rAga identity
devd...@my-deja.com
.
Ar: S g M d n S
.
Av: S n d M g S
Which rAga has the above scale?
Thanks
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
devd...@my-deja.com
Sorry, the dot is above S in both cases.
Rajan P. Parrikar
Assuming M=teevra madhyam, the rAga based on
the above scale is called Harikauns. There is,
I recall, a recording of Amir Khan.
Warm regards,
r
devd...@my-deja.com
Thanks. If possible kindly post a short clip of
Amir Khan Saheb's rendition in the future.
-dev
Keith Erskine
: devd...@my-deja.com wrote:
: >
: > .
: >Ar: S g M d n S
: > .
: >Av: S n d M g S
: >
: >Which rAga has the above scale?
: Assuming M=teevra madhyam, the rAga based on
: the above scale is called Harikauns. There is,
: I recall, a recording of Amir Khan.
Or, if M = shuddha ma, it is the popular Malkauns.
I'm now working on Chandrakauns, identical to Malkauns
except for shuddha Ni instead of komal ni. There is
something about the Chandrakauns scale I find so appealing.
In a lesson with my guru yesterday, he told me the method
of notation UPPER CASE=shuddh, lower case=komal was not
widely used in India, rather the Bhatkande system of
underlining komal is used instead. I personally prefer
the UPPER/lower case system, even with the tivra ma ambiguity,
especially on computers. Comments anyone?
Keith Erskine
I don't speak for HP.
Ajay P Nerurkar
: In a lesson with my guru yesterday, he told me the method
: of notation UPPER CASE=shuddh, lower case=komal was not
: widely used in India, rather the Bhatkande system of
: underlining komal is used instead. I personally prefer
: the UPPER/lower case system, even with the tivra ma ambiguity,
: especially on computers. Comments anyone?
I find it technically very difficult to generate underlined text
with the simple editor I use. Therefore, I too prefer the case-based
system.
Ajay
Rajan P. Parrikar
>Thanks. If possible kindly post a short clip of
>Amir Khan Saheb's rendition in the future.
>
>-dev
Harikauns uses a shuddha dhaivat, not komal dhaivat as
I cited in the earlier posting. That is, the scale set
is S g M(teevra) D n. At any rate for a peek at Amir
Khan's marvellous rendition point your browser to:
http://www.parrikar.prohosting.com/amirkhan_harikauns.ram
Warm regards,
r
Rajan P. Parrikar
>
>>Ar: S g M d n S
>> .
>>Av: S n d M g S
>
>
>Ashok
I don't know. And I don't know there is a Hindustani rAga in
currency that uses that scale (if there's one it must be quite
recent). Ragas involving the [teevra madhyam M-komal nishAd n]
pair are relatively scare in Hindustani music. Furthermore the
above scale has whole tone intervals M-d-n-S, traditionally
considered not too pleasing aesthetically in Hindustani music
("aesthetics," of course, is not cast in stone - future
generations may find fun and profit in tonal groups considered
unpalatable today).
With the addition of the komal rishab the possibility of
toDi-anga is exploited by Jha-sahab to develop Raga Mangal
Gujari. Refer to "The Empire of Todi" for that rAga.
Not all the symmetric 180 scale possibilities (where a
swara and its vikrit don't occur together) have grown into
rAgas. In fact, most haven't. There's a Karnataka reference
work that has all the possible pentatonic scales named. I
don't have it at the moment. The above scale must surely
have a home and a name in there.
Warm regards,
r
Ashok
>
>In a lesson with my guru yesterday, he told me the method
>of notation UPPER CASE=shuddh, lower case=komal was not
>widely used in India, rather the Bhatkande system of
>underlining komal is used instead. I personally prefer
>the UPPER/lower case system, even with the tivra ma ambiguity,
>especially on computers. Comments anyone?
>
>I don't speak for HP.
In order to make one distinction, you need one distinguishing
feature. Duh!
Doesn't matter what it is really. In a medium that can display
HP output, one could use any one or more or all of: bold, italic,
underscore, double underscore, font change, capitalization, primes, ...
In a medium confined to ASCII characters, capitalization would do
eminently fine, thank you ...
Ashok
Ashok
>
>Harikauns uses a shuddha dhaivat, not komal dhaivat as
>I cited in the earlier posting. That is, the scale set
>is S g M(teevra) D n.
>
Keith Erskine
: In article <8kdj29$8ct$2...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Keith Erskine writes...
