Celebrated Masters on ITC-SRA - Gajananbuwa
Abhishek
http://www.itcsra.org/celebrated_masters.asp
There is a beautiful beautiful Bihag with (I think) Ulhasji giving
sangat to buwa. It made me, quite simply, very happy to hear a good
Bihag after a long time.
Enjoy...
~
Abhishek
Imnot Apadmashri
> http://www.itcsra.org/celebrated_masters.asp
Wow!
Sadly, ITC-SRA doesn't mention the source of the recording. It (the
recording, not SRA's slience) is curious in several ways. The left
and right channels seem switched - the harmonium is clearly on the
left - but that is a small matter. It was not an everyday matter for
Buwa to sing one raga for nearly 50 minutes. In that much time he
would normally go through two (and you were lucky if you knew the name
of one of them). He must have been in great mood that night. From
the immortalized audience sounds it seems it was his home turf - may
be Dombivali or a place where his regulars gathered. As usual, Buwa
is singing Bihag and Tilwada in about equal quantities, and the
listeners are with him all the way. There is even one guy who laughs
when a sam is well-caught! (It's not Buwa himself, though he was
quite capable of doing so.)
His brief biography on the page mentions his mastery of the violin,
but misses out on his authority as a tabaliya. I believe another son
of his, Narayanrao, learned tabla from Buwa. It is also said that
Buwa asked his voice students to memorize tabla tukdas.
Anyway, thanks again, Abhishek.
DG
Abhishek
wrote:
Thanks for the comments DG - some very astute observations...
Minor quibble - actually, I have heard quite a few recordings where he
sings a raga for well over 50 minutes. A magnificent Shree comes to
mind as does a Chhayanat and a Ramkali* (all these replete with nom-
tom alaaps). In my book Buwa could very well do what he pleased - his
15 minute Raisa was (is) as complete as his 50 minute Bihag.
~
Abhishek
P.S. OK the Ramkali is 45 minutes - but you get my point...
Asha
~Asha
> P.S. OK the Ramkali is 45 minutes - but you get my point...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
vinay pande
>
> - Show quoted text -
first hear paluskar's "gore gore mukh par.." bageshree kanada.
then hear this...
aiii aiii aiii aiii aiii aiii aiii..followed by 3 incomprehensible
words of what must once have been a khayal bandish ...and then
dhummmmm ( bhurji khan style arrival at sam)
the ratanjankar style voice production doesnt help, nor does the
obtrusive cacaphonium.
and it must be dombivalli or some such place. ( the audience responds
with "wowwa wowwa" at the sam, instead of waah waah. a dead giveaway)
i dont mean to be unfair. its not entirely unpleasant, and i would
rather hear gajanabuwa than absolutely any 3rd generation progeny of
some long lost buwa masquerading as a contemporary musician. but
really...cant the ITC guys show some discretion and taste? there is
still a long way to go in historical recordings before you reach the
bottom of the barrel.
Abhishek
Vinay,
I was going to post a invective-laiden rejoinder, but then I realized
- why bother?
So to put it succinctly - Haathi Chalte Hain, Kutte Bhaukte Hain.
~
Abhishek
P.S. I *have* heard and love Paluskar 'Gore Gore Mukh Par'.
jagdish
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am just referring to Bhuraji khan style Sum , I hope you may have
some recordings of his. if you have it can we listen one peice of it ?
I know whole recording is too much to ask.
Thanks I will appreciate it.
Jagdish
Abhishek
As per my knowledge, there are no authenticated extant recordings of
Bhurji Khan/Alladiya Khan. There have been a few hoaxes perpetrated on
RMIC, of course. Maybe that's where Vinay is getting his exposure to
BK from...
All of which begs the question, when did Vinay get a chance to hear
this 'Bhurji Khan style sum' (sic!). BTW Vinay, as insults go this is
probably top on my list of (inadvertently) backhanded ones.
For the rest of us here's a self-help article on how to deal with
Vinay and ilk.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1111227/how_to_deal_with_negative_people_backhanded.html
~
Abhishek
Imnot Apadmashri
12:55 pm (by Google's clock). His irritation from Vinay Pande's
"assessment" doesn't seem to subside.
Forgive him, Abhishek, for he knows not. From his comment on voice
production it appears he's never heard of Agra Gharana I don't know if
anyone likes their sound, but one learns to accept it. And from his
comment on "sam" he hassn't noticed the precision with which it is
reached - a natural consequence of not keeping track of the tala cycle
- hey, what is all the commotion about?
DG
Abubakr
> On Nov 30, Abhishek <asin...@gmail.com> posted at 8:31 am and again at
> 12:55 pm (by Google's clock). His irritation from Vinay Pande's
> "assessment" doesn't seem to subside.
>
> Forgive him, Abhishek, for he knows not. From his comment on voice
> production it appears he's never heard of Agra Gharana I don't know if
> anyone likes their sound, but one learns to accept it.
I like their sound, a lot. Especially Sharafat Hussain's and Younus
Hussain's. Not particularly enamoured by Ratanjankar's voice though.
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> Hussain's.
Waah! Kaya Kehne!
