Concerning new Amir Khan recordings
Abhik Majumdar
It pains me to bring to your notice the latest piece of lunacy perpetrated
on music lovers by recording companies.
First (as we say) the good news. Music Today has released (as of now) two
volumes of Ustad Amir Khan recordings. The first features Basant Mukhari
and Nand, and the second, Mian ki Todi, Shahana and Yaman. For the record,
the serial numbers of the releases (at least in cassette form ) are A01036
and A01037 respectively.
Now for the bad news:
To begin with, the Yaman recording is identical to the one featured in the
Sony/Navras release (with Hamsadhwani, Pooriya and Abhogi), a segment of
which was released earlier by INRECO as an "Untitled Raga". This may be verified
by several features found in all three releases, including (with due respect)
a few highly uncharacteristic slip-ups by Khansaab. Near the conclusion of
the first Avartan of the recording, Khansaab begins his Amad a mite too early
and, as a result, is forced to stretch the last few syllables to meet the
sam. In the very next Avartan, he begins it too late and overshoots the sam.
As said before, all three recordings exhiit this feature. This apart, innumerable
other characteristics (bol-Alap patterns, sargams, tAns, even a train or
truck honking in the background at one point) lead us to the inescapable
conclusion that all three releases feature the very same recording.
Worse, the Music Today people in their infinite wisdom have seen fit to edit
the recording (about 55 minutes in its Sony/Navras avatar) into about 32:43
minutes. Vital chunks (entire Avartans) have been deleted, damaging irreparably
the comprehensiveness that characterises the presentation and makes it possibly
the finest Yaman I've ever heard. This includes the little verbal interjection
where Khansaab explains how the bandish is actually a rubAi by Amir Khusro.
At times the editing gets quite shoddy, and the cuts not just palpable but
actually jarring.
Second, the Nand track is identical to the one featured in the Magnasound
release. Several features displayed by both recordings stand testimony to
this fact. I have verified this by playing both recordings simultaneously.
Here also, the producers have indulged in some editing; the 28:58 as listed
in the Magnasound release has been shrunk to 25:31.
Third, even the Todi track ("kAjo re Mohammad Shah ke darbAr" and "man ke
panchhi") sounds uncannily similar to a commercially unreleased AIR recording
that I have in my possession. I have not been able to verify this thoroughly
(haven't been to well lately) but here again, it would appear that some editing
has been done.
From all this, several issues emerge. The first relates to copyrights. Presumably
Sony, before launching its set, acquired the copyrights over all the tracks
featured in it. Moreover, the Todi and, to the best of my knowledge, even
the Nand are actually AIR archival recordings. Nowhere has this fact been
acknowledged (incidentally, even the Magnasound recording doesn't mention
this fact). The sleeve notes merely say that the tracks have been recorded
live in Mumbai in 1965 and 1971. This makes one wonder whether AIR's permission
has actually been sought.
However, this question holds little relevance for us. Here, the sheer waste
of money and tape space involved is more important. For me, out of the 133:07
minutes total playing time, as much as 82.06, or 61.683 % amounts to a rehash
of easily obtainable (in fact obtained) recordings. Even if one leaves aside
the Todi, the amount of rehashing still comes to 58:14 or 43.727 %. (NB:
all this is the result of some *very* hasty calculations, so there might
well be a few mistakes in them, for which I apologise in advance).
More important is the savage way in which the tracks have been edited. I'm
sure it's not too much to say that this has resulted in enormous damage to
the integrity of the performances. And finally, the reason I pounced on the
recordings had a lot to do with the *newness* they promised. The pleasure
of listening to a recording one didn't even know existed is in my opinion
unparalleled. (In this context, Rajan, thanks a ton for the BGAK Hamsadhwani
- made my day and then some.) And when this newness is denied to me, I feel
immensely cheated. To draw a laborious analogy, I feel like a Tolstoy fanatic
who's bought what purported to be a hitherto undiscovered novel by the maestro,
but turned out to be a crudely abridged version of "War and Peace".
