also refers to Yaman as Kalyani. She is the best singer
from post-1940 generation, IMO. But she is also a bit pompous (not in
Ravi Shankar - Amjad Ali class), and a Kumar Gandharva crony.
chetan vinchhi
Hello Nani,
> The only exception is thaat kalyaan. Its "main" raag does not carry the
> same name, viz, "kalyaan". But its name is "Yaman". The great Kumar
> Gandharva rebelled against this. The raag which we call Yaman, he used
> to call it Kalyan.
Something is amiss here. There is a (now relatively rare) raag Kalyan.
I believe the Gwalior singers use to perform it. It is scalically identical
to Yaman (or is it the other way around?) but with a different set or
emphases. There is a *strong* re-pa samvaad which is very weak or
even completely avoided in Yaman. It is quite possible KG sang this
Kalyan, which is not to be confused with Yaman. What you said above
is kind of like saying "The raag we call Bhoop, s/he used to call it
Deshkaar" :)
A new and utterly beautiful melody arises out of the amalgam
of Yaman and Kalyan. The shuddha ma of YK is incidental and is
*not* required to establish the identity of YK. Fact, many singers of
repute (Kishori Amonkar, for instance) are known to use the shuddha
ma very sparingly in YK.
> Mohan Nadkarni has pointed out that Bhimsen incorporated Kesarbai's
> robust style in his singing. It is one of the few worth-while
> statements, coming from an Indian music critic.
In the absence of any knowledge of the context in which the statement
was made, this is an incredibly naive thing to say. Apart from a powerful
voice that could easily scale 3 octaves and beauty of taas, KK's gayaki
was characterized by highly precise and sophisticated layakari, an
element that is conspicuously absent from Bhimsen's singing. KK's
ability to come back to the 'sam' with a bang is legendary. Bhimsen
struggles with the laya and is often caught floundering before the
'sam'. Finally, KK's raagdaari is of the highest order. Bhimsen,
on the other hand, has his days, but has shown no great ability to
present complex (or even simple) raags with authority in the raagdaari
department.
C
A.Pavan
>Sahasrabuddhe also refers to Yaman as Kalyani. She is the best singer
>from post-1940 generation, IMO. But she is also a bit pompous (not in
>Ravi Shankar - Amjad Ali class), and a Kumar Gandharva crony.
Veena S also calles herself a Doctor, which she is not, apparently.
She has a Sangeet Praveen degree. Rajan can provide all the gory details :-)
I too admire her tayyari which is beyond question. Also like her Khayal
and Bhajans. She sings a lot of Balwant Rai Bhatt and Ramashreya Jha
compositions. Her Taranas though tend to be chota khayals in disguise.
Not much layakari or clevel use of the vocal syllables.
Pavan
Warren Senders
>and Bhajans.
Indeed, although it has been pointed out over and over that
her bhajans bear Kumar G's impress. If I had a complaint
about Veena's singing it is that she is a little inclined to
sing "what she knows" as opposed to "what she imagines." There
is not too much chance-taking. While this reduces the number
of mistakes, it also makes for a less interesting recital; I would
always prefer to hear an intellectually and musically aware
singer trying something new (and fail) than to hear the same
singer presenting something old and well-worn (successfully).
>Her Taranas though tend to be chota khayals in disguise.
>Not much layakari or clever use of the vocal syllables.
Yes. I attended a concert of hers in 97 which was billed
as being completely taranas (including khyalnuma). It
was extremely disappointing; that someone with her
rhythmic acuity would avoid layakari that way is
inexplicable. I left at the interval, but more determined
friends stayed for the 2nd half and they reported that
it was plus ca change, plus ce la m'eme chose all the way
to the end.
There are very few nowadays who even attempt tarana
layakari in the manner of Nissar Hussain, Gajananrao Joshi
or Krishnarao Shankar Pandit (who did less syllabic layakari
but made up for it with extremely clever manipulation of
pulse structures...and a fabulous repertoire of chaturangs).
WS
sha...@my-deja.com
> In case of every other of the 10 thaat_s, a raag of the same name is
> derived from that thaat. Raag Todi is derived from thaat Todi, and so
> on. I think some people call the raag which has the same name as its
> thaat, as the main raag of that thaat. So raag aasaavari (a Gundecha
> bros version is available) is the main raag of thaat aasaavari, going
> by this logic.
> The only exception is thaat kalyaan. Its "main" raag does not carry
the
> same name, viz, "kalyaan". But its name is "Yaman". The great Kumar
> Gandharva rebelled against this. The raag which we call Yaman, he used
> to call it Kalyan. On side A of one of his LPs, he has sung first
> shree-kalyan, then shree, and finally kalyan (or Yaman). His "mukh
So, is it safe to assume that Yaman IS Yaman Kalyan?
vimal aga
>Veena S also calles herself a Doctor, which she is not, apparently.
>She has a Sangeet Praveen degree. Rajan can provide all the gory details
:-)
pavan:
according to the sahasrabiddhites, veenaji is a PhD from the gandharva
mahavidyalay. the subject of her doctoral thesis was (you guessed it :-)
"taraanaa", a subject "that is very dear to my heart", as she stated in an
interview i read a while ago.
vimal.
