graha bedam
BADRI
can somebody enlighten me on this graha bedam as to whether it is the
same as sruti bedham. if so, will it account for an hindolam interlude
during a subhapantuvarali raga alaapana. this was during unnikrishnan's
concert in bahrain. most of us were shocked out of our wits when we
heard hindolam (albeit for a short note) and it appeared that
unnikrishnan recovered and covered his gaffe. reading about graha
bedham it appears that it was perhaps intentional on his part. this is
also dubious considering the fact that there was no change of sruthi
during the alapana. i will appreciate somebody clarifying this mystery.
Vijay Ganesh Hariharan
Unni did the same in one of the concerts in US bringing in Mohanam while singing Thodi.
Yes, it was shocking to me too as I haven't heard this before. I would like to know
about this "phenomenon" too. Thanks.
vijay
Vijay G Hariharan
vha...@umbc.edu
V. S. Sridharan
article 100...@umbc10.umbc.edu, Vijay Ganesh Hariharan <vha...@gl.umbc.edu> writes:
> Unni did the same in one of the concerts in US bringing in Mohanam while singing Thodi.
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, BADRI wrote:
>
> > can somebody enlighten me on this graha bedam as to whether it is the
> > same as sruti bedham. if so, will it account for an hindolam interlude
> about this "phenomenon" too. Thanks.
The following might help:
Mohanam is derived from Thodi starting from Ri and leaving out Sa and Pa as follows:
S R1 R2 G1 G2 M1 M2 P D1 D2 N1 N2 S R1 R2 G1 ..
Thodi X X X X X X X X X X
Mohanam X X X X X X X ..
Similarly, Hindolam is derived from Subhapantuvarali starting from Ga and leaving out Sa and Pa as follows:
S R1 R2 G1 G2 M1 M2 P D1 D2 N1 N2 S R1 R2 G1 ..
Subhapantu.. X X X X X X X X X X ..
Hindolam X X X X X X ..
Although these are mechanically feasible in the 12-sruti scheme, it still requires stretching the microtones (Eigen Spectral values!) to suit the new ragas offending the purists amongst us. But, what the heck, it is kinda fun...
Sridhar
Dakshin
>can somebody enlighten me on this graha bedam as to whether it is the
>same as sruti bedham. if so, will it account for an hindolam interlude
>during a subhapantuvarali raga alaapana. this was during unnikrishnan's
>concert in bahrain. most of us were shocked out of our wits when we
>heard hindolam (albeit for a short note) and it appeared that
>unnikrishnan recovered and covered his gaffe. reading about graha
>bedham it appears that it was perhaps intentional on his part. this is
>also dubious considering the fact that there was no change of sruthi
>during the alapana. i will appreciate somebody clarifying this mystery.
Graha bedam is a dubious concept but with printed testimonials both in
this newsgroup and in text books such as "it takes great expertise to
execute a perfect graha bedam." Let us first of all rule out any concept
called "grahas" in Indian music. There is no such thing as a graha in our
music. There are ragas and swaras but no grahas.
You can establish neighborhoods in the so called "janaka-janya
ragas" in the melakartas. If you compare the janya ragas of two adjacent
melakartas, you can find that, albeit subject to the vagaries of the
notation,
the swaras are identical yet different. That swaras are immaterial to
alapana doesn't matter for the graha-beda proponents. All it matters for
them is to explore in their minds this navigation chart of melakarta
scheme and find out which raga is closest neighbor. Usually you can obtain
many neighbors by replacing one swara in a melakarta raga with another.
Since this creates much
confusion (everyone can be a neighbor), they stick to some rules. I submit
that processing these rules is a futile exercise in semantics and
obscurantism.
As for sruti bedam, there is a genuine market for it in the music
business.
It is often used in studio recorded songs. One can use it in between
taping
and master copying of the songs. You can develop electronic filters to
generate sruti bedam--by subtracting or adding a constant frequency to
the song. Even in my primitive car radio I can generate sruti bedam by
twiddling with the bass and fade knobs.
As for a definitive cure to graha bedam...you are better off consulting an
astrologer who thinks the grahas are planetary neighbors exerting their
powers, however puny, on you.
Dakshin
Shashidhar N S
In article <55gqv1$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Dakshin <dak...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>As for sruti bedam, there is a genuine market for it in the music
>business.
>It is often used in studio recorded songs.
Do educate us, sir. Provide examples.
>Even in my primitive car radio I can generate sruti bedam by
>twiddling with the bass and fade knobs.
>
Your car radio must be anything but primitive, then !
Shashidhara
ramaprasad_k_v
In article <55gqv1$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dak...@aol.com says...
>Graha bedam is a dubious concept but with printed testimonials both in
>this newsgroup and in text books such as "it takes great expertise to
>execute a perfect graha bedam." Let us first of all rule out any concept
>called "grahas" in Indian music. There is no such thing as a graha in our
>music. There are ragas and swaras but no grahas.
There are raagaas, there are svaras and there are grahas
in Indian music ! Watch the word Indian - as it will include
both Hindustani and Karnataka Music. Although in Karnataka
sangeetha most raagas have Sa as the graha (The svara with
which the sancharas start, or rest on) , in Hindustani you
can find raagas which have the same notes but give a different
flavour to the raaga because of the change in the graha svara
( eg: Sohini and Maarwa) So Graha bheda , in the Karnataka
sangeetha context does mean the shift of aadhaara shadja.
>
>You can establish neighborhoods in the so called "janaka-janya
>ragas" in the melakartas. If you compare the janya ragas of two adjacent
>melakartas, you can find that, albeit subject to the vagaries of the
>notation,
>the swaras are identical yet different. That swaras are immaterial to
>alapana doesn't matter for the graha-beda proponents.
Are you here reffereing to the fact like
S R3 M1 P N2 S = S G2 M1 P N2 S ?
Would you make it more clear ?
>All it matters for
>them is to explore in their minds this navigation chart of melakarta
>scheme and find out which raga is closest neighbor. Usually you can obtain
>many neighbors by replacing one swara in a melakarta raga with another.
>Since this creates much
>confusion (everyone can be a neighbor), they stick to some rules.
Replacing one svara with another is not termed Graha bheda
as per my knowledge !
> I submit
>that processing these rules is a futile exercise in semantics and
>obscurantism.
>
>As for sruti bedam, there is a genuine market for it in the music
>business.
>It is often used in studio recorded songs. One can use it in between
>taping
>and master copying of the songs. You can develop electronic filters to
>generate sruti bedam--by subtracting or adding a constant frequency to
>the song. Even in my primitive car radio I can generate sruti bedam by
>twiddling with the bass and fade knobs.
>
>As for a definitive cure to graha bedam...you are better off consulting an
>
>astrologer who thinks the grahas are planetary neighbors exerting their
>powers, however puny, on you.
>
Here is am all the more confused about this definition of
sruti bheda ! Can you please elaborate on it ?
Sruti and svara are not synonyms. Graha bheda only refers to
the change of aadhaara shdja ( a svara ) .
>
L Ramakrishnan
someone wrote
> As for sruti bedam, there is a genuine market for it in the music
> business. It is often used in studio recorded songs. One can use it in
> between taping and master copying of the songs. You can develop
> electronic filters to generate sruti bedam--by subtracting or adding a
> constant frequency to the song. Even in my primitive car radio I can
> generate sruti bedam by twiddling with the bass and fade knobs.
huh??
I am under the impression that shruti bhEda and graha bhEda refer to the
same thing - the shifting of the tonic to another svara in the same scale,
thereby generating the form of another rAga.
How subtly should the impression of the other rAga be conveyed? Seems like
the trend is to make it increasingly blatant, if recent AlApanAs I've
listened to are any indication.
And of course, there are entire compositions, such as Calcutta
Krishnamurthy's varNa "mandara giridhara' that drag the graha bhEda rAgAs
kicking and screaming out of their respective closets :-)
L. Ramki Ramakrishnan
mailto:ra...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
ramaprasad_k_v
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.961105...@curly.cc.utexas.edu>, L says...
>And of course, there are entire compositions, such as Calcutta
>Krishnamurthy's varNa "mandara giridhara' that drag the graha bhEda rAgAs
>kicking and screaming out of their respective closets :-)
>
>L. Ramki Ramakrishnan
>mailto:ra...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>
There is also the raga chaya malika tillana composed by
Dr Balamuralikrishna starting with the words "Tanum
namta tara tillana"
Ramaprasad K V
ramaprasad_k_v
In article <32813...@cfanews.harvard.edu>, t...@cfabratko2.harvard.edu says...
>
>: Although these are mechanically feasible in the 12-sruti scheme, it still requires stretching the microtones (Eigen Spectral values!) to suit the new ragas offending the purists amongst us. But, what the heck, it is kinda fun...
>
>: Sridhar
What we have is a 12 -swara scheme; I think you are getting confused
between svaras and srutis. Each svara interval is composed of many
sruti intervals. The number of srutis is supposed to be 22.