I appeal to RMICers to please point out any inaccuracies in all that I have
averred in this posting.
Regards,
Abhik
Ushnish Basu
> which was released earlier by INRECO as an "Untitled Raga". This may be
> verified
Thanks for the info regarding the releases. I'm a little confused regarding
this point. The "Untitled raag" on the INRECO CD is actually Chandramadhu,
with words "Paar karo Dinanath", (I think). If so, how could it be the same as
anything on the Navras CD? Please clarify.
Ushnish
--
Ushnish Basu ub...@ce.berkeley.edu
+1 510 644-1906 http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~ubasu
Abhik Majumdar
>this point. The "Untitled raag" on the INRECO CD is actually Chandramadhu,
>with words "Paar karo Dinanath", (I think). If so, how could it be the same
as
>anything on the Navras CD? Please clarify.
>
>Ushnish
OK, so here goes. Strangely enough, INRECO seems to've released *two*
different recordings sporting the same cover. In both cases, the label at
the
back mentions an "Untitled Raga" and Chandramadhu. The first recording
features "pAr karo bamanA (?)" and the usual Chandramadhu/Madhukauns bandish
"bairan bhayI rain", here set to jhUmra. BTW, is the first track
Chandramadhu?
From what I coulfd make out, Chandramadhu seems to have a komal gandhAr in
its
avaroha. The former, on the other hand, clearly follows SGmPnS / SnPmGS as
its
Aroha and avaroha. (Here m = tIvra madhyam as per RMIC convention.)
The other version, the one I have, contains the recording in question, and
nothing else. It used to confuse the hell out of me for two reasons, namely
(a) what was the point of calling it an untitled Raga when it was so clearly
Yaman, and (b) where was the Chandramadhu? I must thank Dr. Mandar Mitra for
informing me about the existence of the the first version.
Abhik
------------------------------------------------------------
Abhik Majumdar
Ushnish Basu
To be honest, I'm really guessing that the first track is Chandramadhu, since
the "bairan bhayi rain" is there on the "Memorable evenings" 4-pack as
madhukauns. I must admit that I haven't listened to the recordings for
probably more than a year, so memory is quite rusty on the issue. Maybe I'll
listen to them again on the coming purnima. ;-) BTW, only the cassette has the
"untitled raag and chandramadhu" listing, whereas the CD has just the untitled
raag (I think) alongwith Ahir Bhairav and Marwa by Gangubai. Again, I don't
remember if the CD has both tracks packed into "untitled raag". What is the
untitled raag anyway, can anyone say for sure? Isn't chandramadhu supposed to
be a mix (by Amir Khan himself) of Chandrakauns and madhukauns? If so, then it
should be easy to tell.
Abhik Majumdar
>>To be honest, I'm really guessing that the first track is Chandramadhu,
since
>the "bairan bhayi rain" is there on the "Memorable evenings" 4-pack as
>madhukauns.
>Isn't chandramadhu supposed to
>be a mix (by Amir Khan himself) of Chandrakauns and madhukauns?
As far as I know, Chandramadhu and Madhukauns refer to the same raga, which
Khansaab created by combining Chandrakauns and Madhuvanti. Actually, as far
as
Madhukauns is concerned, I have it on authority; result of a detailed
conversation I had with a senior disciple of Pt. Amarnath.
>What is the
>untitled raag anyway, can anyone say for sure?
I feel it bears substantial resemblance to Ramkalyan/Priyakalyan (why did
Khansaab insist on giving two different names to his creations?). The
latter,
of course, is of Sampoorna jati, and features Re and Dha, albeit not very
prominently, which is altogether absent in this "untitled Raga" (i.e. pAr
karo
bamanA). So could we refer to it as an audava variant of Ramkalyan?
Abhik
------------------------------------------------------------
Surajit A. Bose
Abhik Majumdar <a.maj...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> >Isn't chandramadhu supposed to
> >be a mix (by Amir Khan himself) of Chandrakauns and madhukauns?