Ashok
>
>it was plus ca change, plus ce la m'eme chose all the way
>WS
Yogi Berra goes to France? :)
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
(The more things change, the more they remain the same.)
Alphonse Karr (1808-90)
Ashok
Warren Senders
>
>Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
>(The more things change, the more they remain the same.)
Thanks, Ashok, for the correction in punctuation and the
insertion of the correct diacriticals, which I didn't even try
to find.
BTW, Yogi Berra, America's original rhetorical idiot savant,
also said:
"In theory, theory and practice are the same...but in practice,
they're different."
That's a good one to keep over the desk!
WS
Ajay P Nerurkar
: BTW, Yogi Berra, America's original rhetorical idiot savant,
: also said:
As long as we are being pedantic and off-topic, why is YB a
"rhetorical idiot savant" ? An idiot savant is someone who
is unusually gifted in a particular narrow area, but is
completely inept at everything else.
BTW, while quoting him you must not forget that he didn't
really say everything he said.
Ajay
Ashok
>
>............................ he didn't
>
>Ajay
Are you trying to outdo that Yogi?
:)
Ashok
Jason Mainland
There is a marvelous recording of Yaman Kalyan by Pandit Mallikarjun
Mansur which can be found at http://saigan.com/hmp/ip6010.htm. The CD
also includes renditions of Khat and Nat-Bihag.
Jason Mainland
sanj...@my-deja.com
> sha...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Bhimsen's Yaman-Kalyan on an LP is
> also a masterpiece. I think the LP is dated 1967, or there-abouts. The
> back-cover of the LP says Bhimsen was 35 when he cut that LP. That
> means 1967. But on the record, year 1965 is mentioned. Some such cock-
> up. I can't recall the exact details.
Small nitpick - Bhimsen Joshi AFAIK was born in 1922. 35 years later
should be 1957, not 1967. Is is possible the record didn't get released
for eight years (no idea why, but is it possible)?
--
Sanjeev Ramabhadran
chetan vinchhi
<sha...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8qds79$nko$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> So, is it safe to assume that Yaman IS Yaman Kalyan?
No. Once again, Yaman is different from Kalyan is different from
Yaman Kalyan.
C
Rajan P. Parrikar
>So, is it safe to assume that Yaman IS Yaman Kalyan?
No. To untangle this Gordian knot of nomenclature you
will, however, have to temporarily suspend reason.
kalyAN is the name of both a thAT and a rAga. The rAga
by the name Kalyan is also known as Yaman.
The kalyAN thAT note set is: S R G m P D N (m=teevra madhyam).
A thAT merely represents the set of notes whereas a rAga
is much more than that. To properly express the Raga Kalyan
(Yaman) the rAga lakshaNAs have to be attended to.
Now, Raga Yaman Kalyan is essentially Raga Yaman with the
proviso that the shuddha madhyam (absent in Yaman) is
allowed in vakra, avarohi passages. The extent and manner
of the shuddha madhyam show variance across gharAnA and
regional borders. Some barely acknowledge it or take it
in as a suprise factor, others are less inhibited.
To summarize:
Kalyan represents a thAT.
Raga Kalyan is the representative rAga of the kalyAN
thAT and also goes by the name Yaman.
Raga Yaman Kalyan is Yaman + the shuddha madhyam.
For an example of Yaman Kalyan with a significant
shuddha madhyam presence (in my opinion, this lends
the rAga great beauty) click on the link below
for a composition of Ramashreya Jha "Ramrang,"
announcing Shri Rama arrival: 'nirakha nirakha
sakhi gagana manDala meiN' -
http://www.parrikar.prohosting.com/ramrang/yamankalyan.ram
Warm regards,
r
sanj...@my-deja.com
"chetan vinchhi" <cvin...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > The only exception is thaat kalyaan. Its "main" raag does not carry
the
> > same name, viz, "kalyaan". But its name is "Yaman". The great Kumar
> > Gandharva rebelled against this. The raag which we call Yaman, he
used
> > to call it Kalyan.
>
> Something is amiss here. There is a (now relatively rare) raag Kalyan.
> I believe the Gwalior singers use to perform it. It is scalically
identical
> to Yaman (or is it the other way around?) but with a different set or
> emphases.
Logic question - how can Yaman be scalically identical to Kalyan
WITHOUT it being the other way round? On another note, I don't think
anything is amiss. While a few folks may insist on a Kalyaan raga with
a separate identity, I don't know that the majority of the music-
oriented population recognizes these two as distinct.
> There is a *strong* re-pa samvaad which is very weak or
> even completely avoided in Yaman.
Can you (or anyone else) elaborate on this? I don't know of any such
AVOIDANCE in Yaman, in fact I have heard several vilambit bandishes
where the "sam" lands on "re" with a drop from "pa".
> It is quite possible KG sang this
> Kalyan, which is not to be confused with Yaman. What you said above
> is kind of like saying "The raag we call Bhoop, s/he used to call it
> Deshkaar" :)
Ummm...okay. :-)
>
> A new and utterly beautiful melody arises out of the amalgam
> of Yaman and Kalyan. The shuddha ma of YK is incidental and is
> *not* required to establish the identity of YK. Fact, many singers of
> repute (Kishori Amonkar, for instance) are known to use the shuddha
> ma very sparingly in YK.