>
>Could you elaborate on this microtone business? How does one play these on instruments like the
>Veena where the frets decide the number of notes you can play? Also can you give some examples
>of ragas which differ only in microtones? Sorry for hijacking the discussion away from the
>'bedhas', I have not figured out this part in a long time.
>Thanks,
>TKSridharan
Even though there are 12 frets per octave in instruments like
Veene, the pressure and pull on the string will determine the
exact microtone (or sruti) being played. Precisely for this
reason, it is difficult to reproduce Karnataka Sangeeta on
instruments like Harmoniaum.
I can't give 2 raagas with same svaras and which differ in only
microtones ( If that is what you wanted). But if you were just
concerned about the different microtones of the same svara ,then
consider the Madhyama of Shankarabharana and Begade ; Both are
suddha madhyamas , but the Begade madhyama is **a little Higher**
than ( I think this is what is called an Eka sruti -differnce ;
I am not sure) Shankarabharana Madhayama. Similarly you can consider
the Nishada's of Bhairavi and Kharaharapriya.
Ramaprasad K V
P.S : T K sridharan, by any chance were you working at
Raman Research Institute , Bangalore ? I was there
some time in 1990-1991
Ramaprasad K V
T. K. Sridharan
: Although these are mechanically feasible in the 12-sruti scheme, it still requires stretching the microtones (Eigen Spectral values!) to suit the new ragas offending the purists amongst us. But, what the heck, it is kinda fun...
: Sridhar
L Ramakrishnan
On 6 Nov 1996, it was written:
>
> Even though there are 12 frets per octave in instruments like
> Veene, the pressure and pull on the string will determine the
> exact microtone (or sruti) being played. Precisely for this
> reason, it is difficult to reproduce Karnataka Sangeeta on
> instruments like Harmoniaum.
The other reason being that keyboard-type instruments (I don't know about
the harmonium, but the piano for sure) base their notes on the chromatic
rather than the natural scale...
T. K. Sridharan
: I am under the impression that shruti bhEda and graha bhEda refer to the
: same thing - the shifting of the tonic to another svara in the same scale,
: thereby generating the form of another rAga.
I don't think the form of an another raga can be generated just by changing the tonic.
The impression of a raga is deeply entwined with its characteristic gamakas and prayogas
and in my opinion this as much of a defining feature as the notes themselves. For exapmle
Todi would never sound like it should if the gamakas on 'ga' and 'ni' are not handled properly,
whatever else you might do. If you changed the tonic even by physically retuning the drone,
but stuck to the gamakas of the previous raga you won't invoke the 'bedha' raga. I feel that
the hallmark of a raga is related to the tradition of its rendition apart from the notes.
I would welcome discussion here.
And quite apart can someone comment on how one assigns janya ragaas to their parents? One
can derive a given non-sampurna raga from more than one parent raga which differ by half
notes. Is the assignment made on the basis of gamakas? I remember reading somewhere that
many so-called janya ragas predate the later concept of janya ragas which apparently came with
the organisation of ragas into melas. Any information here will be much appreciated.
--TKSridharan
ps: some one has said in this discussion that by twiddling the bass and treble one can
obtain 'shruti bedham'. This is not possible, as many of us would know, the knobs adjust
parameters of filters and so simply change the frequency content of the music. It cannot be
equated to a change of the tonic, leave alone invocation of other ragas where
gamakas come in.
Srini Pichumani
In article <55pl8l$m...@lex.zippo.com>, <Ramaprasad K V> wrote:
>
> There is also the raga chaya malika tillana composed by
> Dr Balamuralikrishna starting with the words "Tanum
> namta tara tillana"
If I am not mistaken, that is "rAga ThAya mAlikA"... ThAya as
in the caturdaNDi i.e. gIta, AlApa, ThAya, prabandha... ThAya,
a term mentioned in treatises on music, has been explained as
the characteristic phrase of a rAga by some scholars. Don't
know if Balamurali too intended it this way.
caturdaNDi, thAya, etc as terms/concepts seem to have been
prevalent in the medieval times... hence, the name "caturdaNDi
prakAs'ikA" for Venkatamakhi's work, and the line in a Dhrupad
referring to Gopala Nayaka
cAron doNDi lekar Aye gopAl nAyak
^^^^^^^^^^^
-Srini.
ps: Here is the transliteration I am using...
k kh g gh .n
c ch j jh ~n
T Th D Dh N
t th d dh n
p ph b bh m
Venkat Devarajan
In article <55pl8l$m...@lex.zippo.com>
Ramaprasad K V writes:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.961105...@curly.cc.utexas.edu>, L says...
>
>
> >And of course, there are entire compositions, such as Calcutta
> >Krishnamurthy's varNa "mandara giridhara'
This sounds very interesting. Is it on any commercially
available tape/cd?
>
> There is also the raga chaya malika tillana composed by
> Dr Balamuralikrishna starting with the words "Tanum
> namta tara tillana"
This is a brilliant composition by BMK. It is on a CD
(CD-C5CV5001) titled simply "Thillanas" - all are
compositions of BMK. The violinist is Annavarapu Ramaswamy,
the Mridangist is Shrimushmnam Raja Rao and Ghatam player
is Subhas Chandran. The CD is by Sungeetha Live Cassettes,
manufactured and marketed by OMI Music Inc., Unit A4-71,
Rosedale Ave., Brampton, Ontario, L6X1K4, Canada. The CD
starts with the above thillana.
In this composition, graha bedham is used to produce the
ragas of a raga malika (as against using graha bedham to
fleetingly show the chaya of a raga as a part of an
alapanai).
The Pallavi is in Kalyani.
Thereafter, with Pa murchana (i.e. making pa of Kalyani as
Sa and shifting the whole scale) he then shifts to
Sankarabharanam. [T.K.Sridharan, in this coposition,
whenever BMK shifts the scale, the violinist simply plays
the new Sa and nothing else!].
Next with Ri2 as the new Sa and by suppressing (varjam) of
the Sa and Pa of the original Kalyani, BMK switches to
Mohanam. There was a discussion recently on whether this is
kosher. IMHO, it is in this instance because this is a raga
malikai and not a raga alapanai. The various ragas happened
to have been produced (rather cleverly, even if you are not
a BMK fan!) by graha bedham. Hence the appropriate name -
raga chaya malika! Shruthi bedha raga malika would have
been a mouthfull and a tad tacky, I presume:-)
Next with Ma2 as the murchana and Sa-Pa varjam, Hindolam is
produced and used for a charanam (?).
Finally, with Ga2 as the new Sa, another charanam in
Darbari Kanada results. [The standard Nata Bhairavi cycle
or the pentatonic Mohanam cycle do not produce Darbari
Kanada. Perhaps V.S Sridharan or some other chronic/tonic
shift-expert (:-)) can throw some light on how the vakra
raga Darbari Kanada is produced from Kalyani.]
The way the thillana gets back to the Kalyani Pallavi after
each charanam is majestic. Whenever BMK gets back to
Kalyani, the violinist re-joins him in actually playing
along.
All in all a very interesting piece, if you like a little
variety in your music.
Incidentally, this CD has the Kadanakudhukalm,
Kunthalavarali, Brindavani and Dujavanthi thilllanas. The
first three (four if you count the raga malikai) are very
good. BMK appears to have sung these more elaborately than
he does in conerts. It seems as though it was meant for
people to learn the pieces. Balamurali's usual good diction
and pronounciation are enhanced by reasonably good CD
tape/transfer/mastering (I believe it is AAD).
I did not much care for the last thillana in Dujavanthi,
not because the thillana itself is a bad composition, but
because there are too many slips (in brigas especially) and
a little apaswaram in the singing.
Recommendation: a good buy, especially if you are
interested in learning these thillanas and would like to
pick up on graha bedham concept ( Dakshin, you can also
checkout how good your car radio is :-))
Venkat Devarajan
Department of Electrical Engineering
The University of Texas at Arlington
V. S. Sridharan
In article 0...@cfanews.harvard.edu, t...@cfabratko2.harvard.edu (T. K. Sridharan) writes:
> Could you elaborate on this microtone business? How does one play these on instruments like the
> Veena where the frets decide the number of notes you can play? Also can you give some examples
> of ragas which differ only in microtones?
In your follow-on article you have mentioned Todi. Todi is a great example requiring deployment of variant microtones. If you play Todi on the veena without proper gamakas, you will mostly hear only Sindubhairavi. In fact, Todi's microtones in Arohanam are different from its Avarohanam. You might also compare the Sudha Ma of Kambodi, Kamas, and Begada, which are supposedly using the same Ma in terms of how they are documented, but sound so different.
I really liked Mr.Raghunath Rao's statement that went something like 'swaras/srutis are representations of convenience; ragas have their own signatures that can't be captured entirely by 12 srutis, or even twenty two srutis.' (I know I am misquoting him badly, but you get the drift.)