>
> As far as I know, Chandramadhu and Madhukauns refer to the same raga, which
> Khansaab created by combining Chandrakauns and Madhuvanti. Actually, as far
> as
> Madhukauns is concerned, I have it on authority; result of a detailed
> conversation I had with a senior disciple of Pt. Amarnath.
The recording of Chandra-madhu is an extended exercise in muurchhanaa.
Basically Khansaheb takes the same set of notes and demonstrates how by
realizing the same note as "Sa" or as "ma" (shuddha) you get Madhukauns
or Chandrakauns respectively. It's not a "mix" of Chandrakauns and
Madhukauns in the sense of being a jo.D raag.
Also, I don't quite understand how Madhukauns can be said to "combine"
Chandrakauns and Madhuvanti--at least, not in the sense of being a jo.D
raag. Where does the komal nishaad come from? I thought the general
belief is that Madhukauns is derived by muurchhanaa from Chandrakauns.
Assign "Sa" to Chandrakauns's "ma" and voila: Madhukauns.
I suppose if one starts with the original Chandrakauns (Bageshree-ang
Chandrakauns) it might be possible to think of Madhukauns as a bridge
between that Chandrakauns and Madhuvanti. Is this perhaps what the
senior disciple of Pt Amarnath meant? Please clarify.
(OTOH if that were the thinking one would logically expect a shuddh
dhaivat resident somewhere in Madhukauns....wouldn't one?)
-s
Abhik Majumdar
>The recording of Chandra-madhu is an extended exercise in muurchhanaa.
>Basically Khansaheb takes the same set of notes and demonstrates how by
>realizing the same note as "Sa" or as "ma" (shuddha) you get Madhukauns
>or Chandrakauns respectively. It's not a "mix" of Chandrakauns and
>Madhukauns in the sense of being a jo.D raag.
I'm sorry you've lost me a bit there. Do you mean Chandrakauns and
Madhukauns
are two different ragas? If so, how are they different? Moreover, if we go
by
the mUrchhanA theory, then as you put it, one transposition yields
Chandrakauns, and another yields Madhukauns. So where does Chandramadhu fit
in? Is it the result of a third transposition? Doesn't sound like it, I
must
say. On the other hand, if it isn't, then it must be identical to Madhukauns
in terms of notes used (since it obviously bears little resemblance to
Chandrakauns). So once again, what's the difference?
>Also, I don't quite understand how Madhukauns can be said to "combine"
>Chandrakauns and Madhuvanti--at least, not in the sense of being a jo.D
>raag. Where does the komal nishaad come from? I thought the general
>belief is that Madhukauns is derived by muurchhanaa from Chandrakauns.
>Assign "Sa" to Chandrakauns's "ma" and voila: Madhukauns.
>
>I suppose if one starts with the original Chandrakauns (Bageshree-ang
>Chandrakauns) it might be possible to think of Madhukauns as a bridge
>between that Chandrakauns and Madhuvanti. Is this perhaps what the
>senior disciple of Pt Amarnath meant? Please clarify.
>
>(OTOH if that were the thinking one would logically expect a shuddh
>dhaivat resident somewhere in Madhukauns....wouldn't one?)
While talking about Chandrakauns and Madhuvanti yielding Madhukauns, I used
the word "combination" in a very loose sense. Yes, it is the mUrchhanA
notion
that is generally accepted. Generally, because when dealing with the
creation
of a mind as creative as Khansaab's, we may assume as given that there's
more
to it. For example, the S g - - S phrase occurs in inter alia Chandrakauns
but not Madhuvanti. Also, just to queer the pitch further, may I point out
that he does (*very* rarely) indulge in a gmDnS phrase? (m = teevra Ma)
Moreover, on such occasions Pa is conspicuously absent. This in fact reminds
one of Harikauns more than the original Chandrakauns.