: >
: >In a lesson with my guru yesterday, he told me the method
: >of notation UPPER CASE=shuddh, lower case=komal was not
: >widely used in India, rather the Bhatkande system of
: >underlining komal is used instead. I personally prefer
: >the UPPER/lower case system, even with the tivra ma ambiguity,
: >especially on computers. Comments anyone?
: >
: >Keith Erskine
: >I don't speak for HP.
: In order to make one distinction, you need one distinguishing
: feature. Duh!
Problems seem simple when approached in a simple minded manner. Duh!
In fact, you didn't even understand my question, which may have
been unclear, I was really looking for feedback on which notational
system(s) people have seen used in India, whether UPPER/lower or
Bhatkande really is predominant.
But, as I said regarding the UPPER/lower system, I prefer lower/UPPER case
system as seen in Ruckert's book & AACM classes, rather than the Bhatkande
system with underlining, because at a glance or distant read the underlining
can be confused for a dot underneath indicating a change in saptak (octave)
of the swara. It is also much easier to use lower/UPPER on computers rather
than underlining.
But, how does one eliminate the tivra/shuddha Ma/ma ambiguity by design
rather than by convention? Rajan assumes the lower=tivra ma, I assume
lower=shuddha ma, as done in Ruckert/AACM classes. This ambiguity is
inherent by design. Perhaps an entirely different letter could be used,
such as T for Tivra Ma. There has got to be a better way than the
current confusion. (Of course, if people would just state up front
as Rajan always does that m= tivra ma, or vice versa, it wouldn't be
a problem)
Rajan P. Parrikar
>been unclear, I was really looking for feedback on which notational
>system(s) people have seen used in India, whether UPPER/lower or
>Bhatkande really is predominant.
In India the primary two notational systems are those pioneered
by Bhatkhande and Paluskar (there are others but they have not
caught on). The Bhatkhande and Paluskar schemes are in essence
identical, the differences are cosmetic. The lower/UPPER case
issue doesn't arise since the devanAgari script is used. The
distinction of vikrita swaras is through the use of diacritical
marks.
Warm regards,
r
Warren Senders
versions of the Western symbols for sharp and flat
accompanying my sargams, as in:
Gb and M#
This removes any and all ambiguity, but it presumes a
familiarity with the flat and sharp signs of Western music.
In India the most commonly used notational system in
recording studios and radio stations is a somewhat
modified version of Bhatkhande notation; Paluskar's system
is widely considered to be rhythmically unclear.
WS
Keith Erskine
: I recognize that mine is a minority practice, but I use
: versions of the Western symbols for sharp and flat
: accompanying my sargams, as in:
: Gb and M#
: This removes any and all ambiguity, but it presumes a
: familiarity with the flat and sharp signs of Western music.
Good idea. I still prefer lower=komal for conciseness & readability,
but certainly m=shuddha ma, M# = tivra Ma, all else lower=komal,
UPPER=SHUDDHA is a good convention,
: In India the most commonly used notational system in
: recording studios and radio stations is a somewhat
: modified version of Bhatkhande notation; Paluskar's system
: is widely considered to be rhythmically unclear.
Why is that?
Richard Harrington
devd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> .
> Ar: S g M d n S
> .
> Av: S n d M g S
>
> Which rAga has the above scale?
IIRC, this raga was played by Pt. Ravi Shankar under the name 'koshi
todi'. or 'koshik todi' or 'koshiki todi'.
It was a long time ago, c.1973, that I saw him play it, so my note
recognition skills were not what they are today.
So I could be quite wrong.
He does list this rag name on his website as one that he created,
though.
Richard Harrington
Rajan P. Parrikar
I just asked Ravi Shankar about Kaushik Todi. It is nothing
like the above. The rAga uses the following swaras (M=shuddha,
m=teevra): S, g, M, m, d. That is, both the madhyams, no nishAd,
no pancham. He said there were elements of Malkauns and
Bilaskhani Todi and briefly sang the chalan (I could hear
both the madhyams used consectively). He has never recorded
the rAga but he said a 3-set CD commemorative to be released
shortly has one of his students (Deepak Chowdhary?) playing it.
Warm regards,
r
Surinder P. Singh
Keith Erskine wrote in message <8kfolo$t85$1...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>...
>Ashok (ADhar...@CrossWinds.Net) wrote:
>: In article <8kdj29$8ct$2...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Keith Erskine writes...
>: >
>: >In a lesson with my guru yesterday, he told me the method
>: >of notation UPPER CASE=shuddh, lower case=komal was not
>: >widely used in India, rather the Bhatkande system of
>: >underlining komal is used instead. I personally prefer
>: >the UPPER/lower case system, even with the tivra ma ambiguity,
>: >especially on computers. Comments anyone?