Back on srutis, yes, they are srutis, not swaras. The seven swaras are definable using srutis. Fretted and keyed instruments are designed to capture the seven swaras in 12 srutis or steps. Mapping the raga signatures in the 12 available steps is not possible. This is where the sub-steps or quarter-tones or microtones become necessary. In Veena one can stretch and oscillate to get close to the signature. With Keyed instruments, you are out of luck, although, I have heard some harmonium players do wonders.
Sridhar
V. Chandramouli
In article <55tlrf$e...@news01.aud.alcatel.com>, vssr...@aud.alcatel.com (V. S. Sridharan) writes:
|> Back on srutis, yes, they are srutis, not swaras. The seven swaras are definable using srutis. Fretted and keyed instruments are designed to capture the seven swaras in 12 srutis or steps. Mapping the raga signatures in the 12 available steps is not po|> ssible. This is where the sub-steps or quarter-tones or microtones become necessary. In Veena one can stretch and oscillate to get close to the signature. With Keyed instruments, you are out of luck, although, I have heard some harmonium players do wond|> ers.
|>
|> Sridhar
|>
|>
I still think Carnatic music cannot be captured, in the sense of notating
precisely so that a computer can reproduce a composition accurately, by
a finite set of notes. I think it uses the entire frequency spectrum
between f and 2f and the smallest step size is what a trained music ear
will percieve (a very subjective thing in any case).
So 12 notes or 22 are just gross approximations. From my own limited training
in violin I know that R2 in Shankarabharnam takes all frequencies between
actual R2 (as defined in just intonaton (JI)) to G3 (as defined in JI). However,
you never stay on any pitch long enough to give a sense of apaswaram. The
quick sliding or gamakam gives an "averaging" effect if you will and the
actual f will not be where you would expect on the basis of JI scheme.
Any comments?
--Chandramouli
Raghunath K. Rao
In article <55tovb$b...@news.eecs.umich.edu>,
Srini Pichumani <sr...@quip.eecs.umich.edu> wrote:
>In article <55pl8l$m...@lex.zippo.com>, <Ramaprasad K V> wrote:
>>
>> Dr Balamuralikrishna starting with the words "Tanum
>> namta tara tillana"
>
>in the caturdaNDi i.e. gIta, AlApa, ThAya, prabandha... ThAya,
>a term mentioned in treatises on music, has been explained as
>the characteristic phrase of a rAga by some scholars. Don't
>know if Balamurali too intended it this way.
I think so. He calls this his jayarAgamAlikA, and if I recall right, the
hindoLa section the sahitya ends with "rAga thAya mAlikache".
IMHO, it's a nice tillAna - and novel too, in the mapping of the
rAgamAlikA into graha/shruti-bheda. But then again, I would have liked
it just as much even if it were just conventional rAgamAlikA. The graha-bheda
only generates some initial curiosity, which gets quickly satisfied.
Raghunath Rao
T. K. Sridharan
RamaprasadKV wrote:
: P.S : T K sridharan, by any chance were you working at
: Raman Research Institute , Bangalore ? I was there
: some time in 1990-1991
:
: Ramaprasad K V
:
:
Ramaprasad, Yes, I am the same tks from rri. I know you were there but only briefly, with
the mm-wave lab, if I am not mistaken. How do I e-mail to you?
-TKSridharan
p.s: others, sorry about this personal exchange, will soon shift to private channel.
Venkat Devarajan
In article <55tovb$b...@news.eecs.umich.edu>
sr...@quip.eecs.umich.edu (Srini Pichumani) writes:
> In article <55pl8l$m...@lex.zippo.com>, <Ramaprasad K V> wrote:
> >
> > There is also the raga chaya malika tillana composed by
> > Dr Balamuralikrishna starting with the words "Tanum
> > namta tara tillana"
>
> If I am not mistaken, that is "rAga ThAya mAlikA"... ThAya as
> in the caturdaNDi i.e. gIta, AlApa, ThAya, prabandha... ThAya,
> a term mentioned in treatises on music, has been explained as
> the characteristic phrase of a rAga by some scholars. Don't
> know if Balamurali too intended it this way.
Srini, the CD simply calls this piece Jaya Ragamalika.
>
> caturdaNDi, thAya, etc as terms/concepts seem to have been
> prevalent in the medieval times... hence, the name "caturdaNDi
> prakAs'ikA" for Venkatamakhi's work, and the line in a Dhrupad
> referring to Gopala Nayaka
> cAron doNDi lekar Aye gopAl nAyak
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Incidentally, I forgot to mention one other piece in BMK's
Thillana CD. It starts out as "Dhimna Natha Thirana" and is
also a ragamalika (Amirtha Varshini, Mohanam, Kanada and
Hindolam). I have heard BMK sing this in only Hindolam and
I liked that rendition better. The climactic mridanga sol
(there is probably a better term for this) in this thillana
is a high-speed tongue twister and BMK sings it
effortlessly. However, even in this piece there are a
couple of bad briga slips that are jarring to the ear.
Despite this addendum to the "review", ther is no change in
my recommendation of BUY and HOLD :-)
Venkat Devarajan
In article <55titd$k...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
moh...@ahiri.eng.sun.com (Mohan Parthasarathy) writes:
> I am not sure how our brains find the
> right raag during greha bedam ? How does it so easily shift to the
> new Sa ? What happens to the reference from Tampoora ?
>
> -mohan
A few years ago, V. S. Sridharan, my father and I performed
an experiment with graha bedham on a Veena. Starting with
the Mohanam cycle VSS kept shifting the Sa's and played
just the plain aroha/avaroha of the new raga hoping to hear
Hindolam, Madhyamavathi etc. However, as long as the drone
was set to the original Sa, our brains refused to recognize
the shifted ragas (Mohanam refused to vacate the brain
cells:-)). However, as soon as the drone was retuned to the
shifted Sa, even in the absence of the characteristic
gamakas of the new ragas, the basic form of the ragas
became apparent. Alternately, if you know ahead of time
what raga you are shifting to, you can then deliberately
play the prayogas and gamakas of that raga even with the
drone set to the original Sa. IMHO, professional artists do
both (that is, the violinist gives them the new Sa drone
and the vocalist then sings the basic laskshana prayoga of
the shifted raga in a flourish, you sit up and take notice
and before you know it they are off to either another shift
or back to the original).
V. S. Sridharan
In article 7...@news.eecs.umich.edu, vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (V. Chandramouli) writes:
I think it uses the entire frequency spectrum
> between f and 2f and the smallest step size is what a trained music ear
> will percieve (a very subjective thing in any case).
> From my own limited training
> in violin I know that R2 in Shankarabharnam takes all frequencies between
> actual R2 (as defined in just intonaton (JI)) to G3 (as defined in JI). However,
> you never stay on any pitch long enough to give a sense of apaswaram. The
> quick sliding or gamakam gives an "averaging" effect if you will and the
> actual f will not be where you would expect on the basis of JI scheme.
> Any comments?
I have heard Mr.Devarajan (Venkat Devarajan's Dad) speak about domains taking the place of swarasthanam in representing ragas. In your example, the Ri in Sankarabharanam has a domain in which it oscillates offering the characteristic signature of the raga. The oscillation within a domain can also be of various types. Chilappadikaram discusses seven types of oscillations (fine, coarse, from below, from above, from the middle etc..). The Ri in Sankarabharanam sounds to me like it has coarse oscillations from the middle touching G3. The Ri in Saveri sounds like it is starting from below (Sa) and just touching R1. Mr.Devarajan used to joke that this raga is named because of this aspect (SAve RI, in Tamil means Sa itself produces Ri). The Ma in Begada sounds to me like the oscillation starts from above (Pa) and touches M1 in a very coarse style (brisk, only one wave (crudely expressed)).
These are my perceptions - don't beat me up looking for scientific facts! (I shudder every time I bring up Begada waiting for Krishna to pounce - may be I will bring up Nayaki next time!!)
Sridhar
Mohan Parthasarathy
>A few years ago, V. S. Sridharan, my father and I performed
>an experiment with graha bedham on a Veena. Starting with
>the Mohanam cycle VSS kept shifting the Sa's and played
>just the plain aroha/avaroha of the new raga hoping to hear
>Hindolam, Madhyamavathi etc. However, as long as the drone
>was set to the original Sa, our brains refused to recognize
>the shifted ragas (Mohanam refused to vacate the brain
>cells:-)). However, as soon as the drone was retuned to the
>gamakas of the new ragas, the basic form of the ragas
>became apparent. Alternately, if you know ahead of time
I and my friend tried with Mohanam and Hindolam. Note that
we dint have a Tampoora. I tried mohanam first i.e we agreed
that i will start with mohanam. After sometime i shifted and
produced similar variations of Mohanam without his
knowledge (on a Harmonium). I think this should have formed
a subset of Hindolam. But somehow mohanam was too strong.