Incidentally, I called up Pt. Amarnath's disciple and asked him about the
Bageshwari-ang Chandrakauns and its bearing on Madhukauns. he seemed
surprised. About the former, a rough translation of his comment goes: "I
don't
recall anyone from our gharAnA singing *that* form of Chandrakauns. We
generally sing the one with the komal Dha and shuddha Ni."
Abhik
------------------------------------------------------------
Surajit A. Bose
Abhik Majumdar <a.maj...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> >===== Original Message From "Surajit A. Bose" <sb...@saintmarys.edu> =====
>
> >The recording of Chandra-madhu is an extended exercise in muurchhanaa.
> >Basically Khansaheb takes the same set of notes and demonstrates how by
> >realizing the same note as "Sa" or as "ma" (shuddha) you get Madhukauns
> >or Chandrakauns respectively. It's not a "mix" of Chandrakauns and
> >Madhukauns in the sense of being a jo.D raag.
>
> I'm sorry you've lost me a bit there. Do you mean Chandrakauns and
> Madhukauns are two different ragas?
Yes, they are. Sorry for the extreme length of this reply. In what
follows, lowercase = komal; ma = shuddha, Ma = tiivra; Sa', ga' = upper
octave Sa, ga.
Chandrakauns exists in two flavors. The original version:
Sa ga ma Dha ni Sa'
is not heard very often today. When it is performed nowadays, usually
it's referred to as Chandrakauns Bageshree a.ng, to distinguish it from
the more prevalent, more recent flavor of Chandrakauns. This modern
version of Chandrakauns is derived by substituting a shudhha nishad for
the komal nishad in Malkauns:
Sa ga ma dha Ni Sa'
In fact, so completely has this variant displaced the original
Chandrakauns, that when people speak simply of "Chandrakauns," you can
bet that they mean this flavor, and 99% of the time you'll win the bet.
Strictly speaking, Madhukauns would not be considered a true Kauns.
Narrowly defined, "Kauns" implies an aaroh-avaroh of ga-ma-dha-ni; each
member of the family takes a different permutation of shuddha and komal
variants of each note, but the notes are always ga-ma-dha-ni. Madhukauns
dares to be different:
Sa ga Ma Pa ni Sa'
(1) There is no dhaivat, and (2) there is a pancham--both deviations
from the normative Kauns. Despite this, Madhukauns is indubitably a
member of the Kauns family, because it's derived by muurchhanaa from
Chandrakauns. How? As follows. (You need to be viewing this in a
monospaced font for correct alignment.)
Let's draw up a series of eighteen swara-sthaans. Note, these are
swara-sthaans, not shrutis. Note that there are 12 swara-sthaans in an
octave (Sa, re, Re, ga, Ga, ma, Ma, Pa, dha, Dha, ni, Ni). So the
eighteen swara-sthaans cover an octave and a half:
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Let's start with Sa on the first swara-sthaan:
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Sa re Re ga Ga ma Ma Pa dha Dha ni Ni Sa' re' Re' ga' Ga' ma'
Now let's pick out the swara-sthaans of Chandrakauns, using dashes for
notes omitted in the raag:
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Sa -- -- ga -- ma -- -- dh -- -- Ni Sa' -- -- ga' -- ma'
Now let's do a l'lle muurchhanaa. Let's start with Sa on the sixth
swara-sthaan instead of the first. I.e., let's start with Sa on the ma
of Chandrakauns, and see what notes we get if we take the same
swara-sthaans. (No prizes for guessing the answer.)
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Sa -- -- ga -- ma -- -- dh -- -- Ni Sa' -- -- ga' -- ma'
Sa -- -- ga -- -- Ma Pa -- -- ni -- Sa'
Voila--Madhukauns!
Got it? The spacing of the notes in Madhukauns is identical to the
spacing of the notes in Chandrakauns. So if the swara-sthaan labeled 01
above is middle C, then *the same set of notes* would be Chandrakauns if
Sa was set at middle C, or Madhukauns if Sa was set at F.