> Not particularly enamoured by Ratanjankar's voice though.
No comments!
Gajananbua had something beyond a voice. I think it is what compels us
listening to bua. I felt/feel the same for Pandit Mallikarjun Manasoor
and Ulhas ji. They take us to a point where we enlighten ourselves
musically. Ignore Vinay's comments. that's the best we'd do.
~
VS
Havanur
wrote:
Cut him some slack guys. At least he approves of a Palus-kar despite
his phobia against musicians from or connected with Maharashtra.
Havanur
vinay pande
>
> - Show quoted text -
now thats going a bit too far. i have added a few kgs over the last
couple of years but i am not a "haathi", at least not yet. as for
kuttas---yes a kutta in pain does go "aiiii aiiii aiiii "so you may
have a point there.
no i have never heard bhurji khan obviously. i am only 52, not 102.
which is why i said bhurji khan STYLE approach to sam, employed by
mallikarjun and others, and not bhurji khan's approach to sam.
vinay pande
>
> ~
> Abhishek- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh, an even better source to go to would be spiro agnew ( nixon's vice
president , who was indicted for corruption and forced out of office
to be replaced by gerald ford.) he used to give speeches about the
"nattering nabobs of negativity" (aka liberals).
lets all go back to uncritical listening and indiscriminate
appreciation of any nonsense perpetrated on us, while the musicians
themselves laugh theirs heads off at how illiterate and stupid their
audiences are.
vinay pande
wrote:
i am sorry, why exactly should we suffer ratanjankar's voice
production??
yes i have heard lots of agra folk in person---khadim, latafat,
sharafat...the first two had awful voice production the third just
fine. but then hear khadim hussain's old recordings--he did have a
voice once, a beautiful voice. he lost it probably from overuse.
you can get used to anything, including bombay and delhi traffic. but
if you have a choice why would you inflict those on yourself?
vinay pande
i have no phobia against anybody. yes i do dislike natya sangeet
maquerading as classical music. i dislike excessive, pointless
taanbazi. ( even tho' i love his old recordings, i have to admit even
sharafat was guilty of that). and i really dislike mangling of the
text of old compositions to the point that the words become
meaningless. this is a special problem among singers who are non-
native speakers of the language and they dont all come from
maharashtra ( though many do) but other places too.
so instead of directing ad hominem comments at me perhaps someone
needs to launch a defence of
a) pointless taanbazi
b) the aesthetic merits of marathi stage music
c) the deliberate mangling of compositions. ( i recall i once had an
argument with a leading musicologist of yore who insisted khayal could
be sung in ANY language and proceeded to demonstrate twinkle twinkle
little star in pilu.)
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> production??
There is a point, Vinay. I've been disappointed countless times for
such type of muffling with the words. Clearly it is a very habit our
musicians have developed. It becomes quite unbearable, particularly
when the musician has a nasal accent. Many a times I've confined
myself to the note-spectrum while listening to many of our vocalists.
I waited till a time (long time indeed) till I talked to a senior
singer of alladiya gharana to know what are the exact words of kukubh
bilawal's bandish "hari devata", sung by mallikarjun manasoor for his
music today album. I'm still on the task of deciphering the words of
"Bhaja Re Mana Vishwanatha", a dhrupad in kedar sung by almost all
dagars.
~
VS
Imnot Apadmashri
some "फण".
On Dec 4, 3:23 am, vinay pande <vinayspa...@gmail.com> spoke of
> ... a leading musicologist of yore (who) proceeded to demonstrate
> twinkle twinkle little star in pilu.)
Why, Pt. Ajoy C reportedly sings an English language bandish in Miyan
Malhar. But if you prefer nursery rhymes (at least no one will ask
what it means), try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmdAF4ihedM
DG
C Parthapratim
I am not sure if it can be researched and documented and proved
historically, but I believe that such voice production, obscurization
of lyrics, and for that matter such listening habits of concentrating
only on the note spectrum are connected with each other and with a
(mis)representation of the basic features of the HCM. Since it is
believed that "the notes spectrum" is the only thing that conjures up
into music, and that combinatorics of the phrases and notes is all
about Raga Sangit; and since it is the legacy where Tarana is
possible, it's only logical that such music would pass. Khayal is an
"Anivaddha" form, and therefore it can't be limited by metre,
syllables, sound quality (and according to some post-modern pundits,
by 'Sur') etc.. An open form is often exaggerated as an all-side-open
and formless matrix.
It doesn't happen in the domain of semi-classical, thumri, ghazal etc.
That kind of music is dependent on lyric, Khayal is not. Dhrupad is
also "Nivaddha" and to some extent dependent on lyrics, but then
Dagarvani probably doesn't represent that orthodox Dhrupad. Modern
Dhrupad as Dagar's is often a hybrid with Khayal.
Again, which is only logical, when I would listen to Khayal/Tarana/
Khayalnuma I wouldn't bother about such mundane things as voice,
pronunciation, etc but would focus more on Sur and combinations
thereof. When I would listen to a Dadra or Kajri, I would follow the
lyric and Bhav all ears along with Sur, and NOT the other way round.