I dont think there was a trace of Hindolam. No, I am not
saying it is because there was no Tampoora. I think it
is something else.
-mohan
Surajit A. Bose
> Can you give some examples
> of ragas which differ only in microtones?
In Hindustani music, Marwa and Puriya have exactly the same set of notes,
but the ri of Marwa is supposed to be microtonally higher than that of
Puriya. Definitely the ri of Marwa is very distinctive. But I don靖 really
know whether just that microtonal difference would really differentiate
the two ragas in practice. There are other differences in the ragas that
make it much easier for the listeners to tell them apart, like which notes
are supposed to be important (ri and dha for Marwa, ga and ni for Puriya).
Also, Puriya is supposed to explore the lower registers while Marwa must
range over the lower, middle, and upper reaches.
Two other points: (1) there零 a third raga which also has exactly the
aroha-avaroha as Marwa and Puriya. It零 Sohni, which corresponds to
Carnatic Hamsanandi. The difference between Puriya and Sohni is that Sohni
is supposed to explore the higher registers. It零 also supposed to be a
quicker, more lively raga than the slower-paced Puriya and Marwa. (2) The
ri of Shree is supposed to be microtonally even higher than the ri of
Marwa. And this is still the komal ri; it actually is pitched somewhere
between a komal and shudha ri.
dak...@aol.com
I seem to have given a new twist to an old concept, however,
controversial. I apologize for the inconveniences rendered to the
sentiments of the graha beda believers and sruti beda fans by trying to
set them apart.
No, my car radio isn't sophisticated as I've stated. Nor did it come from
the
old Star Trek set. It didn't generate new gamakas. It doesn't have to.
The graha in our music didn't stand isolated as a swara. The graha came
with prana and tala. It is a way the tala and song begin. But no
transitions
of ragas implied in the sama-graha, vishama-graha, anagata-graha,
atita-graha, etc.
Those who believe in one kind of music see certain realities which others
don't see. That doesn't make them crazy. However, one doesn't have to
write volumes to prove otherwise.
I keep hearing this Todi/Mohanam cycle of Graha beda all over the net. Can
someone please present a few other examples? Just because some text
books had described these tonal shifts as legitimate art and gave an
example
of "model shift of tonic" in
sankarabharanam-kharaharapriya-todi-kalyani-harikambhoji-natabhiravi, does
it make the obscure concept true?
In a different vein, does anyone think music can have imbedded miracles as
graha beda that take one through the roller coaster ride of ragas as a
logical
theorem proving or a mathematical sequence and still make it melodious.`
Music is deliberate when written on papers. It is spontaneous when it
is rendered paperless. Carnatic music had that spontaneity to me until I
started
reading about it as though the writers knew what deliberations went into
it.
IMHO, instruments, especially those improvised for carnatic music, make
the music so mechanical, and the beaten paths make the mediocre
reniditions so legitimate that an elevator ride seems like a novelty.
To me when all the chips fall down, carnatic music is one's own. You can
talk about it to the heart's content, but you can't prove anything to
anyone.
I can cry out loud there are no grahas and graha bedas. Someone else can
do it louder claiming otherwise. But we both aren't musical while doing
so.
The more we disagree, the more we lose our wisdom and take battle line
positions of musical fans.
Being a singer and flautist myself, I'd rather withdraw to a corner and
render
something as I believe in and prove to myself that any other way is
unpleasant
and unaesthetic. It makes me feel better. I might even try to convince
others
in my vocal presence musically. That's where it should end.
As a matter for the record, let me just state that it is very interesting
to
jump shift from one raga to another raga just to keep the audience
engaged.
It is as interesting as playing a sax in the middle of carnatic concert,
just
to get some attention. Perhaps it is fusion. Call it any beda you want.
It doesn't make any difference for as long as the audience didn't sense
the
melody in it. It is as vacuous as a badly rendered go-pucha.
At a yet another level, you can vocalize anything and let the electronics
guys
morph it in the system to make it sound very interesting. You can in
theory
make sa's sound like ma's--if not consistently. There is a method to this
madness of "perfect melody." It is so methodical that you need to enroll
in
an engineering college to learn this madness. Most vocalists I know of can
care less for these methodologies. A simple kriti rendered in simple
sa-ri-ga-ma-pa-da-ni-sa with a pleasant consistent voice makes up for all
the lost inspiration in the ocean of electronic music.
Best regards,
Dakshin
Krishna Kunchithapadam
: [...]
:
: These are my perceptions - don't beat me up looking for
: scientific facts! (I shudder every time I bring up Begada
: waiting for Krishna to pounce - may be I will bring up
: Nayaki next time!!)
Damn. I can never resist bait like this.
In any case, one of two things is true. A note (svara,
svarasthana, etc.) in a raga is either played without
ornamentation or it is played with gamaka.
In the former case, the just intonation frequency almost always
applies (and the exceptional cases are also well described in
musicological texts).
In the latter case, the person claiming the validity of the
ornamentation should also describe what exactly the gamaka is---
in which case, it can be easily programmed into a computer.
Although the above comments are not immediately applicable to the
discussion on grahabedam, they are relevant to claims of being
able to objectively describe music. In other words, I disagree
with everyone who think that there is no such thing as a raga, or
that the concept of a raga is so intangible that it can only be
demonstrated by masters and never described accurately enough in
words or via an algorithm.
As to Begada, well, I am now putting in Vol. VI of Balamurali's
"Raganga Ravali" into the cassette player. An hour of listening
to "vivadi" ragas like Raghupriya and Gavambodhi should wipe the
bad taste of Begada from my mouth. Oh, for the little pleasures
in life.
--Krishna
V. Chandramouli
In article <5636s6$2...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, kri...@mary-ann.cs.wisc.edu (Krishna Kunchithapadam) writes:
|> In the latter case, the person claiming the validity of the
|> ornamentation should also describe what exactly the gamaka is---
|> in which case, it can be easily programmed into a computer.
|>
|> --Krishna
True, if a precise description of the gamakams can be given it should be
possible to program. In fact, on the violin, you produce gamakams
by slides. So one could devise a notation with conventions for begining and end
notes, no. of slides, speed of each slide (a gamakan could have several rapid slides or several long drwan out slides)
, intensity of bowing, fingers to use etc. So one could notate all the gamakams intensive songs. But it would be too cumbersome and perhaps not catch on. You would need reams of paper to notate.
While being taught gamakams, some kind of a semi-formal description of the type
I outlined is given verbally (at least that is how I learn it) and it works
fairly well for me.
The problem is similar to formal verification in hardware. It takes too much
effort to formally specify and then verify even relative simple systems that
no practising engineer uses much of formal verififcation and lot of the theory
is confined to journals.
Something similar would happen with this notation scheme. I think some bloke
in the earlier part of this century did notate a large no. of krithis. I don't
remember his name and how much success he had. This has been discussed earlier
in this group. Was he some Dikshitar? Perhaps Srini would know.
While this deals with the issue of notating, I still maintain that Carnatic
music is an analog system with all frequencies between f and 2f being used
at some time or the other. The 12 note system needs to be augmented by a complex
notation scheme to fully capture it. After all the 12 note system itself was
devised as a means of notating music.
--Chandramouli
Srini Pichumani
In article <56052i$p...@news.uta.edu>, Venkat Devarajan <ven...@uta.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > There is also the raga chaya malika tillana composed by
>> > Dr Balamuralikrishna starting with the words "Tanum
>> > namta tara tillana"
>>
>> If I am not mistaken, that is "rAga ThAya mAlikA"... ThAya as
>> in the caturdaNDi i.e. gIta, AlApa, ThAya, prabandha... ThAya,
>> a term mentioned in treatises on music, has been explained as
>> the characteristic phrase of a rAga by some scholars. Don't
>> know if Balamurali too intended it this way.
>
>Srini, the CD simply calls this piece Jaya Ragamalika.
Maybe the name has morphed from ThAya to ChAya to Jaya.
Anyway, I heard this tillAnA on a tape of a sangeet sammelan
program. The ending words of the tillAnA seemed to suggest
its name
...muraLi nAda rUpa...nIkidi samarpinci...
rAga ThAya mAlikace tillAnA
Here is a note sent to me by an (anec)doting bandicoot ;-) ;-) ;-)
____________________________________________________
Srini!
This is way back in time....nearly 19 years ago.
It was on Dec 29, 1977 at Mylapore Fine Arts Society (the one on
Oliver Road) that he sang the ThAya tillAna for the first time as
I know and there he explained in elaborate detail the structure and
the musical fundas behind it. Yes, as I remember, he mentioned all
the terms that you have used in your posting and even quoted some
of the texts. If I remember right, he also added that the word
ThAya rhymes with ChAya (or shadow) and thus it can be seen as
notes remaining the same but in the order they are taken, they cast
a shadow of the rAga that it sounds like while still retaining the
original rAga notes. It took quite a while then to understand some
of the stuff that he said. Once again he explained it in Bombay/Mysore
when it kind of got cleared.