Or: let's assume that I share a single harmonium with a friend. Let's
assume she sings in safed chaar (F) and I sing in safed ek (C). If she
were practising Madhukauns in her scale, and at the same time I were
practising Chandrakauns in mine, we would be hitting the same set of
notes.
>If so, how are they different?
Because the effect is different. Notes in Indian music aren't defined
absolutely, they're defined depending on wherever you place your Sa.
So if I started at 01 for Sa (again) and picked out Madhukauns, the
swara-sthaans would be different from those of Chandrakauns:
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
Sa -- -- ga -- ma -- -- dh -- -- Ni Sa' (Chandrakauns)
Sa -- -- ga -- -- Ma Pa -- -- ni -- Sa' (Madhukauns)
When both Madhukauns and Chandrakauns are sung in the same scale, they
have different notes. (Sorry for the glaring obviousness of that
statement.) I mean, there's no mistaking them for the same raaga. And
they create different effects. Chandrakauns is haunting, for some
reason; Madhukauns, on the other hand, is sweet.
> Moreover, if we go by
> the mUrchhanA theory, then as you put it, one transposition yields
> Chandrakauns, and another yields Madhukauns. So where does Chandramadhu fit
> in? Is it the result of a third transposition? Doesn't sound like it, I
> must
> say. On the other hand, if it isn't, then it must be identical to Madhukauns
> in terms of notes used (since it obviously bears little resemblance to
> Chandrakauns). So once again, what's the difference?
Okay, here's the deal. Chandra-madhu is *not a raaga*. I am not stating
that as a value judgment (in the way that some claim that Kalavati, for
example, is not a real raaga). I am saying that I don't think Amir Khan
*intends* us to think of Chandra-madhu as a spankin', brand-new
creation. That very interesting recording is just Amir Khan showing off
his felicity with muurchhanaa. He establishes a series of five
swara-sthaans. He takes those swara-sthaans, skilfully altering the
placement of the Sa so that in one aavartan, he can sing a sargam
passage in Chandrakauns; in the next aavartan, *using the same
swara-sthaans*, he sings a sargam passage in Madhukauns. It's really a
bravura demonstration of the relationship between the two raagas. It's
not a new raaga per se. I mean, I doubt anybody else could pull it off.
Or would want to try 8-)
I am not sure why you say Chandra-madhu "bears little resemblance to
Chandrakauns." Parts of Chandra-madhu *are* Chandrakauns. (Or like
Spinoza's natura naturata and natura naturans, the whole thing is
simultaneously Madhukauns and Chandrakauns.) On the other hand, the fact
that you say this adds evidence to the point I was trying to make
earlier: the effects of Chandrakauns and Madhukauns are very different.
But both raagas are definitely present on the Chandra-madhu recording.
> While talking about Chandrakauns and Madhuvanti yielding Madhukauns, I used
> the word "combination" in a very loose sense. Yes, it is the mUrchhanA
> notion that is generally accepted.
Thanks for the clarification.
> Generally, because when dealing with the
> creation of a mind as creative as Khansaab's, we may assume as given
> that there's more to it. For example, the
> S g - - S phrase occurs in inter alia Chandrakauns
> but not Madhuvanti.
But it does occur in Madhukauns too ... (And if I may belabor the
obvious once more, of course g - - S doesn't occur in Madhuvanti. Part
of the point of Madhuvanti is the shuddha Re in the avaroh. "Look Ma,
I'm not Multani.")
> Incidentally, I called up Pt. Amarnath's disciple and asked him about the
> Bageshwari-ang Chandrakauns and its bearing on Madhukauns. he seemed
> surprised. About the former, a rough translation of his comment goes: "I
> don't recall anyone from our gharAnA singing *that* form of Chandrakauns. We
> generally sing the one with the komal Dha and shuddha Ni."
I was just speculating on that one, thinking out loud if you will. I
didn't seriously expect anybody to say that yes, Madhukauns is a
combination of the original Chandrakauns and Madhuvanti 8-)
Now a sop for the unsubtle: don't slay me for saying above that
"Strictly speaking, Madhukauns would not be considered a true Kauns.