KA, while undoubtedly a great artiste, is not known for her absolutely-
conventional-by-the-book renditions of all ragas. She certainly has her
unique interpretations in the phrases of Bageshri, for example. Doesn't
mean that I can't call it Bageshri.
In Yaman Kalyan, I think the beauty of shuddha ma is brought out by its
sparing and discrete (but NONZERO) use, not by overload. If you say the
shuddh ma is NOT necessary to establish Yaman Kalyan, how do you drop
the shuddh ma and make it sound distinctly LIKE Yaman Kalyan and NOT
LIKE Yaman?
> > Mohan Nadkarni has pointed out that Bhimsen incorporated Kesarbai's
> > robust style in his singing. It is one of the few worth-while
> > statements, coming from an Indian music critic.
>
> In the absence of any knowledge of the context in which the statement
> was made, this is an incredibly naive thing to say.
Not that I have been able to pick out the strands of KK's gayaki in
BJ's gayaki, but I have read MN's book on BJ. Unless he's making up
stories, KK herself attended one of BJ's programs and good-naturedly
told him that she was listening to see "how much of our gayaki you (BJ)
have stolen!" KK must have been "incredibly naive".
> Apart from a powerful voice that could easily scale 3 octaves and
> beauty of taas, KK's gayaki
> was characterized by highly precise and sophisticated layakari, an
> element that is conspicuously absent from Bhimsen's singing. KK's
> ability to come back to the 'sam' with a bang is legendary. Bhimsen
> struggles with the laya and is often caught floundering before the
> 'sam'.
I agree that KK's gayaki does display more rhythmic precision than BJ,
but would you not say the same of most Jaipur-Atrauli folks? It seems
to be a core feature of their presentation. Maybe true to his Kirana
background, BJ never gave as much importance to this aspect and thus
chose not to develop it as much.
> Finally, KK's raagdaari is of the highest order.
From what I have heard, I am hard-pressed to find any weakness in her
gayaki.
> Bhimsen, on the other hand, has his days, but has shown no great
> ability to present complex (or even simple) raags with authority in
> the raagdaari department.
You may not escape with this one on RMIC, Chetan :-). With all due
respect, this "raagdaari" is an elusive term - regardless of what
definition you choose, I think this opinion on BJ will be hotly
contested (Rajan, are you reading this?). My own observation is that BJ
seems to present a certain set of ragas very authoritatively, but is
not as convincing in others - for me, for example, his Yaman, Puriya,
and Multani are far more convincing than his Jaijaiwanti. As per
Nadkarni's book, Puriya and Multani are two ragas he studied intensely
with Sawai Gandharva.
Keith Erskine
: sha...@my-deja.com writes:
: >So, is it safe to assume that Yaman IS Yaman Kalyan?
: No. To untangle this Gordian knot of nomenclature you
: will, however, have to temporarily suspend reason.
: kalyAN is the name of both a thAT and a rAga. The rAga
: by the name Kalyan is also known as Yaman.
: The kalyAN thAT note set is: S R G m P D N (m=teevra madhyam).
: A thAT merely represents the set of notes whereas a rAga
: is much more than that. To properly express the Raga Kalyan
: (Yaman) the rAga lakshaNAs have to be attended to.
: Now, Raga Yaman Kalyan is essentially Raga Yaman with the
: proviso that the shuddha madhyam (absent in Yaman) is
: allowed in vakra, avarohi passages.
Another way of saying this is that shuddha Ma is usually
tied to shuddha Ga, so shuddha Ma often appears in G-M-G,
which most often is part of a concluding phrase such as
P-G-M-G-RS-_N-R-S. As Rajan said, it is vakra in that it
descends P-G-M-G rather than P-M-G.
: The extent and manner
: of the shuddha madhyam show variance across gharAnA and
: regional borders. Some barely acknowledge it or take it
: in as a suprise factor, others are less inhibited.
Another inter-gharana variance is whether Pa is permitted
in the ascent. All gharanas adhere to omission of Sa
in the ascent, thus _N-R rather than _N-S-R. Similar,
for those gharanas omitting Pa in ascent, m-D is played
rather than m-P-D. I like the m-D-N (m=teevra) phrase
for the symmetry of the _N-R-G phrase in the lower tetrachord.
G and N are vadi/samvadi, P & S are also strong.
Keith Erskine
I don't speak for HP.
naniwadekar
sanj...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Small nitpick - Bhimsen Joshi AFAIK was born in 1922. 35 years later
> should be 1957, not 1967. Is is possible the record didn't get
released
> for eight years (no idea why, but is it possible)?
>
Thanks for calling that howler a small nitpick. Read 45, not 35.
The record label either lists 1965, with back-cover saying BJ was 45.
OR
The record label lists 1967, with back-cover saying BJ was 43.
I think it is the former.
Now that we are at it, I had first read that BJ was born on 4 Feb 1922.
Later I read it was 14 Feb 1922. Nadkarni's book mentions 14 Feb. I
read MN's book in 1987. But 2-3 years ago, I again found a mention of 4
Feb. I searched for "savarkar" on yahoo. One of the first few entries
claims he was born in 1884. Another claims 1883.
If this sloppiness was limited to these matters, it would still be bad
enough. But overall we Indians are rather pathetic. It hurts us where
it really matters.