Vishwaroopa Sharma
See, mine is a simple point. When you have chosen a bandish, sing it
properly. Many a times we find a very soothing poetry in which number
of emotional nuances could be invoked if the singer knows the song
well. In classical context (of Sanskrit stage and poetry) it is called
as Vaachikaabhinaya. This is a quite powerful device as far as the
rasa and ranjana are concerned. I don't deny the depth of an alap.
But, it is my experience that after a time such an abstraction would
start sounding too much repetitive. A wise singer often use his
bandish and its inherent capabilities to avoid this monotony. Muffling
of the words would restrain the listeners to receive it as an extended
part of the alap, if not worse. Provided this is the case, why singer
bother to sing a 'song'? Rather they could express themselves much
more freely by meaningless words.
Even the strongest tarana exponent, Amir Khan, clearly sang the
bandishes. I've even heard an interview of AK, where he made it
explicit that clear words are his preference. As far as I know he
never sang the meaningless words (taranas in your case, at least) as a
main course of his performance. He topped the taranas up a clearly
rendered khayal. On the other hand we have Bade Ghulam Ali, who many a
times recited the bandishes he sang. DVP's clarity is something
everybody is aware of. Zakiruddin Khan's descendants (Ziauddin, Z M &
Z F, their disciples Gundecha Brothers, Uday Bhawalkar) of Dagar
Dhrupad tradition are known for their clear rendition of words (in
alap too).
You may choose to enjoy a musical performance as an abstract entity. I
don't refute. At the same time I cannot.
By the way, your claim on Dagar's dhrupad is something like a
guesswork. It cannot be proved unless some audio documentation of at
least 200 years are produced in support (which nobody can dare!).
Frankly it doesn't make any difference to me if they sing a hybrid or
120% original+'genuine'+'authorised' dhrupad. The matter of
consideration is they have developed a fine musical tradition and it
sounds very nice to me.
~
VS
Imnot Apadmashri
You asked for audio documentation of
> at least 200 years
Now the earliest "phonoautograph" dates back to only 1857. What
exactly were you hoping to achieve by making a demand which will take
at least 48 years to fulfill? Do you really think you will live that
long?
DG
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> exactly were you hoping to achieve by making a demand which will take
> at least 48 years to fulfill?
Nothing serious. It is just a gueswork to say dagar dhrupad is a
hybrid, unless we know how dhrupad was originally sung. As far as
dhrupad traditions are concerned, every singing style claims its
authenticity. The authenticity in this case is how old it is. Coming
back to dhrupad, we don't even have the recordings of Ziauddin Khan,
who lived and performed when BGAK, AKK recorded themselves. Therefore
it is futile to talk that speculatively when one cannot substantiate
his point by concrete evidences. To tell you some of similar
guessworks is influence of Rahimat Khan on Alladiya's sons.
> Do you really think you will live that
> long?
Of course not! For this life, I've enough of good dhrupad archives to
fill my soul. And most importantly I don't speculate on these
subjects.
~
VS
C Parthapratim
Actually there is not much scope for speculation in it. The old
theories are there about the major parts of Dhrupad singing
(reappropriated in Khayal as chaar tuk), also eight limbs are there;
there are clear instructions about clearly communicating the lyric and
all its meaning; and these not present in this modern Dhrupad. One
doesn't need wild speculation to conclude that this is not that
Dhrupad what we are reading about. Modern Dhrupad is a re-discovered
and re-engineered format filtered through instrumentals like Veenkari,
and there is enough proof for that.
However in my previous mail there was a sarcasm related to (mis)
representation, and VS missed that completely, dunno why. However,
there are several reasons of deliberate ambiguity of the lyric, like
ustaads being scared of stealing their cheez by unauthorized listeners
and would-be-singers. But presenting the Amirkhani legacy as opposed
to that obscurization would not be of much help. Amir Khan Sahib's
recommended structure presents the Sthayee lyric only once and that
too right at the beginning, and there is hardly any further exposition
of the poetry, and he often skipped the Antaraa that completes the
poetry. Yet when he says that "Gaane me poetry honi chahiye" -- he is
undoubtedly talking about a different poetry, not that of the
Vandeesh. And yes, in his diction Taranas are not meaningless, each
and every syllable being derived from meaningful Persian words, though
I am yet to understand how did he explore the "meanings" in his
singing.
On the other hand, it's only the Gwalior people and Agra people who
insist on clear lyrics, "thons vandish" (tight composition). Many
examples are there like the Paluskars and Kashalkars. I don't find
Gajananbua's accent any different from that tradition. SRA presented a
bad quality of recording, but little filter-works present a much
better audio experience, and I can imagine Ulhas-bua, 20 years later,
presenting something similar. At any point of time it is certainly
truer to the lyric than BJ's prolonged eeeeeeee... or NHK's "bal-bal-
bal-balama re". But that never means that BJ or NHK are any inferior
to Paluskar as Singers.