_______________________________________________________
>Incidentally, I forgot to mention one other piece in BMK's
>Thillana CD. It starts out as "Dhimna Natha Thirana" and is
>also a ragamalika (Amirtha Varshini, Mohanam, Kanada and
>Hindolam). I have heard BMK sing this in only Hindolam and
>I liked that rendition better.
Is it possible that this is a "generic" tillAnA of Balamurali ?
I remember hearing this entirely in Mohanam and in the above
version.
-Srini.
Venkat Devarajan
In article <560luq$d...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
moh...@ahiri.eng.sun.com (Mohan Parthasarathy) writes:
> Venkat Devarajan said:
> >A few years ago, V. S. Sridharan, my father and I performed
> >an experiment with graha bedham on a Veena. Starting with
> >the Mohanam cycle VSS kept shifting the Sa's and played
> >just the plain aroha/avaroha of the new raga hoping to hear
> >Hindolam, Madhyamavathi etc. However, as long as the drone
> >was set to the original Sa, our brains refused to recognize
> >the shifted ragas (Mohanam refused to vacate the brain
> >cells:-)). However, as soon as the drone was retuned to the
> >shifted Sa,even in the absence of the characteristic
> >gamakas of the new ragas, the basic form of the ragas
> >became apparent. Alternately, if you know ahead of time
> But Mohan Parthasarathy avers:
> I and my friend tried with Mohanam and Hindolam. Note that
> we dint have a Tampoora. I tried mohanam first i.e we agreed
> that i will start with mohanam. After sometime i shifted and
> produced similar variations of Mohanam without his
> knowledge (on a Harmonium). I think this should have formed
> a subset of Hindolam. But somehow mohanam was too strong.
> I dont think there was a trace of Hindolam. No, I am not
> saying it is because there was no Tampoora. I think it
And why not?
> is something else.
>
Mohan, I am puzzled by this. You say that you have tried
the above experiment WITHOUT a tampoora and you think THAT
IT is NOT the reason why you could not observe the graha
bedham. Perhaps I did not understand your meaning. In any
case, I would urge you to try it again with a Tampoora and
then you can conclude either that it was useful or not. We
thought it made a HUGE difference.
Krishna Kunchithapadam
vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (V. Chandramouli) writes:
:
:In article <5636s6$2...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
: kri...@mary-ann.cs.wisc.edu (Krishna Kunchithapadam) writes:
:
:|> In the latter case, the person claiming the validity of the
:|> ornamentation should also describe what exactly the gamaka is---
:|> in which case, it can be easily programmed into a computer.
:
:
: [...] So one could notate all the gamakams intensive songs.
: But it would be too cumbersome and perhaps not catch on.
: You would need reams of paper to notate.
I have commented on this kind of argument in the past. It
commits the fallacy of assuming that just because it is
_possible_ for there to be an almost unlimited variation (in
principle), it is _always_ going to be the case that there is
this unlimited variation _everywhere_ (in practice).
But that is quite false.
Consider the following:
(1) While any system of micro-tonal and ornamented music will
admit potentially unlimited variation, it is always the case
that in _practice_ there are only a limited (and small)
number of variations. So, claiming that the octave is
divided in an analog manner is irrelevant. I am not claiming
that a notational system should discretize the octave.
Think about it. If the number of gamakas were really as vast
as the real numbers in [0,1] (i.e. uncountably infinite),
then yes, no algorithm would capture this variation, but then
no _human_ can do so either. Then the rest of the discussion
becomes moot.
The practical truth is that the number of gamakas is small
and these gamakas fall into several well-defined categories-
--whether there are 8, 10, 22, or 70 categories is not quite
as important as that there are a _small finite_ number of
them.
(2) Some people seem to be confusing the notation of gamaka with
the accurate reproduction of timbre.
I think much of the disdain for algorithmic description of
gamakas (through computer programming) comes from thinking
that it is far too cumbersome to make a computer produce
notes that sound like Balamurali's singing.
This is not my point. If you want to listen to Balamurali,
it is perhaps simpler and cheaper (both in monetary and
computational terms) to buy a recording and a good player.
However, a <foo> gamaka that occurs in a certain raga, say
kalyani, can and should be precisely describable
algorithmically.
This particular gamaka will not sound the same if sung by
Balamurali or played on the violin by MSG. But the gamaka is
still the <foo> gamaka. In other words, what I wish to
capture is the essence of the gamaka, rather than the
associated timbre of the instruments or the style of an
artiste.
Saying that every minute aspect of style, timbre, and
performance constitutes a unique and different gamaka and
raga is a bizarre sort of dakshinist dogma. I have no desire
to discuss such irrational positions.
Just as the concept of a "raga" captures what is common
between many non-identical compositions, the concept of a
"gamaka" captures what is common between many non-identical
ornamentations. Just because two things are not exactly the
same does not mean that they cannot have anything in common.
I looking to describe that commonality.
In fact, if timbral reproduction is what you want, that is
easy to provide as well. All you need is a good digital
acoustic sampler. A little bit of Fourier transforms will
allow you to shift pitches any which way you want and you can
make a sequence of notes sound as if they are played by a
violin or veena or flute (and there are also ways of closely
approximating "natural" instruments without sampling, using
various kinds of modulated tone generators).
Combine sampling with gamaka synthesis, and you have what
should be considered authentic music, even if there isn't a
human agency _directly_ responsible for it. Saying otherwise
is like _defining_ a certain form of music to be one that
must necessarily be produced by a human---a silly stance, in
my opinion.
(3) The third fallacy seems to be that the process of notation is
tedious and will always be so. Anyone familiar with computer
programming should not be saying such things. There is a
well-known way of abstracting common idioms---these are
called libraries.
Yes, the first person to program the algorithmic template for
each and every one 10-gamakas, say, will have to work very
hard. But then, each of the gamakas can be referred to
symbolically, called via a function encapsulated in a library
and reused.
As people come up with more and more types of gamakas that
they wish to use in notated compositions, they can either
program them directly using the basic sound synthesis
primitives of the system, or combine existing gamakas, or
use a hybrid approach.
If some of these gamakas become popular, they will migrate
into the library and become available to everyone else. This
is how libraries evolve, and I see no reason why a gamaka-
library should not follow a similar path.
(4) The fourth fallacy, probably implicit in the discussion (and
therefore, something that colors people's opinions without it
being even apparent that there are unconscious biases
involved), is that algorithmic gamaka description is being
confused with algorithmic composition and algorithmic
performance.
No, it is not my point (here and now, although perhaps there
and later, in a different discussion) to have a computer
compose a kriti. Nor is it my intention to have a computer
take an existing kriti (notated with gamaka information) and
improvise on it by providing alapanas, sangatis, neravals,
kalpanasvaras etc. I believe that all of this can be done,
BUT, it is important to not confuse composition and
performance with gamaka description.
It is possible to notate and play a version of "endaro
mahanubhavulu" with gamakas (and minimal improvisation) even
if there is no way to compose a kriti in the sri raga or
execute sangatis.
:
: The problem is similar to formal verification in hardware. [...]
:
This is either a red herring or a non-sequitur. I do not see any
useful connection between formal verification systems and gamaka
notation.
Yes, formal verification is hard. Yes, it is also being used in
more and more systems. Yes, there is still a long way to go
before its use becomes commonplace.
What does any of this have to do with an algorithmic description
of a gamaka?
The problem with formal verification is not the tedium or volume
of description---if the system is hierarchically decomposable
into sets of modules (which any large system should be), then a
formal description of the properties of the system is relatively
easy to write. Verification is difficult because of a state
space explosion, but there is no analog of this phenomenon in
gamaka description or synthesis.
BTW, Subbarama Dikshitar notated almost all the kritis in his
Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini w.r.t. gamakas.
It is not only possible but also trivially possible to write
algorithmic descriptions of gamakas (in those cases where you can
get a reasonably precise description of the gamaka). In most
cases, simply reading through Sambamoorthy and implementing what
he writes works remarkably well. Many existing tools do this. I
myself have written several sound synthesis libraries over the
past many years (the first one in variety of Basic!!). And I can
attest that the "tedium" of programming is the very last and
least of the problems. Getting people to accept that a gamaka
can be notated and programmed seems the first and greatest.
This perhaps says something about the general lack of (or active
discouragement of) precise thinking that pervades Indian
classical music.
It may be difficult to verbalize in precise terms the definition
of a raga or a gamaka. But the problem is that this inability is
consider a _virtue_ rather than a _limitation_. I think it is a
very sad state of affairs.
And what is more, I have said almost everything above in more or
less the same detail in the past. Looks like time for another
web page (it is easier to post a URL than compose an article---a
form a librarization (sic) and reuse ;-).