With the musical aspects of this thread in far sounder hands, I thought
I will ride my favourite hobby horse of Hindu apathy once more. But I
will return to this thread soon. I want to raise a couple of points.
Pertaining to music.
- nani (dhananjay naniwadekar)
A.Pavan
There exists no physical thesis to support her claim. A PhD should have
a publicly availble thesis.
Previous attempts obtain a copy of her thesis for perusal have been
futile.
Pavan
chetan vinchhi
<sanj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8qfrmo$1f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Logic question - how can Yaman be scalically identical to Kalyan
> WITHOUT it being the other way round?
Sorry for the cryptic nature of my statement. I was merely saying
that I am not implying a derivative relationship between the two
raags.
> Not that I have been able to pick out the strands of KK's gayaki in
> BJ's gayaki, but I have read MN's book on BJ. Unless he's making up
> stories, KK herself attended one of BJ's programs and good-naturedly
> told him that she was listening to see "how much of our gayaki you (BJ)
> have stolen!" KK must have been "incredibly naive".
There are innumberable ways to interpret this. For instance, it
is possible that somebody told KK BJ was inspired by her
gayaki and the above statement is a reference to it. And
knowing KK's reputation, a tongue-in-cheek one at that :) In
any case, even if this story is true, it is hasty to conclude that
KK found shades of her own gayaki in BJ's.
All these conjectures apart, I am only drawing conclusions
after having heard a fair amount of both the singers' gayaki.
I maintain that I do not find KK's influence in BJ's singing.
> I agree that KK's gayaki does display more rhythmic precision than BJ,
> but would you not say the same of most Jaipur-Atrauli folks? It seems
> to be a core feature of their presentation. Maybe true to his Kirana
> background, BJ never gave as much importance to this aspect and thus
> chose not to develop it as much.
I have no dispute with your statements above (but for
the degree of difference between the two with respect
to rhythmic precision, but I will let that pass :) ). I was only
trying out MN's hypothesis on different fronts. I drew a
blank from every one of them. I only mentioned two or
three. There are other fronts - such as the mee.nD and
behlaav a.ngs - where KK falls in a class far above that
of BJ.
> From what I have heard, I am hard-pressed to find any weakness in her
> gayaki.
What an understatement!
> My own observation is that BJ
> seems to present a certain set of ragas very authoritatively, but is
> not as convincing in others
Isn't the above is simply a slightly watered-down version of
"He is not consistent on the raagdaari front"?!!
I agree with what (I think) you are saying, which is why I said
BJ "has his days". Taking the example of Multani, his 1950s
recording (available from Music Today) is very good but, IIRC,
a later recording (probably from HMV) is far poorer not only
in content but also in presentation.
That is not to say the earlier recording is perfect in every way.
It has a lot of very fast-fast taan-baaji but there is no evidence
of any structure to it. BJ has not once caught the mukhada
correctly in that entire performance! It is almost amusing
that Purushottam Kapila singing behind him did a couple
of nifty taans and rounded them off nicely by coming back
to the sam gracefully.
And while on the subject of raagdaari among Kiranites, I
find Gangubai to be more consistent in her raagdaari. She
also has a far better sense of laya, although she does not
do extensive layakaari.
C
sanj...@my-deja.com
"chetan vinchhi" <cvin...@lucent.com> wrote:
> > Not that I have been able to pick out the strands of KK's gayaki in
> > BJ's gayaki, but I have read MN's book on BJ.
> All these conjectures apart, I am only drawing conclusions
> after having heard a fair amount of both the singers' gayaki.
> I maintain that I do not find KK's influence in BJ's singing.
As per my previous statement, neither do I as yet.
>
> I have no dispute with your statements above (but for
> the degree of difference between the two with respect
> to rhythmic precision, but I will let that pass :) ).
What's with the smiley here? I don't dispute KK's excellence on this
feature - however, have you heard BJ trying to come up with really
smart landings and failing repeatedly? He's never been into that, and I
don't think he really pushes his luck. Your "degree of difference" is
like saying Pete Sampras is a better net player than Joe Shmoe when JS
trips on his shoelaces on the SOLITARY approach he makes towards the
net in the match.
> > From what I have heard, I am hard-pressed to find any weakness in
> > her gayaki.
>
> What an understatement!
While I don't want to drool all over my keyboard, let me clarify that I
like KK much, much better than "she-doesn't-make-any-mistakes"...I
thought my words would be adequate statement to that effect.
> > My own observation is that BJ
> > seems to present a certain set of ragas very authoritatively, but is
> > not as convincing in others
>
> Isn't the above is simply a slightly watered-down version of
> "He is not consistent on the raagdaari front"?!!
Not exactly. What I meant was he seems to have certain ragas that he
can almost always count on to impress. I don't think he is randomly
inconsistent on the raagdaari front (i.e. that his hit rate for Pooriya
sung ten times would be in the same range as Jaijaiwanti, to use the
example I mentioned earlier).
> I agree with what (I think) you are saying, which is why I said
> BJ "has his days". Taking the example of Multani, his 1950s
> recording (available from Music Today) is very good but, IIRC,
> a later recording (probably from HMV) is far poorer not only
> in content but also in presentation.
What distinction are you making between the two? Do you mean bandishes?
>
> That is not to say the earlier recording is perfect in every way.