Partha
vinay pande
>
> - Show quoted text -
"See, mine is a simple point. When you have chosen a bandish, sing it
properly."
hear, hear.....there's more sound common sense there than anywhere
else in this thread.
now look up your platt's dictionary, for example, and it will
translate "khayal" ( or "khyal") a word that has many meanings ( and
is, i presume, farsi in origin) most appropriately in our context as a
thought, or an idea, or a composition. why on earth would you ever
present a thought idea or composition in an incomprehensible fashion?
i can think of two oe three situations:
1/ you are deliberately trying to obscure the lyric so no one copies
your composition. a plausible but less likely explanation i think ....
2/ you are illiterate or else have been taught by someone who is
illiterate, or whose language skills are challenged, and have,
therefore, no clue what you are singing. and further, if you are
performing before an audience whose language skills are also
challenged why even bother to sing the composition correctly? because
surely then you can get away with aiii, aiii, aiii gajanan bua style;
or yeh, yeh kumar gandharva style. ( and yes paluskar also mangled
compositions as have many others, and amir khan would drop antaraas,
unforgivable i think for someone who spoke urdu very well.)
3/ i think the plot goes even deeper. since much of north indian
poetry of the 17th and 18th cent (eg raskhan and others) was quite
openly love poetry, erotic even, it would appear likely that khayal
compositions were also love poetry. and if you happen to be a prude,
or someone who has grown ashamed of your own heritage because you have
succumbed to colonial propaganda, or claim to be a "reformer" -- aka a
brown sahib--who wants to make hinduism and islam resemble the
colonial's religion as it is being practised in the 19th cent--wont
you be tempted to obscure the lyrics quite deliberately??? and then
pretend that what you have done is to spiritually cleanse the music
form??
so, how different does that make you from taliban?
or the indian version of taliban, a naxalite??
v
v
C Parthapratim
Reason three is too far fetched. Is there any overlap between these
two classes, coconuts and khyaliya? I can think of only one,
Bhatkhande himself, and as he was not a performer -- his influence on
such things is negligible. So I have no comments on that interjection,
this was simply not the case.
Reason two and one are plausible. But onus lies on you,Vinay, to point
out the exact location in Gajananbua's recording what you say aii,
aii. Frankly speaking I don't find any in the said recording or any of
his recordings apart from what was inevitable due to a very mature
age.
Partha
Abubakr
Hi, just a minor quibble: why do you say 'vandish' when it is bandish?
Abubakr
It's Arabic in origin but may have entered Hindustani languages
through the auspices of Farsi...
C Parthapratim
True, it's bandish, and I made the same typo on both occasions.
Partha
vinay pande
>
> - Show quoted text -
start listening at 1.24 and you will be hard put to find passages
where other than "dekho" you can comprehend even one word and where he
isnt singing aii aii or some proximate variation of that.i think you
have just gotten so used to aiii aiii that you cease to hear it or
notice it.
i wish reason 3 was that far fetched. i think the coconut - khayaliya
divide was first blurred in the old presidencies --calcutta and
bombay. and, no coincidence, it was also in these places where the
superb sarangi was first replaced by the ghastly cacophonium. ( and
who introduced the cacophonium to india?---missionaries)
listen-- i said it wasnt entirely unpleasant and given a choice
between this and much of what passes for vocal music these days
gajananbuwa wins hands down. but now do yourself a favour and listen
on the same itc website to, say, zamiruddin khan's bhimpalasi
( similar vintage, also singing at an advanced age. a khayal
recording, not thumri that he sang so well)
http://www.itcsra.org/treasures/treasure_past.asp?id=1
notice i am not saying go compare gajananbuwa to bade ghulam ali khan
or nissar hussain khan ( that would be completely unfair, like
comparing giants with ordinary folk) ;but is there one indistinct word
in zamiruddin's short recording? note further he is singing in a non-
native language -- he was, i presume, a native bengali and urdu
speaker.
C Parthapratim
> notice i am not saying go compare gajananbuwa to bade ghulam ali khan
> or nissar hussain khan ( that would be completely unfair, like
> comparing giants with ordinary folk) ;but is there one indistinct word
> in zamiruddin's short recording? note further he is singing in a non-
> native language -- he was, i presume, a native bengali and urdu
> speaker.
Okay, let's presume that you are right, but then, my point was how
does it matter? Essence of HCM is far beyond the lyrics or poetry of
the bandish, which is in most cases a second rate poetry or worse.
Partha
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> the bandish, which is in most cases a second rate poetry or worse.
I agree. Essence, to what extent? Muffling the words certainly invokes
a point of displeasure as does the nasal accent of the singer. It is
our sheer quest for the ragadari that we forget/neglect these
displeasures and look for what we need at the first place. This
attitude cannot be defended as the standard. Somewhere for those who
look at the wholesome, certainly this aches. Also, your stand on
poetry of our music cannot be agreed to the larger extent. Actually we
have the best bandishes meant specially for singing. All we need is a
good bandish which is at times 'singable' and on the other hand holds
some feeling. We don't need a poem like the first one of Shaakuntala
for our khayal, albeit it holds the highest poetic repute.
As an aside, (as Vinay's 1st point goes) most of the old musicians
were literally scared of their bandishes being leaked to opponents.