Narrowly defined, 'Kauns' implies an aaroh-avaroh of ga-ma-dha-ni". Yes,
I know that raagas like Pancham Malkauns and Sampoorna Malkauns exist. I
also know that Kaushi-Kanada, Jog-Kauns, etc. cannot be described as
permutations of the ga-ma-dha-ni sequence. That's why I threw in
qualifiers like "strictly speaking", "would not be" (rather than
"isn't"), and "narrowly defined". Like all raaga families, Kauns is too
complex to be summarized in a sentence or two. It needs somebody of the
erudition of Dr Parikkar to do justice to the enthralling, widely
disparate cluster of raagas that shelter under the Kauns umbrella:
Harikauns, Suryakauns, Navakauns, Kaushi Dhani, Kaushikaranjani... hint,
hint, Rajan, are you listening?
-s
Praful Kelkar
> Now a sop for the unsubtle: don't slay me for saying above that
> "Strictly speaking, Madhukauns would not be considered a true Kauns.
> Narrowly defined, 'Kauns' implies an aaroh-avaroh of ga-ma-dha-ni". Yes,
> I know that raagas like Pancham Malkauns and Sampoorna Malkauns exist. I
> also know that Kaushi-Kanada, Jog-Kauns, etc. cannot be described as
> permutations of the ga-ma-dha-ni sequence. That's why I threw in
> qualifiers like "strictly speaking", "would not be" (rather than
> "isn't"), and "narrowly defined". Like all raaga families, Kauns is too
> complex to be summarized in a sentence or two. It needs somebody of the
> erudition of Dr Parikkar to do justice to the enthralling, widely
> disparate cluster of raagas that shelter under the Kauns umbrella:
> Harikauns, Suryakauns, Navakauns, Kaushi Dhani, Kaushikaranjani... hint,
> hint, Rajan, are you listening?
What falls under kauns is not to be defined just by succession of
notes g-m-d-n. It is the chalan that marks it as such, as with any
other ragang. That chalan can be grasped in even with one or two
notes, since all the notes (definitely the key notes) in a ragang
carry it's signature. In Madhukauns n-S-g are done along the Kauns
a.ng - whereas S-g-M-P are done in the chalan of Madhuwanti. S-g-S
are enough to invoke Kauns.
To get more intricate the S-g-S in Jog-kauns is done along Jog a.ng
and less along the Kauns (jog g is a slightly higher shruti with a
different smaller andolan). In Jog-kauns Kauns (in particular
Chandrakauns) comes largely from d-N-S and already in S-g one starts
moving into Jog.
Praful
Surajit A. Bose
1) The "untitled raaga" that occupies all of side A and most of side
B--the teentaal bandish, "paar karo tum"--on that Inreco tape is quite
close to Madhukauns:
Sa Ga Ma Pa ni Sa
(Ma = tiivra madhyam)
In other words, it's like Madhukauns except with a shudh gandhaar.
(Which, of course, makes it utterly unlike Madhukauns. How poor a
descriptor of music words are!) I have no idea whether this exists as a
raaga in general circulation. I haven't heard it elsewhere, but that
proves nothing. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a "reverse
lookup" database of raagas, where one keys in the notes and sees what
the raaga is 8-)
2) On closer listening, I think it might be fair to say that the
Chandra-Madhu recording ("bairan bhayii rain" in Jhumra) is Madhukauns
with occasional muurchhana forays into Chandrakauns. The muurchhana is
present, but not quite as pervasive as I made it sound in my earlier
post. Doesn't alter any of the points I was trying to make, though.
BTW, the quality of Inreco tapes is awful. Both this Amir Khan tape and
the Manik Verma tape (Shyam Kalyan / Bihagda) are marred by high-pitched
squeaks throughout, in addition to the usual hiss that no Dolby system
can quite overcome.
-s
Abhik Majumdar
>> I'm sorry you've lost me a bit there. Do you mean Chandrakauns and
>> Madhukauns are two different ragas?