> It has a lot of very fast-fast taan-baaji but there is no evidence
> of any structure to it. BJ has not once caught the mukhada
> correctly in that entire performance!
What do you mean not catching it correctly? Do you mean not planning
and placing the taan in such a way that its end coincides with the
uTHav point of the bandish? I too appreciate smartly situated taans,
but is it a requirement to catch the uThav point in mid-stride every
time?
If this is what you mean, I agree BJ does this, but that in itself
doesn't seem to take away from the overall effect of his performances.
> She also has a far better sense of laya, although she does not
> do extensive layakaari.
Whatever I've thus far heard of her would support this claim.
--
Sanjeev Ramabhadran
chetan vinchhi
<sanj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8qgctt$m1e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > I have no dispute with your statements above (but for
> > the degree of difference between the two with respect
> > to rhythmic precision, but I will let that pass :) ).
>
> What's with the smiley here?
Because of the oxymoronic nature of my parenthetical
statement above. The fact that I brought it up contradicts
my claim that I am letting it pass.
> I don't dispute KK's excellence on this
> feature - however, have you heard BJ trying to come up with really
> smart landings and failing repeatedly?
Worse. He comes up with straightforward landings and
fails repeatedly.
>
> > > From what I have heard, I am hard-pressed to find any weakness in
> > > her gayaki.
> >
> > What an understatement!
>
> While I don't want to drool all over my keyboard, let me clarify that I
> like KK much, much better than "she-doesn't-make-any-mistakes"...I
> thought my words would be adequate statement to that effect.
Your words above seemed to imply a mere adequacy in
the various departments.
>
> > I agree with what (I think) you are saying, which is why I said
> > BJ "has his days". Taking the example of Multani, his 1950s
> > recording (available from Music Today) is very good but, IIRC,
> > a later recording (probably from HMV) is far poorer not only
> > in content but also in presentation.
>
> What distinction are you making between the two? Do you mean bandishes?
No. I will have to listen again in order to elaborate.
> >
> > That is not to say the earlier recording is perfect in every way.
> > It has a lot of very fast-fast taan-baaji but there is no evidence
> > of any structure to it. BJ has not once caught the mukhada
> > correctly in that entire performance!
>
> What do you mean not catching it correctly? Do you mean not planning
> and placing the taan in such a way that its end coincides with the
> uTHav point of the bandish? I too appreciate smartly situated taans,
> but is it a requirement to catch the uThav point in mid-stride every
> time?
Ideally, yes. But the point I was making is that he could not do
it even *once* in the whole presentation. Most of the singers I
have heard (and certainly all the *good* singers) sing from
sam to sam. The bol-taans or taans they perform are used to
build up an expectation. The tension is resolved (sometimes
cleverly, sometimes in a more predictable way) by coming
back to the mukhada. And it is essential to have a plan - not
necessarily a sophisticated one - in order to do that. It is aslo
essential to execute the plan correctly.
> If this is what you mean, I agree BJ does this, but that in itself
> doesn't seem to take away from the overall effect of his performances.
I disagree. BJ has some tremendously strong points (his
intonation for example) but he is no KK.
C
Rajan P. Parrikar
>Another inter-gharana variance is whether Pa is permitted
>in the ascent. All gharanas adhere to omission of Sa
>in the ascent, thus _N-R rather than _N-S-R. Similar,
There are quite a few dhrupads with straight S R G m P
passages and even a few old kHayAls. It must be understood,
however, that these are not just plain notes. Rather,
they are swaras, which means there are various kaNs
from the adjacent swara-space which must be summoned.
>for those gharanas omitting Pa in ascent, m-D is played
>rather than m-P-D. I like the m-D-N (m=teevra) phrase
>for the symmetry of the _N-R-G phrase in the lower tetrachord.
>G and N are vadi/samvadi, P & S are also strong.
The langhan nature of the pancham in ascent is a dominant
theme in Yaman. However, an occasional run with the pancham
included is not prohibited; in fact, it adds to the ranjakatva
(embellishment) if done judiciously.
Two ready examples are available for demonstration. First, in
Yaman Kalyan (the same Ramrang composition I cited earlier
this morning). Watch out for the movement beginning at
0:36 until about 0:38, for the quick mPDNDR"N(D)P cluster.
http://www.parrikar.prohosting.com/ramrang/yamankalyan.ram
The second example is in Raga Yaman, again it is Ramrang's
beautiful druta composition "ranga de ranga de rangarejavA."
The first occasion is at the commencement of "mori chunariyA"
(P' D' N' S R S), in the mandra saptaka, just past 0:28.
Then again on the "more mitavA" boltAna beginning at
0:36 (PmGRGmPDN etc).
http://www.parrikar.prohosting.com/ramrang/yaman_druta.ram
Warm regards,
r
Ashok
>
>There are quite a few dhrupads with straight S R G m P
>passages and even a few old kHayAls. It must be understood,
>however, that these are not just plain notes. Rather,
>they are swaras, which means there are various kaNs
>from the adjacent swara-space which must be summoned.
>r
Can you elaborate on the "kaN"s, including the word itself
if it has a technical meaning?
Ashok
Rajan P. Parrikar
The literal Sanskrit meaning of 'kaNa' is: a grain, a
particle, a small fragment. In classical music, kaNa-swara
refers to that swara that provides a grace to another
main swara ('moola-swara'). It is also known as sparsh-swara.