Kesarbai was believed to be very very scared in this regard. She used
to consciously delude the ragadari. I've heard that Agra ustads were
too liberal. Even then the great Aftab-e-mausiqi's 78rpm chhayanat
stands as another classic example for muffling. But, what the student
of music needs is the note-spectrum of the bandish rahter than the
words. So, muffling would be more to the discomfort of the listeners
than to the possible bootleggers.
Vinay's 2nd reason is quite plausible. I just remembered Bhimsen Joshi
and most of the people from old Mumbai province. I agree to the 3rd
one too. It is clearly the wetern onslaught that the modern, English
cultured Indians thought sex as the sin (as westerners do). It is sad
that our dignity towards erotica eventually became guilt.
~VS
Havanur
> > Essence of HCM is far beyond the lyrics or poetry of
> > the bandish, which is in most cases a second rate poetry or worse.
>
> I agree. Essence, to what extent? Muffling the words certainly invokes
> a point of displeasure as does the nasal accent of the singer. It is
> our sheer quest for the ragadari that we forget/neglect these
> displeasures and look for what we need at the first place. This
> attitude cannot be defended as the standard. Somewhere for those who
> look at the wholesome, certainly this aches. Also, your stand on
> poetry of our music cannot be agreed to the larger extent. Actually we
> have the best bandishes meant specially for singing. All we need is a
> good bandish which is at times 'singable' and on the other hand holds
> some feeling. We don't need a poem like the first one of Shaakuntala
> for our khayal, albeit it holds the highest poetic repute.
>
Personally I find the literary content of most bandishes worse than
second rate. Probably a good thing that BJ muffles the words of his
"changae nainowali" or "mubarak baad" The text is so pedestrian
compared to the deep and majestic sentiments the ragas are supposed to
invoke. Forget the ragas, just picture Mallikarjun Mansur or Faiyyaz
Khan (the latter in full regalia) singing about the tinkling of their
anklets waking up mothers + sisters in law. Fortunately in these cases
the ragadaari rises well above the mediocrity of the sahitya and saves
the listeners. But not always. The first time I heard CR Vyas in his
ringing voice with all sincerity and devotion, "main kuleen ghar kii
brij naaree..." I burst out laughing. His clear enunciation highlights
the absurdity of the text and is a total distraction from the raga.
Enjoy the piece.
http://www.mediafire.com/?umnk2etwdwy
Havanur
Vishwaroopa Sharma
+
> singing about the tinkling of their
> anklets waking up mothers + sisters in law. Fortunately in these cases
> the ragadaari rises well above the mediocrity of the sahitya and saves
> the listeners.
How come "tinkling of their anklets waking up mothers + sisters in
law" become mediocre and absurd? It seems you are ashamed of the
content conveyed in the text. I'm sure Vinay has picked it up in his
3rd point. It seems you are a Kannadiga. (Your displayed name falls
couple of kilometres from the place I live:-) Please see how nicely
Kavichakravarty Ranna put it in his Gadayuddha. (Prathamashwaasa, 7th
padya)
"ಪದಿನಾಱಲ್ಲವಲಂಕ್ರಿಯಾರಚನೆ ಮೂವತ್ತಾರು ನೇರ್ಪಟ್ಟುವೊಂ
ದಿದ ’ಶೃಂಗಾರಮದಲ್ಲವೊಂದೆ ರಸ’ಮೊಂಬತ್ತೆಯ್ದೊಡಂಬಟ್ಟುವೆಂ
ಬುದನೆಂಬನ್ನೆಗಮಂಗನೋಚಿತರಸಾಲಂಕಾರಮಂ ತಾಳ್ದದೊ
ಪ್ಪಿದ ವಾಕ್ಸುಂದರಿ ಬಂದು ಸನ್ನಿಹಿತೆಯಕ್ಕೆನ್ನೀ ಮುಖಾಂಭೋಜದೊಳ್"
~
VS
Havanur
> How come "tinkling of their anklets waking up mothers + sisters in
> law" become mediocre and absurd? It seems you are ashamed of the
> content conveyed in the text.
> VS
The lyric in question is not worth being ashamed of even if I were a
prude. Surely a student of Ranna can apply the yardsticks of kavya
lakshanas and see that it does not have any poetic value? The text is
not absurd, it is just mediocre. But the sight of senior musicians
singing it with careful attention to proper uchcharana of every word
would inspire a sense of absurdity in me. I have no problems with
shringara bhava even if it gets graphic. If someone wants to describe
the rasa krida in his bandish, perfectly fine with me, most welcome.
But such is neither the intent nor the content of jhan jhan payal
baaje or a few thousand others with the same theme. There will be no
loss of rasanubhava (to me at least) if the words get obscured in the
khayal.