>Yes, they are. Sorry for the extreme length of this reply. In what
>follows, lowercase = komal; ma = shuddha, Ma = tiivra; Sa', ga' = upper
>octave Sa, ga.
(rest deleted)
Sorry . . . sorry . . . *idiot* typing error on my part. What I meant to ask
you is whether you mean to say that Chandra*madhu* (not Chandrakauns) and
Madhukauns are different. (Obviously! Surely you didn't think I'd seriously
ask you whether Chandrakauns and Madhukauns were different Ragas, did you?)
My apologies for putting you through all the trouble in explaining
mUrchhanA,
a concept I'm as such familiar with, if I may add.
This question was primarily prompted by the view that Chandramadhu and
Madhukauns are identical. More on this below.
>Okay, here's the deal. Chandra-madhu is *not a raaga*.
. . .
> That very interesting recording is just Amir Khan showing off
>his felicity with muurchhanaa. He establishes a series of five
>swara-sthaans. He takes those swara-sthaans, skilfully altering the
>placement of the Sa so that in one aavartan, he can sing a sargam
>passage in Chandrakauns; in the next aavartan, *using the same
>swara-sthaans*, he sings a sargam passage in Madhukauns. It's really a
>bravura demonstration of the relationship between the two raagas. It's
>not a new raaga per se.
Are we talking about the same recording? In the INRECO tape, Khansaab does
indeed sing a bit of Chandrakauns (with the Sa corresponding to the lower Pa
of Madhukauns), but only in the very first of the Sargam sequences, which
*together* come to little more than half an Avartan. (Incidentally, I think
the tabaliya made a mistake here, since I could detect only six mAtrAs in
that
half-Avartan - it went something like Dhin . . . Dha Tirkit Dhin Dha-ge
Tirkit.)
Anyways, to come back to the point, in all the other sargam sequences, the
Sa
firmly stays put where it was at the beginning of the rendition, and the
swaras that Khansaab explicates are the SgmPnS of Madhukauns. And this is
true
of the rest of the track as well; one could make out that what is sung is
Madhukauns and not Chandrakauns. The point that I am trying to make is, does
the brief excursion into Chandrakauns detract from the fact that what
Khansaab
sang was essentially what we know as Madhukauns?
>I am not sure why you say Chandra-madhu "bears little resemblance to
>Chandrakauns."
Once again, to be understood strictly in context. What I meant was, in terms
of swaras, Chandramadhu (to be precise, the bulk of the recording labelled
"Chandramadhu") sounds closer to Madhukauns than Chandrakauns.
>the effects of Chandrakauns and Madhukauns are very different.
>But both raagas are definitely present on the Chandra-madhu recording.
Well. yes, especialy the S g--S phrase referred to, but (and here is the
point), this is achieved *without* a scale-change being resorted to. In
other
words, if we assume that Khansaab began his rendition with the Sa set to
pehla
safed, we see that he has successfully managed to weave in strands of
Chandrakauns without shifting the Sa to pAnchvA safed. In fact, to my mind,
at
no point except that half-Avartan refered to earlier, at no point does
Khansaab change the scale in this manner. And this includes the bol-alAp and
tAn sections as well.
Anyways, discussions of this sort tend to gat subjective beyond a point, so
my
next question to you is, has Khansaab specifically stated what you mention
here? I ask this primarily because most people refer to Chandramadhu as a
proper Raga. For example, Ajit Singh Paintal, in his brief biography of
Khansaab, says that the latter created a Raga called Chandramadhu, to which
he
set a bandish which goes "bairan bhayI rain".
Abhik
------------------------------------------------------------
Surajit A. Bose
Abhik Majumdar <a.maj...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
> Once again, to be understood strictly in context. What I meant was, in terms
> of swaras, Chandramadhu (to be precise, the bulk of the recording labelled
> "Chandramadhu") sounds closer to Madhukauns than Chandrakauns.
I agree--I said so in my follow-up to the original post.