It is one of the several types of ornamentations imparted
to a swara. Without these kaNs, Indian classical music,
indeed most of Indian music, ceases to be.
Consider the passage cited above - S R G m P. One mode of
intonation for Raga Kalyan would be approximately
S (N')R (R)G (P)m P, where the notes in parenthesis are
the kaNs to the moola-swara ahead of them. Note that the
same moola-swara can receive a different kaNa in the reverse
movement (or even in the same direction, depending on the
rAga). For instance, in Yaman, in the avarohi movement the
rishab would get a kaNa of the shuddha gandhAr - (G)R.
The kaNa need not be of an adjacent swara. It could, in some
cases, be separated by as much as an octave, as in (S)S". Also,
the moola-swara may occasionally ask not for a preceding
but a tailing-off kaNa (a somewhat more delicate operation).
It is hard, if not impossible, to effectively convey these
ideas by the written word.
Warm regards,
r
ps: The awkwardness with which kaNs are produced on a
harmonium or a keyboard (even by the most dexterous fingers)
is a far more serious drawback than some of the more commonly
cited ones (inability to produce shruti-shades, meenDs).
Harish Chinai
"Rajan P. Parrikar" wrote:
Sarangi fills this void and does literally sing along with the vocalist
all the kaNs and meeDs.
naniwadekar
Rajan P. Parrikar <parr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> No. To untangle this Gordian knot of nomenclature you
> will, however, have to temporarily suspend reason.
>
> kalyAN is the name of both a thAT and a rAga. The rAga
> by the name Kalyan is also known as Yaman.
>
which is slightly diff from yaman. I had also heard this story
from a knowledgeable friend. But you have chosen not to comment upon
that. Of course, your "raag by the name Kalyan is also known as Yaman"
comment makes it clear that you don't agree with Chetan's version. Have
you heard ABOUT this rishabh-pancham samvaad wallah kalyan, sung by
Gwalior people ? Have you heard that version itself? An explicit
comment would be welcome.
Chetan : As I have already written to you, I can't make out sa from re
from any other swar. So I don't know whether Kumarji used re-pa samvaad
in his kalyan. But his logic was : "what you call yaman, I call it
kalyaN. It is the main raag of that thaaT, and should have the same
name". That should answer your "KG might have sung the lesser known
kalyaN which Gwalior people sing" argument. If at all KG's kalyaN (or
yaman) has re-pa samvaad, then KG must have felt that this re-pa
samvaad was acceptable in yaman.
- nani (dhananjay naniwadekar)
Keith Erskine
: In article <8qfmk...@drn.newsguy.com>,
: Rajan P. Parrikar <parr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: > No. To untangle this Gordian knot of nomenclature you
: > will, however, have to temporarily suspend reason.
: >
: > kalyAN is the name of both a thAT and a rAga. The rAga
: > by the name Kalyan is also known as Yaman.
: >
: Oh no. Rajan, Chetan has written that there is a raag named kalyan,
: which is slightly diff from yaman. I had also heard this story
: from a knowledgeable friend. But you have chosen not to comment upon
: that. Of course, your "raag by the name Kalyan is also known as Yaman"
: comment makes it clear that you don't agree with Chetan's version. Have
: you heard ABOUT this rishabh-pancham samvaad wallah kalyan, sung by
: Gwalior people ? Have you heard that version itself? An explicit
: comment would be welcome.
: Chetan : As I have already written to you, I can't make out sa from re
: from any other swar.
You can't even discern one swara from another, yet you post derisively
of Ravi Shankar & Ali Amjad Khan? Why do you ask for samvadi variants
in yaman/kalyan if you can't hear them? What's the point? I tell ya,
the last thing the world needs is another cynical music critic who will
belittle those who have thoroughly mastered an art form of which they know
absolutely NOTHING!
naniwadekar
k...@fc.hp.com (Keith Erskine) wrote:
>
> You can't even discern one swara from another, yet you post derisively
> of Ravi Shankar & Ali Amjad Khan? Why do you ask for samvadi
> variants > in yaman/kalyan if you can't hear them?
when did I ask for variants? I can't make out yaman from yaman-kalyan.
So you won't hear me talking about how so and so uses shudh madhyam. I
may quote some source about some singer using or not using a certain
note. But that is about all. I won't comment further.
Amjad AK uses a journalist to let everybody know how his personal
equation with RS is. He does not come off well by doing so. End of
story. No sa, no re, no distinction betn sa and re involved there.
As for those who can make out notes, that knowledge does enable them to
enjoy the music more. But remember that Baal Gandharva, whose singing
was praised even by Alladiya Khan saheb, used to plead ignorance about
the intricacies of technique. Bhimsen once said that in most of his
songs he would veer towards bhim-palas. BG's defense was that he was
not all that informed in technicalities. He himself did not understand
how he ended up using komal nishad so often. Get it into your head that
I am not implying a comparison betn myself and BG. I am rather implying
that a knowledgable Keith Erskine is no match to poor ignorant BG as a
performer.
Knowledge of notes does not seem to have done you much good at all.
Judging by the opinion of those who can discern one swara from another
and who have commented upon your competence as an artiste.