Havanur
PS - houdri yappa, naavoo alliyavara. Neevu hoLi a maggalige adeeranta
kaaNataiti. namma halegnnaDa swalpa dubaari, mundina sala oorige
bandaaga harigolu hatigonDu bandu nimmanna bheTyaagatenri
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> kaaNataiti. namma halegnnaDa swalpa dubaari, mundina sala oorige
> bandaaga harigolu hatigonDu bandu nimmanna bheTyaagatenri
ilree sira, navoo illE hoLi Ikadena iddEvi. nIvu bussinyaga bandra
sAkAgtada. hAvEri myAlindana hogabEkalla nIvu? :-)
~
VS
vinay
"most lyrics of khayals are second rate and therefore the words should
be or deserve to be obscured"--presumably with aiii aiii aiii dog-in-
pain like sounds???? this is so ridiculous !
have you ever heard a verdi or puccini opera? i presume you would
suggest to classical singers in the west to obscure the words with
some western version of taanbazi. fortunately, no singer here is
considered classically trained unless he or she has a working
knowledge of the language in which the opera is composed, italian,
german, whatever...only in india is it not just okay to be illiterate
but to wear your illiteracy proudly like a badge of honour.
obviously i am not suggesting that all khayal compositions are first
rate. indeed many of them appear fraudulent to me, ie i doubt poor
sadarang or adarang would recognize the scores of compositions
attributed to them by modern khayaliyas, especially the ones who elect
to pronounce their names "sadaraoooong" and "adaraoooong".
the other factor is that, unfortunately, much (if not most) poetry
suffers in translation. for example here is the refrain from the 11th
stanza of "the gardener" by tagore:
"come as you are; do not loiter over your toilet..."
no i did not make this up. this is tagore's own translation!
---
in passing i must tell you of a rendering of tagore (geetanjali??) in
english that i once heard in calcutta--from memory it went something
like this:
bhaaaaaay deed harp shtreeng break???????
becozhhh i plaacked eet too hard,
dhat is bhaay harp shtreeng broke...
----
never mind tagore and other formal poetry. folk forms in particular
suffer not just in translation but even when they are extracted from
their context.
next try hearing othello in marathi, or greek theatre in hindi--even
after we change names of well known characters to sukrat, pilaat and
aristu, it still sounds silly.
so presumably shakespeare and aeschylus should also be replaced by
aiii aiii aiii? no...you should try to learn the language in which
they wrote the original.
lets put it this way. if you have a problem with the words of khayal
compositions please do not sing. or, alternatively, confine yourself
to tinkle-tonkle instruments. or, better still, the cacophonium.
v
C Parthapratim
You are dragging yourself into a fallacy in the name of logic. The way
you put the statements is like A. the wordings are crap, and therefore
B. replace them with obscure sounds. But my logic was A. wordings are
crap AND B. other aspects like raagdari are superb, therefore C.
wordings MAY NOT BE that important while listening to the given genre,
and therefore D. I don't mind aiii-aiii, ya-ya, hua-hua. In the
process of understanding your processor has eaten up B and C, and then
with half of the information at hand you jump to a conclusion.
Alright, jump around wherever you wish, spare me.
Partha
Vishwaroopa Sharma
Your algorithm seems more like driving your brand new car *only* in
the first gear. Well, you can always use your car the way you wish.
Your logic remains invalid till you prove Vinay's expectations false.
Its unfortunate that you have not yet.
You cannot restrain somebody to get satisfied with what you have got
to satisfy yourself. Ragadari is your sole criterion for vocalism and
hence you DON'T MIND clearer pronunciation. The problem is your
logical loop creates a notion that clearer enunciation has no role at
all in vocalism, as seen throughout this thread. This is fatal. I
always expect a taseerdar voice. I love clearer pronunciations. If
these are absent, I start looking for what is the best in the
vocalist. Perhaps in this case it is ragadari and layakari of bua.
Well, I liked it. But, at the same time, one cannot deny the
expectations of somebody like Vinay, who is very critical about the
absent factors. One should accept that such factors are 'absent'
rather than proving the expectation itself is wrong. It not only
proves the audacity, but still lower stature of intellectual
degeneration.
~
VS
Warren
A singer's perspective:
Vowels are where melody lives. The more vowels there are in a given
song text, the more opportunity for holding notes and deriving the
aesthetic pleasures of intonation and melodic gesture.
Consonants are where rhythm lives. The more consonants in a given
song text, the more opportunity for shaping beat clusters and deriving
the aesthetic pleasures of rhythmic tension and release.
A general rule is that the more importance is attached to text
elements in a song, the less appropriate it is to emphasize other
elements in performance. Let's look at both ends of the continuum.
High priority of text: Vedic chant, Appalachian ballads, Bob Dylan.
Low priority of text: khyal, jazz scat singing, operatic aria.
But we notice that even though the text is a high priority in the
first group, that doesn't mean that there is *no* melody, only that
the melody is simple and repetitive. This provides a framework within
which the text is more readily appreciated (text recitation in an
uninflected monotone is a sure-fire way to strip the words of meaning
in short order), is more satisfying aesthetically, and provides
mnemonic assistance. A low-priority melody doesn't mean a "crappy"
melody; it means a melody that is appropriate to a high-priority text.
And, conversely, we notice that even though the text in the latter
group is a low priority, that doesn't mean that there is no text, only
that the text is simple and repetitive. This provides a framework
within which the melody is more readily appreciated (melody lines in a
continuous unmodulated vowel become undifferentiated gestures very
rapidly), is more satisfying aesthetically, and provides mnemonic
assistance. A low-priority text doesn't mean a "crappy" text; it
means a text that is appropriate to a high-priority melody.