>: >
>: >I don't speak for HP.
>
>: feature. Duh!
>
>Problems seem simple when approached in a simple minded manner. Duh!
>
>In fact, you didn't even understand my question, which may have
>system(s) people have seen used in India, whether UPPER/lower or
>Bhatkande really is predominant.
>
>system as seen in Ruckert's book & AACM classes, rather than the Bhatkande
>system with underlining, because at a glance or distant read the
underlining
>can be confused for a dot underneath indicating a change in saptak (octave)
>of the swara. It is also much easier to use lower/UPPER on computers
rather
>than underlining.
>
>But, how does one eliminate the tivra/shuddha Ma/ma ambiguity by design
>rather than by convention? Rajan assumes the lower=tivra ma, I assume
>lower=shuddha ma, as done in Ruckert/AACM classes. This ambiguity is
>inherent by design. Perhaps an entirely different letter could be used,
>such as T for Tivra Ma. There has got to be a better way than the
>current confusion. (Of course, if people would just state up front
>as Rajan always does that m= tivra ma, or vice versa, it wouldn't be
>a problem)
>
Why not use use M' for tivra ma and use _G or G_ for komal
Ga (and others). So now we can make it case-insensitive and the
"lower" and "upper" indication is intuitively present. This, however,
entails two characters instead of one.
-Surinder
Surinder P. Singh
Warren Senders wrote in message
<20000712111900...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
>I recognize that mine is a minority practice, but I use
>versions of the Western symbols for sharp and flat
>accompanying my sargams, as in:
>
>Gb and M#
>
>This removes any and all ambiguity, but it presumes a
>familiarity with the flat and sharp signs of Western music.
>
>recording studios and radio stations is a somewhat
>modified version of Bhatkhande notation; Paluskar's system
>is widely considered to be rhythmically unclear.
>
This is great too. The "familiarity" with the western
system needed is simple and easy (# for higher, and b for
lower note). It is visually immediately identifiable and
also case-insensitive. As in my previous message
we can mimic Bhatkhande's notation in ASCII
by having
M" or M' or M~ or M* or M` or M^
and
_G or G_ or -G or \G or /G
-Surinder
>
>WS
buh...@ecn.ab.ca
: Why not use use M' for tivra ma and use _G or G_ for komal
: Ga (and others). So now we can make it case-insensitive and the
: "lower" and "upper" indication is intuitively present. This, however,
: entails two characters instead of one.
another approach would be to use m+ for tivra and g- for komal, again
making the "lower" and "upper" fairly intuitive, one would hope. or is my
mathematical bias showing itself?
ajb
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Buhr buh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Savour the Irony! bu...@infinity.gmcc.ab.ca
http://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~buhrger
Surinder P. Singh
buh...@ecn.ab.ca wrote in message <3971...@ecn.ab.ca>...
>Surinder P. Singh (suri...@ieee.org) wrote:
>
>: Why not use use M' for tivra ma and use _G or G_ for komal
>: Ga (and others). So now we can make it case-insensitive and the
>: "lower" and "upper" indication is intuitively present. This, however,
>: entails two characters instead of one.
>
>another approach would be to use m+ for tivra and g- for komal, again
>making the "lower" and "upper" fairly intuitive, one would hope. or is my
>mathematical bias showing itself?
>
I agree, except I'd say -G instead of G-
since I encounter the komal swar to the
left of the shudh on my guitar. M+ occurs to
the right, so that is intiuitively correct.
-Surinder
Fred Siciliano
In regards to the discussion on notation:
I prefer the lower/upper case method of
indicating swaras. For example ga komal
would be g and Ga shudh would be G .
Ma tivra= M and shudh ma is m .
I have found this very easy thru the years
It is used at Cal Arts and Ali Akbar College.
Kalyan That: SRGMPDNS
Bhairavi That: SrgmPdnS
Todi That: SrgMPdNS etc, etc
All the best
dr....@fredsoffice.com
asif ali
devd...@my-deja.com wrote:
DAVDAS
THIS IS RAGA CHANDER KOUNS NEE TIVER IF GIVE IN MALAKOUNS IT MAKES
IT CHANDER KAOUNS
you can write to me at
sub...@hotmail.com
thankyou
NAQI ALI KHAN.
> >
> > .
> > Ar: S g M d n S
> > .
> > Av: S n d M g S
> >
> > Which rAga has the above scale?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> Sorry, the dot is above S in both cases.
>
> Thanks
>