As for raag recognition, I have a few times asked the accompanist which
raag had been played. Though they had provided good vocal support, they
still did not know which raag they were singing in. This tends to
happen particularly in concerts of Mansur, kishoritai, Abhisheki, etc.
as they tend to sing lesser known raagas often. How does your guruji
Amjad go about it? Does he always tell you beforehand which raag he is
going to play when you accompany him? Just being curious.
Keith Erskine
: In article <8qr56g$6n8$1...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
: k...@fc.hp.com (Keith Erskine) wrote:
: >
: > You can't even discern one swara from another, yet you post derisively
: > of Ravi Shankar & Ali Amjad Khan? Why do you ask for samvadi
: > variants > in yaman/kalyan if you can't hear them?
: when did I ask for variants? I can't make out yaman from yaman-kalyan.
: So you won't hear me talking about how so and so uses shudh madhyam. I
: may quote some source about some singer using or not using a certain
: note. But that is about all. I won't comment further.
My main astonishment is that you presume to know the innermost thoughts
of Ravi Shankar towards his instrument, that his reverence is a
hypocritical display designed to impress others - yet you yourself
know not a single musical instrument! This renders you entirely,
wholly, completely unfit to judge the relationship between a musician
and his instrument. You have not invested the modicum of energy
to learn the fundamentals of icm of which you presume to speak of
in this newsgroup, yet you feel fit judge Ravi Shankar's sincerity -
one who has the all consuming passion, the burning drive, the perseverance
prerequisite to become one of the greatest musicians alive?
Log a few thousand hours on any musical instrument of your choice,
and then come speak to us of the icm tradition of reverence towards
musical instruments.
: As for raag recognition, I have a few times asked the accompanist which
: raag had been played. Though they had provided good vocal support,
If you cannot discern one swara from another, how can you tell
whether it was good accompaniment or not?
: still did not know which raag they were singing in. This tends to
: happen particularly in concerts of Mansur, kishoritai, Abhisheki, etc.
: as they tend to sing lesser known raagas often. How does your guruji
: Amjad go about it? Does he always tell you beforehand which raag he is
: going to play when you accompany him? Just being curious.
Precisely by being able to discern swaras immediately, instinctively,
is one able to accompany in a raag with which one is unfamiliar, just
as one learns a new raag from one's guru by matching their phrases
note for note.
One of the beauties of ICM is the fixed tonic center and purity of
melody makes it feasible to immediately determine each swara -
in Western music, with changing pitch centers & pervasive harmony,
it becomes far more difficult to recognize & repeat a phrase.
BTW, Amjad Ali Khan is not my guru, though he was kind enough
to give me my first sarod lesson. I still plan to post an analysis
of Pilu/Kirwani in the next week or two.
Warren Senders
>: raag had been played. Though they had provided good vocal support,
>
>If you cannot discern one swara from another, how can you tell
>whether it was good accompaniment or not?
Good vocal support from rhythm players has very
little to do with raag recognition. The harmonium/sarangi
player should know, of course. But sensitive theka
that works well with both bandish and improvisational
style is not a function of raag per se. Nani's ability to
tell what is good accompaniment does not need raag-cognition,
although his ability to tell what is an accurate performance of
a particular raag does.
WS
naniwadekar
war...@aol.comqwerty (Warren Senders) wrote:
> >If you cannot discern one swara from another, how can you tell
> >whether it was good accompaniment or not?
I will leave shri Erskine to grapple with that problem.
Now, on to Warren's post.
> Nani's ability to
> tell what is good accompaniment does not need raag-cognition,
> although his ability to tell what is an accurate performance of
> a particular raag does.
Try to get shri Erskine to understand that perfectly reasonable
statement. Good luck, Warren.
>
> Good vocal support from rhythm players has very
> little to do with raag recognition. The harmonium/sarangi
> player should know, of course.
Warren, what do you mean by "vocal support by rhythm players" ? I can't
understand it. I meant that vocal support is sometimes provided by
taanpura accompanists who don't know which raag is being played. And if
they don't know and if Mansur suddenly decides to play a little known
raag he has not bothered about for years, even the harmonium player can
be in the dark about the raag, like the accompanist.
The vocal / harmonium accompanist's swar recognition ability may help
him understand the chalan. But even that is not always needed. Even as
a main performer, Bal Gandharva did not always have a very good grasp
of chalan and the other intricacies, I think. It is just given to some
humans to sing well. You will sometimes find a beggar in Mumbai's Local
( Railway service ) sing very well. He / she may even play an
instrument. They don't know a thing about swara. They play by instinct.
Their ignorance may cause some mistakes, but you surely get the point.
This is unlikely to help shri Erskine. But I will still try. When a
fellow first gets attracted to classical music, he knows nothing about
swar-cognition. Then why does he get attracted? How does he come to
think that the music is good? I certainly was not attracted by the
respect Amjad Ali Khan shows to his instrument or by shri Erskine
respecting AAK's respect for his sarod.
And Shakespeare wrote : "He who hath no music in him".
He did not write : "He who hath no swar-cognition in him".
Warren Senders
Theka which is adapted to the requirements of vocal music. Omkar
Gulwady is a superbly supportive accompanist for vocal music. I
recognize that I left an ambiguity in the phrase "vocal support,"
and I apologize for it!