When I sing a song in which the text is interesting (phonetically,
poetically or in meaning) I will refrain from gratuitous twiddly bits
and elaborate virtuoso displays; when I sing a song with a fascinating
melody I will soften consonant articulation and refrain from obvious
textual "interpretation."
When I have a song with both beautiful melody and lovely text...well,
that's a nice thing!
Warren
Imnot Apadmashri
Thanks, Warren, for the thoughtful post and for choosing an
appropriate subject line.
> When I have a song with both beautiful melody and lovely text...well,
> that's a nice thing!
Begum Akhtar immediately comes to mind, but strictly in the khyal
domain, folks, how about posting favourites?
Offhand, garavaa maisana laage and piyaase moraa kahiyo jaay
sandesavaa seem good starting points.
DG
C Parthapratim
@Viswaroopa: Again your analogy is poor. I suggested not going to the
third gear even before the car starts running on first gear though its
possible on some cars/bikes, but that doesn't mean I would stick to
the first gear only. However, on an old car, old model, if the second
gear slips, I won't mind skipping to the third after first. In fact
that's what I did.
Now why did the second gear slip? While agreeing fully with Warren's
text analysis from a singer's perspective, I'd take the cue from his
last lines: "When I have a song with both beautiful melody and lovely
text...". Now what is a good lyric. Each raga has a mood of its own,
an image, or a set of imageries constitute the Raga Dhyana. The lyric
must help to elaborate that Raga Dhyana. For Basant, there can't be
any better lyric than "Fagua brij dekhanko ..". But take Shahana, the
mood of the raga is based on the feelings of the Nayika after she
spends some quality moments with her beloved Pia, the time, according
to Shastra, is BEFORE dawn. However, when the lyric says "Noor ki
pehli kiran chhayo gagan me" (Abdul Hafiz) it's obviously not before
dawn, and I'd prefer these words muffled/obscured to save my ears from
the continuous pain of contradictions. I'd prefer the bandish "Janeman
Janeman" or even, "Raina beetaye mohan pia sang" to anything
contradictory or even an unrelated devotional theme. I'd like to
relate to the theme already there in the raga, who cares for the
lyrics? The singers themselves often have to suffer from such
contradictions, and the second gear would certainly slip.
Partha
Warren
wrote:
Some of my favorite drut and madhyalaya bandishes include:
Jogi jog liyo jag karan (Gorakh Kalyan)
Anganwa more naachi sanvariyaa (Shuddh Kalyan)
Vaari jaoon sakhi Shyaam sundar par (Yaman)
Pariye paay na vaake sajani (Jaunpuri)
Chalo hatho piya ab ghar naa aavo more (Patdeep)
Bansi bajaaye sundar pyaare (Shankara)
Hamari madaiyaa kaisi suni (Bihag)
Chandani raat ati bhaave sakhi (Paraj)
Painjaniyaa mori bajana laagi (Hindol)
Main to kaari aayi piya sanga rangaraliyaa (Puriya)
Balama mose karo na chhed ber ber (Gunkali)
All of these have attractive melodies and enjoyable lyrics.
WS
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> third gear even before the car starts running on first gear
It invokes a sheer fun when you miss the mark, as you continued to,
here. It is rather your problem that you don't expect other gears to
exist. And, those who counter you are not mads to jump directly to the
third. Being satisfied with only one one gear makes a subjective
choice and doesn't hold any valid reason for proferring. This was the
point in analogy/
> though its
> possible on some cars/bikes, but that doesn't mean I would stick to
> the first gear only. However, on an old car, old model, if the second
> gear slips, I won't mind skipping to the third after first. In fact
> that's what I did.
Then you should be honest to tell that your car has some problems.
What makes this thread funnier is the audacity of keeping a
problamatic car on high pedestal. In case somebody counters its
defects, you bounce back. Not only that, you try to legitimate your
defective car as "the standard car".
> Now why did the second gear slip? While agreeing fully with Warren's
> text analysis from a singer's perspective, I'd take the cue from his
> last lines: "When I have a song with both beautiful melody and lovely
> text...".
It is not the poetic value of your poetry. It is rather a linguistic
correction what we expect. Whatever you sing, your accent, clarity of
words etc must be proper. the lovelyness of the text is an altogether
different matter. Here again, you are trying to deride the vocal-
lingual appropriateness. Singing the way it is written is a
committment. If you have problems reciting the words, please please
sing without any bandish. You need a bandish to sing and to blame
afterwards for its inability to portrait the highly highly subjective
ragabhava. This is a clear use and throw formula. If you possess a
little bit of ethical stand towards your art, you must understand it.
A good ragadari elevates despite the poor vocalism. But that should
not be standardised. If you do so, I repeat it is your OWN preference.
Do not take pains to satisfy others.