> Anyways, discussions of this sort tend to gat subjective beyond a point, so
> my
> next question to you is, has Khansaab specifically stated what you mention
> here? I ask this primarily because most people refer to Chandramadhu as a
> proper Raga. For example, Ajit Singh Paintal, in his brief biography of
> Khansaab, says that the latter created a Raga called Chandramadhu, to which
> he set a bandish which goes "bairan bhayI rain".
Sorry, I haven't seen Paintal's biography. But at least as far as that
one Inreco recording goes, it would be wrong to call Chandra-madhu a
proper raaga. As you pointed out, on that recording Chandra-madhu it is
essentially Madhukauns with brief muurchhanaa forays into Chandrakauns.
-s
Abhik Majumdar
>But at least as far as that
>one Inreco recording goes, it would be wrong to call Chandra-madhu a
>proper raaga. As you pointed out, on that recording Chandra-madhu it is
>essentially Madhukauns with brief muurchhanaa forays into Chandrakauns.
I'm sorry my basic doubts still haven't been cleared. First, is that single
brief foray into Chandrakauns the sole factor distinguishing Chandramadhu
from
Madhukauns? I ask you this because even in the HMV Madhukauns recording
(where
Khansaab sings "bairan bhayI rain" in tIntAl), he deviates into Chandrakauns
through a scale shift, in which case, the distinction geets weakened
considerably, I hardly need point out.
And in any case, is that brief foray into Chandrakauns per se enough to hold
that Chandramadhu is only a mUrchhanA exercise and not a "proper raga" as
such? I mean, in a Bhupali release by Navras/Sony, Ajoy Chakraborty
liberally
indulges in deviations into other ragas like Durga through scale shifts. But
that does not detract from the fact that is sung is essentially Bhupali.
Finally, are you *absolutely* sure that the two are different entities, and
(as we lawyers like to say) could you cite any authorities to that effect?
On
my part, though I can't furnish any references to indicate that the two are
identical, I definitely can state that all the sources that I've come across
tend to treat Chandramadhu as a "proper raga" in all senses of the term. And
moreover, since so far (except for that "brief foray into Chandrakauns" - or
not even that, since both recordings display this feature) I haven't been
able
to determine any difference between the two, all the factors listed above
lead
me to the rebuttable presumption (again a piece of legalese) that the two
names refer to the same entity, in much the same way as Ramkalyan and
Priyakalyan do.
An allied question:
>But at least as far as that
>one Inreco recording goes . . .
Are you basing yuor conjectures on some other (unpublished) recording of
Chandramadhu as well? Because whatever I have stated so far is only on the
basis of the INRECO Chandramadhu and the HMV Madhukauns.
Abhik
PS: Please excuse the typos - am writing this from somewhere else, and the
keyboard here easily ranks among the worst I've used.
------------------------------------------------------------
Abhik Majumdar
Surajit A. Bose
Yes, I'd agree with you, Chandra-madhu and Madhukauns aren't different
raagas (3) My only source of information about Chandra-madhu is the
inreco recording, and (4) and I said two postings ago, I was wrong about
the extent to which Khansaheb scale-shifts into Chandrakauns on that
recording. For some reason, I remembered it as being much more extensive
than it is. (Perhaps I thought it was more extensive because like you I
was wondering why it was called Chandra-madhu rather than Madhukauns,
and the only reason I could think of was the Chandrakauns shift...which
therefore promptly became the chief thing about that recording in my
memory.)
Hope that answers your qs.
-s
Abhik Majumdar
Quite nicely, thank you
Abhik
------------------------------------------------------------
Abhik Majumdar
Quite nicely, thank you
Abhik
PS. My apologies for the way my messages keep getting posted twice. The
mailandnews.com news server's beginning to get on my nerves.
------------------------------------------------------------
ChristianAMR
> "Surajit A. Bose" rote in message news-
Secondly the fact that SgS in Jogkauns has a higher shruti and a different andolan then in normal Kauns in nothing short of fascinating .