>and if Mansur suddenly decides to play a little known
>raag he has not bothered about for years, even the harmonium player can
>be in the dark about the raag, like the accompanist.
>The vocal / harmonium accompanist's swar recognition ability may help
>him understand the chalan. But even that is not always needed. Even as
>a main performer, Bal Gandharva did not always have a very good grasp
>of chalan and the other intricacies, I think.
Yes, of course. But notice that in my post, I merely said that
the harmonium/sarangi player "should" know. I beg you not to
ignore the subjunctive!
>When a
>fellow first gets attracted to classical music, he knows nothing about
>swar-cognition. Then why does he get attracted? How does he come to
>think that the music is good? I certainly was not attracted by the
>respect Amjad Ali Khan shows to his instrument or by shri Erskine
>respecting AAK's respect for his sarod.
Note that Keith has been a guitarist for decades; thus his initial
attraction to ICM may have more of swar-cognition in it. Many
Western musicians also have highly developed pitch awareness skills!
That doesn't make Keith's attraction "better" or "worse" than that
of somebody who goes by "feeling" or any such difficult-to-quantify
affective phenomena. It's just different...your questions:
>Then why does he get attracted? How does he come to
>think that the music is good?
are in fact fascinating discussion points. I imagine you will find
a wide and interesting range of responses among rmic posters,
and among ICM listeners generally.
WS
Doddaballapur Jayasimha
naniwadekar <nan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <20000927081540...@ng-fa1.aol.com>,
> war...@aol.comqwerty (Warren Senders) wrote:
>> >whether it was good accompaniment or not?
>
>I will leave shri Erskine to grapple with that problem.
>
>Now, on to Warren's post.
>
>> Nani's ability to
>> tell what is good accompaniment does not need raag-cognition,
>> although his ability to tell what is an accurate performance of
>> a particular raag does.
>
>Try to get shri Erskine to understand that perfectly reasonable
>statement. Good luck, Warren.
>>
>> Good vocal support from rhythm players has very
>> little to do with raag recognition. The harmonium/sarangi
>> player should know, of course.
>
>Warren, what do you mean by "vocal support by rhythm players" ? I can't
>understand it. I meant that vocal support is sometimes provided by
>taanpura accompanists who don't know which raag is being played. And if
>they don't know and if Mansur suddenly decides to play a little known
>raag he has not bothered about for years, even the harmonium player can
>be in the dark about the raag, like the accompanist.
>
>The vocal / harmonium accompanist's swar recognition ability may help
>him understand the chalan. But even that is not always needed. Even as
>a main performer, Bal Gandharva did not always have a very good grasp
>of chalan and the other intricacies, I think. It is just given to some
>humans to sing well. You will sometimes find a beggar in Mumbai's Local
>( Railway service ) sing very well. He / she may even play an
>instrument. They don't know a thing about swara. They play by instinct.
>Their ignorance may cause some mistakes, but you surely get the point.
> [stuff deleted]
The original discussion started with swara recognition and not
rAga recognition. These are two VERY different aspects. In your
arguments, you seem to be mixing up the two.
It is absolutely necessary for a non-percussion instrumental accompanist
to have swara-cognition (not counting the tAnpura, which is used as a
drone). Such accompanists don't have to know the rAga or,
theoretically, its chalan as long as they have a keen sense of
swara-cognition (actually the ability to recognize relative pitch differences,
to be more precise). The beggar in Mumbai who can listen to a song and play
it on an instrument DOES recognize swaras. He or she may not NAME
them but, once taught JUST the names, will be able to distinguish between
a sa-re or a re-pa (or, at least, say re is higher than sa, pa is higher
than both sa and re, and the difference between re-pa is higher than the
difference between sa-re). With singing this, i.e., my comment on
swara-cognition, does not hold but that is a separate discussion.
Keith Erskine was pointing to this aspect of your note. Also, when
he meant an accompanist, he implicitly meant an accompanist in the sense
i have mentioned above.
>fellow first gets attracted to classical music, he knows nothing about
>swar-cognition. Then why does he get attracted? How does he come to
>think that the music is good? I certainly was not attracted by the
>respect Amjad Ali Khan shows to his instrument or by shri Erskine
>respecting AAK's respect for his sarod.
>
You are right in that you don't have to have "swara jnAna" to
appreciate music (but you need it to play music). i don't think Keith
disputed this either implicitly or explicitly. He was surprised by your
statement that you could not recognize a re-pa difference but yet seem
to have written so knowledgeably about music and so contemptibly
(i doubt if it's a word but let's go with the flow) about
artists such as Pandit Ravi Shankar in the last few weeks. Given the
general negative tone that many postings on this newsgroup have taken
and given the personal attacks on him, he is entitled, as others have been,
in overstating his point.
>
>- nani (dhananjay naniwadekar)
>
cheers,
jayasimha
jay.ja...@intel.com
opinions are mine, not Intel's.
kush....@gmail.com
Any one having PPT on Raag Yaman Kalyan, I Want some ppt ideas for my kids in our school. It will be great if we can get some help.
Thanks
Kush
ChristianAMR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXuBbAVisTg - Ud Rashid Khan - " Darshan deho Shankar Mahadeva " ( or devo instead of deho ) .
The first part has quite some shu ma .