--Krishna
L Ramakrishnan
On 11 Nov 1996, Krishna Kunchithapadam wrote:
> BTW, Subbarama Dikshitar notated almost all the kritis in his
> Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini w.r.t. gamakas.
Yes, and admirably so. Vastly easier to follow than RR Iyengar's notation
in kRtimaNimAlai, for instance.
Realize though, that
(i) there are many instances where gamakas are *not* mentioned in SSP:
Subburama Dikshitar assumes a familiarity with the rAga and leaves out
many obvious ones. In this sense the book provides a mere framework,
albeit a mighty strong one, and one needs to rely on empirical rAga gnyAna
to interpret many of the kRtis notated in it.
To give just one example, consider hastivadanAya in rAga navarOj (SSP Part
IV, p. 925)
The first line is written
__
, G ; <sph>g m | g R s n <w>sR, | <et>S; ,
has ti va da nA ya (namastubhyam etc.)
where the gamakas are <sph> sphuritam, <w> nokku and <et> ETra jAru.
but R and n in the second Avarta (g R s n <w>sR,) are not free of gamakas
though the notation would appear to suggest so. The R has a combination of
vaLi and kampitam and the n has a nokku.
How do I know that these additional gamakas exist? From knowing the
prayOgas in navarOj and having listened to various renditions of the kRti
(Brinda/Mukta, Kalpagam Swaminathan). Why are these additional gamakas not
mentioned in the book? Because if they and all others were included the
notation would be impossible to follow. I see these omissions as a strong
point of SSP notation: the ability to simplify.
(ii) Further, in the cases where gamakas *are* marked, one needs to know
the gamaka X rAga interaction which is not always evident from knowing the
gamaka and the mere scale of the rAga. It seems that one would require a
library of prayOgas for each rAga from which to draw out the one(s)
suggested by the relevant gamaka notation. I use the plural advisedly
because there can be more than one way to execute a particular gamaka for
a rAga. Just contemplate the diversity of kampitams in the tODI gAndhAra,
all represented by the same squiggly line in SSP-type notation. And
again, a nokku on the madhyama for shankarAbharaNa does not sound the same
as a nokku on M for kEdAragouLa, even though (i) they are both
notationally represented in the same way, (2) both madhyamas are shuddha
and (3) both nokkus include a microtonal sweep between antara gAndhAra and
panchama.
Quite a formidable set of macros to include in your MS Vidvan, n'est-ce
pas?
:-)
Ramki
Srini Pichumani
In article <19961109233...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<dak...@aol.com> wrote:
>The graha in our music didn't stand isolated as a swara. The
>graha came with prana and tala. It is a way the tala and song
>begin. But no transitions of ragas implied in the sama-graha,
>vishama-graha, anagata-graha, atita-graha, etc.
>
I promise not to write volumes... but, you seem to be thinking
of graha from the tALa angle... i.e. where a composition begins
in the tALa cycle. This is perfectly valid.
But equally valid is the use of the term graha for the starting
point, i.e. starting note or svara, given a musical scale. In
medieval and modern Indian music, since the note S has become the
starting point of any scale, whenever another note, say R2, takes
on a S' role, it is referred to as graha-bhedam. That's all.
Fair enough ?
-Srini.
ramaprasad_k_v
In article <32837...@cfanews.harvard.edu>, t...@cfabratko2.harvard.edu says...
Hi TKS ,
Catch me at
Ramaprasad K V
p.s : I tried to send a mail to the id in the header of the above posting
But it got bounced !!
V. Chandramouli
In article <566nos$8...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, kri...@mary-ann.cs.wisc.edu (Krishna Kunchithapadam) writes:
|> vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu (V. Chandramouli) writes:
|>
|> :
|> : The problem is similar to formal verification in hardware. [...]
|> :
|>
|> This is either a red herring or a non-sequitur. I do not see any
|> useful connection between formal verification systems and gamaka
|> notation.
|>
|> Yes, formal verification is hard. Yes, it is also being used in
|> more and more systems. Yes, there is still a long way to go
|> before its use becomes commonplace.
|>
|> What does any of this have to do with an algorithmic description
|> of a gamaka?
The point here is that, formal verification while being used in a limited way
still has a long way to go before it is used in a routine manner while designing
systems by practising engineers. In a formal verifiaction class I took, it took
quite a lot of symbols and tedium to prove a simple system correct (now, I don't
need to be told that in actual practice you would not verify a system by hand and
you will use a computer, but as far as I know such completely automated
verification is not there yet and considerable human intervention is required).
So, *on paper*, like if I wanted a book of kirtanas, the resulting morass
of symbols and perhaps many pages of text would put off a lot of people.
Like someone earlier said, even in SSP, the routine gamakas (meaning the
person reading it is already familiar with the raga) are not notated to
simplify presentation. But if you want a complete notation for a kriti in a
new raga, everything must be notated, including routine ones.
Btw, how many people on the net have gone through SSP and what are your opinions
regarding it? I haven't looked it up yet but my curiosity is being piqued.
While, like you said, even if not all gamakas are used all the time, I still
maintain that the notation would not be easy to read for many of the kritis.
Also, while a few of us may teach ourselves and master the
notation, would it catch on? I doubt it. In my opinion, what is simple and
one that works, is what people actually want.
That was the point of my earlier post. I am not saying that all gamakas
can not be captured in a computer or notation. When I learn a gamaka, my teacher
does give a "procedure" for playing it and I see no reason why it cannot be
captured in a program. When I referred to tedium I did not mean the tedium of
computer programming but rather the tedium of notating it on paper and learning
from a book. I am no software person but yes libraries and code reuse would go
a long way in removing the tediumof programming but that never was being discussed
, was it?
V. Chandramouli
In article <56p0ej$6...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, kri...@mary-ann.cs.wisc.edu (Krishna Kunchithapadam) writes:
|> : For exapmle Todi would never sound like it should if the gamakas
|> : on 'ga' and 'ni' are not handled properly, whatever else you might
|> : do.
|>
|> Ah, thou hast not listened to Todi in all her glory.
|>
|> --Krishna
Actually, Todi scale does sound quite good without gamakas too. Try listening
to some European chants. I like to
distinguish between the concept of a scale and raga. A raga is more than a
scale, IMO. Of course, a scale is an important and necessary constituent of
a raga. But a raga has something more, like characteristic gamakams,
characteristic phrases and perhaps leading to an "emotional" identity
(the "emotion" bit is very subjective and cannot be described precisely; for eg,
shubhapantuvarali, to me, evokes a plaintive, pleading image). In some ragas
some of the characteristic phrase(s) are built into the scale (thus imposing the phrase on the performer if you will) and we call it vakra feature eg. Kadanakutuhalam. These characteristic phrases and gamakams have become an
identity of a raga over the years through repeated use and tradition. So while
one may come up with a new scale, to make it to the raga league would take
some time.
I think this notion of characteristic gamakams and phrases imposed on the base
scale is unique to Carnatic (or even Hindustani) music. So, while I too
try to identify the scales in Wetstern tunes or film music, I still like to
maintain the distinction between the scale and a raga. So some song (like many
Chinese music) can be based on the Mohanam scale but not Mohanam raga.
Of course, this viewpoint also admits the possibility that two different ragas
can have the same scale. I have seen scales that are very close give rise to
different ragas. But in my limited experience, haven't come across two different
ragas from exactly the same scale.
--Chandramouli
ps: Apparently it was Balachander who said, " don't say even plain notes sound
good, plain notes are good". (I am paraphrasing here.)
pps: As a beginning violinist I find gamakams like a masking tool for apaswarams
which would have been heard if a note were to be held steady :-) :-)
Krishna Kunchithapadam
: I don't think the form of an another raga can be generated
: just by changing the tonic.
Perhaps, perhaps not.
:
: The impression of a raga is deeply entwined with its
: characteristic gamakas and prayogas and in my opinion this as
: much of a defining feature as the notes themselves.
:
Perhaps, perhaps not.
:
: For exapmle Todi would never sound like it should if the gamakas
: on 'ga' and 'ni' are not handled properly, whatever else you might
: do.
:
Ah, thou hast not listened to Todi in all her glory.
I grew up intensely disliking Todi as I listened to her murdered
at the hands of "gamaka-gayakas" like Semmangudi, who seemed to
chew, grind and maul the notes as if even a little bit of plain
singing would be a catastrophe. It took Balamurali to bring me
to the conclusion that Todi is my favorite raga (yes, even more
preferred than Gavambodhi or Hatakambari; but then Balamurali
should be the one singing it).
I have a recording of Balamurali singing "Emi chesite nemi"
followed by a svara-prasthara that would make gamaka-purists
blanch---but it is Todi nonetheless. He holds the tara sthayi
gandhara for a number of minutes singing the "ga" with and
without gamaka in many different permutations; to refer to
another RMIC discussion, Balamurali was, for a few minutes,
singing "sada-gandhara".
Or take the "Todi" cassette from Sangeetha---Balamurali singing
compositions of Tyagaraja and Dikshitar (along with his own
"Saraguna" varnam) in Todi. In the alapana to the kritis "Enduku
dayaraaduraa" and "Daakshayani abhayaambike" he demonstrates the
change of graha from Todi to Kalyani and back. The change is
gradual, a touch here and a touch there. With each shift of the
stress in graha you get the feeling of departure from Todi and
the shift to something else. And yet, no major gamaka change has
occurred. After a while the feeling of Kalyani becomes more and
more predominant (and still there is no gamaka change). You
realize that the singer has pulled a fast one right before your
ears. It is like watching those optical illusions of a vase
transforming into a bowl---each change is subtle and it is
impossible to say when the transition from one form to the other
took place. Finally, as if to clear any last lingering doubts
you may have (or to let you know that you have been asleep),
Balamurali sings a few phrases of Kalyani with all the
"characteristic" gamakas before returning with a flourish to
Todi. But this final stretch was only for the "slow-pokes" and
the inattentives---everyone else has long before realized the
change and the end point.
He does exactly the reverse in a HMV recording in the alapana to
the Kalyani kriti "Ninnuvina gati gaana jagaana"---an almost
imperceptible shift from Kalyani to Todi _without_ gamaka change.
But you know that the starting point and the ending point are
different and do correspond to Kalyani and Todi rspy.
Or that grand-daddy of all graha-beda cycles---the Natabhairavi
pallavi "Sarigamapadani paadedha" where you get to hear Kalyani,
Sankarabharanam, Kharaharapriya, and Todi (Balamurali does not
sing Harikambhoji here).
Or that incredible "dhaivata-less" shift from Gangeyabhushani
(during the svara-prasthara in the Tyagaraja kriti "[ni sari]
Evvare raamayya") to Neetimati. This graha-beda is truly
pleasurable to discover since the clues from the shatsruti
dhaivata of Neetimati are not heard. You have _got_ to be
vigilant to enjoy this joke with Balamurali. Clearly, he is not
spoon-feeding you, the listener, but expects you to work a
little.
I could go on and on.
Just because some people perform graha-beda incompetently does
not mean that the procedure does not have any validity.
Likewise, just because the "characteristic" (really meaning,
"commonly heard") gamakas are absent does not mean that the
effect of a tonic change cannot be perceived.
If your local public library has a copy, pick up a recently
released recording of some of the vocal music composed by
Hildegaard of Bingen. If you cannot identify Todi among the
pieces there, you must ask yourself if you really know what Todi
is.
Yes, a raga is _often_ characterized by a specialization of
gamakas. But insisting that only these gamakas can ever be used
and anything else does not constitute the same raga (or even a
raga at all) is falling into the dakshinist trap of nitpicking
over-diversification.
Here is a puzzle for all gamaka-purists among you. Listen to
recordings of the following compositions of John Cage: "In a
Landscape", "Bacchanale", and "Souvenir" (I think) for organ and
tell me what carnatic raga (if any ;-) they correspond to.
Obviously, I am not asking a question which has a null answer.
While you are at it, where in Lou Harrison's compositions can you
find Todi, Sudha dhanyasi, Mohanam, Rishabapriya, and
Rasikapriya. Now, it is not surprising to find pentatonic
scales of the Mohanam graha-beda clique (Mohanam, Sudha dhanyasi,
Sudha saveri, Madhyamavati and Hindolam) in world music. But
Rasikapriya? Todi? Rishabhapriya? In the music of one of the
well-respected composers of 20th century music of the western
classical tradition? Listen and you will find out.
I can show you examples of really good Charukesi in Hungarian
folk music and Shanmukapriya in Southeast Asian laments. And at
the risk of sounding elitist, I must say that anyone who is
unable to hear the carnatic ragas in these diverse musical forms
really does not understand what a raga is.
Assuming that only "Emi chesite nemi" (and the like) can
constitute Todi or that only "Nanu paalimpa" (and the like) can
constitute Mohanam makes no sense to me (sometime back someone
posted a claim to this newsgroup that Yesudas singing a song in
Arabic in praise of Allah cannot constitute carnatic music
because neither the subject matter nor the linguistic base was
"traditional" to carnatic music---gamaka-purism is not very
different).
The concept of a raga is far more powerful and general than what
purists would allow, but a more unifying attitude also allows one
to enjoy more music than otherwise.
:
: And quite apart can someone comment on how one assigns janya
: ragaas to their parents? One can derive a given non-sampurna
: raga from more than one parent raga which differ by half
: notes. Is the assignment made on the basis of gamakas?
:
I have some opinions on this topic as well (what a surprise!!).
Try the URL:
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~krisna/rmic/rmic.1992.07.25.html
Also note the date (this is the benefit of archiving).
--Krishna
ramaprasad_k_v
In article <56q1h5$m...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu says...
>
>Of course, this viewpoint also admits the possibility that two different ragas
>can have the same scale. I have seen scales that are very close give rise to
>different ragas. But in my limited experience, haven't come across two different
>ragas from exactly the same scale.
>
>
> --Chandramouli
>
What about Aabhi ( when used without Ni as in some pieces ) and Sama ?
At least in Hindustani there are several instances of same scale,
different raga ;
S R2 G2 P D2 S - S D2 P G2 R2 S - is the scale for Bhoop, Deshkaar
and Pahadi ( That is shuddh pahaadi )
S R1 G2 M2 D2 N2 S - S N2 D2 M2 G2 R1 S is the scale of Sohini, Maarwa
and Pooria.
Ramaprasad K V
p.s : Hindustani svara notation used ; I - Komal, 2 - Teevra
V. Chandramouli
In article <56rbuj$a...@lana.zippo.com>, Ramaprasad K V writes:
|> In article <56q1h5$m...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu says...
|> >
|>
|>
|>
|> At least in Hindustani there are several instances of same scale,
|> different raga ;
|>
|>
|> S R2 G2 P D2 S - S D2 P G2 R2 S - is the scale for Bhoop, Deshkaar
|> and Pahadi ( That is shuddh pahaadi )
|>
|> S R1 G2 M2 D2 N2 S - S N2 D2 M2 G2 R1 S is the scale of Sohini, Maarwa
|> and Pooria.
|>
|> Ramaprasad K V
|>
|> p.s : Hindustani svara notation used ; I - Komal, 2 - Teevra
Arabhi is defined with a N3 so it is not the same scale as Sama. However, I
would like to know how Arabhi compares vis-a-vis Sama when played without N3?
I haven't learnt any kriti in either so I can't comment. As for listening,
I haven't listened to Sama much. I feel in Arabhi the phrases PMGRSR which
end in SR are common with no emphasis on G (no halts; just touch it as you go
down) whereas in Sama the G is more prominent. In fact, if this is true, then
Sama should never be played with G being almost absent as is done in Arabhi.
Also, in the H ragas you mentioned with same scale, how different are the
ragas? I don't listen to H music much, so I don't know.
--Chandramouli
Dakshin
In article <56p0ej$6...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
Krishna Kunchithapadam <kri...@mary-ann.cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
>The concept of a raga is far more powerful and general than what
>purists would allow, but a more unifying attitude also allows one
>to enjoy more music than otherwise.
With that piece of very apt advice, and going past the obvious
that ragas have resonances in foreign music outside Indian
geographical bounds (like natural language), the accomplishment
of graha-beda is not transending our music to either a global
unified sense of music or an awareness of the inherent difficulty
in performing the feat (snake charmers in comparison have been
widely recognized and viewed with uninhibited scepticism ). It however
sends me the message that fun things happen by sheer accident in all
cultures.
To propose a new law: any deviation from the traditional raga alapana
is bound to be funny at first.
The exception is: if the deviation is itself traditional (such as graha beda
or sruti beda).
Enough said.
Dakshin
--
Dakshin Gandikota, Ph.D.
Rm. 1D-260N, AT&T Labs
6200 E.Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43213 614-860-6006
Unknown
In article <56v7bo$m...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu says...
>|> In article <56q1h5$m...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu says...
>Arabhi is defined with a N3 so it is not the same scale as Sama. However, I
>would like to know how Arabhi compares vis-a-vis Sama when played without N3?
Arabhi is defined with N3, but there are kritis which totally exclude it.
I think sAdhinchene is one such. The ocscillations on R (in Sama)
and the alpatva for G in Arabhi distingush then.
> I feel in Arabhi the phrases PMGRSR whichend in SR are common with no emphasis
> on G (no halts; just touch it as you godown) whereas in Sama the G is more
> prominent. In fact, if this is true, then Sama should never be played with G
> being almost absent as is done in Arabhi.
Agree with you.
>Also, in the H ragas you mentioned with same scale, how different are the
>ragas? I don't listen to H music much, so I don't know.
Whatever Hindustani music I know, is only thro' listening ; So
netters , please correct me if I'm wrong.
I have not heard much of Deshkar. ( A question here - Is Deshkar
not actively sung in performances ? ) But what I have read is that
it is an Uttaranga pradahana with emphasis on P D S while Bhoop is
porvanga pradghana ( S R G) In Karnataka sangIta, this poorvanga
pradhana and Uttaraanga pradhana distinctions don't exist ; So mOhana
can be identified with both Bhoop and Deshkar.
In Pahadi , the sancharas move around mandrasthayi P - D and madhya
shtayi S R G ; ( And of course , since Pahadi is supposed to be
originated with folk music, many people bring in M , N also )
As for as Sohini, Marwa and Pooriya ; I can't really talk about
the vadi - samvadi relationships in these ragas. Simply told ,
Sohini is very similar to hamsAnandi with the uttarAnga dominating
Pooria uses the same svaras,and pUrvAnga dominates. Marwa, is
charecterised by repeating NRGMDNR - dancharas' ( sa varjya) -with
frequent halts on R.
Ramaprasad K V
Upender R. Sandadi
V. Chandramouli wrote:
>
>I have seen scales that are very close give rise to different ragas.
> But in my limited experience, haven't come across two different
> ragas from exactly the same scale.
>
> --Chandramouli
>
Doesn't Arabhi and Devagandhari have the same scale?
-Upender
Dakshin
In article <573abv$f...@lana.zippo.com>,
r...@genius.tisl.soft.net <Ramaprasad K V> wrote:
> it is an Uttaranga pradahana with emphasis on P D S while Bhoop is
> porvanga pradghana ( S R G) In Karnataka sangIta, this poorvanga
> pradhana and Uttaraanga pradhana distinctions don't exist ; So mOhana
> can be identified with both Bhoop and Deshkar.
Athana is a poorvanga pradhana raga according to the principal of
Hyderabad music college Dr.N.C.Satyanarayana. So I presume these
angas are important for some Carnatic theoreticians. I however wonder
why in practice he used the uttaranga swaras freely in the sanchara of
athana as though the distinction were not there.
L Ramakrishnan
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Upender R. Sandadi wrote:
> Doesn't Arabhi and Devagandhari have the same scale?
Yes, if you take a non-vakra approach in defining the avarOhaNa of
dEvagAndhArI. I have never heard s-n-d-p-m-g-r-s usage in it, though.
I suppose one could similarly make a case for kEdAragauLa and suruTi
having the same scale. Their relationship is comparable to that between
sAma and ArabhI, the latter defined without niShAda as in tyAgarAja kRtis.
Ramki
==============================================================
L Ramki Ramakrishnan ra...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Department of Zoology uts.cc.utexas.edu/~ramakris
University of Texas (512) 471-1456 wk
Austin, Texas 78712 (512) 322-0638 hm
==============================================================
C. M. Venkatachalam
L Ramakrishnan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Upender R. Sandadi wrote:
>
> > Doesn't Arabhi and Devagandhari have the same scale?
>
> Yes, if you take a non-vakra approach in defining the avarOhaNa of
> dEvagAndhArI. I have never heard s-n-d-p-m-g-r-s usage in it, though.
>
> I suppose one could similarly make a case for kEdAragauLa and suruTi
> having the same scale. Their relationship is comparable to that between
> sAma and ArabhI, the latter defined without niShAda as in tyAgarAja kRtis.
>
> Ramki
Also, the big difference between Arabhi and dEvagAndhAri is in the use
of gAndhAram. True they are both janyams of dhIras'ankarAbharaNam. But
in Arabhi, in the avarOhaNam, sing the phrase <mgrs> you will see you
willhave to start the gAndhAram alomost from madhyamam and slide down to
riSabham - this gAndhAram in Arabhi is often called a 'durbala swara', a
weak swara. On the other hand in devagAndhAri, the gAndhAram stands out,
a long lingering note, a prominent one; may be this why it is called
devagAndhAri!
Further, the niSAsham of dEvagAndhAri is a bhASAnga svaram, permitting
kais'iki niSAdham also.
C. M. Venkatachalam
V.Santhanagopalan
r...@genius.tisl.soft.net wrote:
>
> In article <56v7bo$m...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu says...
>
> >|> In article <56q1h5$m...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu says...
>
> >Arabhi is defined with a N3 so it is not the same scale as Sama. However, I
> >would like to know how Arabhi compares vis-a-vis Sama when played without N3?
>
> Arabhi is defined with N3, but there are kritis which totally exclude it.
> I think sAdhinchene is one such. The ocscillations on R (in Sama)
> and the alpatva for G in Arabhi distingush then.
>
> > I feel in Arabhi the phrases PMGRSR whichend in SR are common with no emphasis
> > on G (no halts; just touch it as you godown) whereas in Sama the G is more
> > prominent. In fact, if this is true, then Sama should never be played with G
> > being almost absent as is done in Arabhi.
>
> Agree with you.
>
> >Also, in the H ragas you mentioned with same scale, how different are the
> >ragas? I don't listen to H music much, so I don't know.
>
> Whatever Hindustani music I know, is only thro' listening ; So
> netters , please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> I have not heard much of Deshkar. ( A question here - Is Deshkar
> not actively sung in performances ? ) But what I have read is that
> porvanga pradghana ( S R G) In Karnataka sangIta, this poorvanga
> pradhana and Uttaraanga pradhana distinctions don't exist ; So mOhana
> can be identified with both Bhoop and Deshkar.
>
> shtayi S R G ; ( And of course , since Pahadi is supposed to be
> originated with folk music, many people bring in M , N also )
>
> As for as Sohini, Marwa and Pooriya ; I can't really talk about
> the vadi - samvadi relationships in these ragas. Simply told ,
> Sohini is very similar to hamsAnandi with the uttarAnga dominating
> Pooria uses the same svaras,and pUrvAnga dominates. Marwa, is
> charecterised by repeating NRGMDNR - dancharas' ( sa varjya) -with
> frequent halts on R.
>
> Ramaprasad K V
Sadinchane does not exclude the N3 at all. In fact, even at the
beginning, it is used..
No comments on the H ragas.
V.Santhanagopalan
Upender R. Sandadi wrote:
>
> V. Chandramouli wrote:
> >
> >I have seen scales that are very close give rise to different ragas.
> > But in my limited experience, haven't come across two different
> > ragas from exactly the same scale.
> >
> > --Chandramouli
> >
>
>
Doesnt Devagandhari have two N's? If so, they dont have the same scale.
University of Missouri K.C. Lab User
Ramaprasad, K, V wrote:
>
> In article <56q1h5$m...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu says...
> >
>
> >different ragas. But in my limited experience, haven't come across two different
> >ragas from exactly the same scale.
> >
> >
> > --Chandramouli
> >
>
>
> At least in Hindustani there are several instances of same scale,
> different raga ;
>
> S R2 G2 P D2 S - S D2 P G2 R2 S - is the scale for Bhoop, Deshkaar
> and Pahadi ( That is shuddh pahaadi )
>
> S R1 G2 M2 D2 N2 S - S N2 D2 M2 G2 R1 S is the scale of Sohini, Maarwa
> and Pooria.
>
> Ramaprasad K V
>
> p.s : Hindustani svara notation used ; I - Komal, 2 - Teevra
Um, Don't Shuddha Saveri, Devakriya and Durga all have the same scale?
V. Chandramouli
In article <57ieci$8...@ns2.umkc.edu>, "University of Missouri K.C. Lab User" <nom...@nomail.umkc.edu> writes:
[**** A nameless entity wrote: ************]
|>
|> Um, Don't Shuddha Saveri, Devakriya and Durga all have the same scale?
Devakriya is another name for Shuddha Saveri used by some
people (Dikshitar school ?). So it not a valid example of "same scale but
different raga". For eg, I can call raga Todi as raga Chandra and play it the
way it is traditionally played (ie a trained ear would hear it as Todi).
As for Durga, I don't know. The name seems Hindustani to me.
--Chandramouli
ramaprasad_k_v
In article <57krp1$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, vcha...@dip.eecs.umich.edu says...
Yes, Durga is Hindustani - these days many have started singing
in Karnataka style also - generally for compositions liketo
dEvara nAma, bhajan , shlOka etc
The difference is that in Durga , the sanchara goes like
S R M P D S - S D M P D M (P M) R S
Emphasis is given to the S D M and M P D M phrases.
While in Shuddha savei, it is S D P M
Ramaprasad K V
r...@genius.tisl.soft.net
Chandra S Nurani
And what about Darbar and Nayaki?
ChristianAMR
Works also with Gujri Todi .
Krishnan Rajendram
> Interesting example in the first posts about bringing out Malkauns from the Gandhar of Miyan ki Todi ( I took the Hindst equivalents ) .
> Works also with Gujri Todi .