> Now what is a good lyric. Each raga has a mood of its own,
> an image, or a set of imageries constitute the Raga Dhyana. The lyric
> must help to elaborate that Raga Dhyana. For Basant, there can't be
> any better lyric than "Fagua brij dekhanko ..". But take Shahana, the
> mood of the raga is based on the feelings of the Nayika after she
> spends some quality moments with her beloved Pia, the time, according
> to Shastra, is BEFORE dawn. However, when the lyric says "Noor ki
> pehli kiran chhayo gagan me" (Abdul Hafiz) it's obviously not before
> dawn, and I'd prefer these words muffled/obscured to save my ears from
> the continuous pain of contradictions. I'd prefer the bandish "Janeman
> Janeman" or even, "Raina beetaye mohan pia sang" to anything
> contradictory or even an unrelated devotional theme. I'd like to
> relate to the theme already there in the raga, who cares for the
> lyrics? The singers themselves often have to suffer from such
> contradictions, and the second gear would certainly slip.
Slip of the second gear is a highly scientific phenomenon. But all
those predecessors you added are your opinions threw lavishly across
the post. They don't deserve a worthy time, even to read. Those which
cannot be proved by objective parameters should not be brought into
public.
~
VS
C Parthapratim
1. Ragadhyan = Subjective something
2. Therefore it can't be observed objectively
3. I am preaching others to make their second gears slip
All of the above are false statements.
And you know what, in most cases we observe, the singers don't have
any choice about the bandish/text/value ... they just sing what they
are taught, and then they face the contradictions, and try to evade by
simply muffling the words. Why do you fail to recognize that the
entire legacy is full of inherent contradictions. My point from the
beginning was that muffling is a fall out of the contradictions (go
back to my first mail in this thread). Clear pronunciation is a self-
imposed criterion evolving only after the '50s and that doesn't go
well with whatever we are already handed down from 250 years of
praxis. You cannot DEMAND such things to happen always that is not
supported internally by the existing system. You need a new set of
Nayak-s for that to compose lyrics consistent with the modern
aesthetic and ethical values
Some people are already working in that line. It's better to cheer
them up, it's even better to take part in proper discussions to
analyze the moods/sentiments/rasa/dhyan of the commonly sung ragas.
Objectively.
Partha..
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> are taught,
Exactly this is what Vinay is telling from yore. When you have chosen
a bandish to sing from your mouth, at least give some proper attention
to pronounce it clearly. Do not take it granted. It is dishonesty of
the performer to uni-laterally sideline the bandish. What we say is a
good ragadari and a fairly well working knowledge of the bandish and
its linguistics is more soothing than the standalone ragadari. Looking
for only ragadari and thus bashing the bandish is what I called as
running the car in the first gear only. Your car moves, but cannot
unleash its entire performance for what it is made.
> and then they face the contradictions, and try to evade by
> simply muffling the words.
What type of contradictions? You say they sing what they have been
taught and then you top it up by saying they face contradictions. By
the word contradiction, followed by your earlier post, we are
invariably forced to infer that it (contradiction) cannot happen
unless the singer knows what exactly he is singing or how absurd are
his words of bandish. And to the comfort of the larger aesthetics,
they jump into the damage control by muffling the words. This is an
evasive conclusion.
I still consider Vinay's comments more commendable. Many of the
mufflers are new-era musicians and had very faint / no knowledge of
the bandish linguistics. Many of them absolutely lacked / still
lacking one of the finest aspects of vocalism "bol-banana". I love
Mallikarjun Manasoor a lot. But get upset by his muffling of the
words. Take for example, in Sugharai Kanada; he stirs the bandish so
badly that it starts sounding like a vocal gat with some peculiar
sounds. Faintly I could hear Piya Banajara...... Bhimsen Joshi opens
up with M"aun"dara Bajo re.... the reason is these musicians don't
know what their bandish is at all. They hardly new any good Hindi,
apart from their "kam Chalao" Hindi. On the other hand, those well
versed in that language (and those who actually put efforts to learn
what their bandish is) often gave a good picture of the bandish.
I summarise my point, as this thread is heading towards a word battle.
It is: The clearer pronunciation is a commitment of the artiste
towards his art. Whatever you sing but sing it so that everybody would
come to know what you’re bandish is made up of. If you think bandish
is not at all a primary point, then skip it. You can still show your
ragadari, like how dhrupadiyas do. To show your layakari, try singing
a gat of sitar / sarod. There is ample of scope. You cannot use and
deride a thing. It simply reveals an intellectual fraud.
vinay
partha--your ridiculous syllogism reminds me of the "logical proofs"
of the existence of god. they usually involve starting with a
fraudulent premise in the first place.
in your case it is A) the words are crap.
says who? and in how many cases? is it that you dont know the
language? or dont understand the context? when tagore implores that
the lady to not linger over her toilet is he referring to a WC? or is
it that the bengali word is difficult to translate? ie he could be
more accurate and say do not linger over your make-up set or do not
waste time applying mascara..would that sound better? or are we best
served in this case ( because translation is difficult) by muffling
the words and going aiiii aiiii and hua hua?
warren is spot on. the distinction between vowel accented and
consonant accented text is critical here. it is because vowel sounds
can be elongated or stretched and consonant sounds cannot. that is why
paluskar's bol taans sound so beautiful and why gajanan bua's effort
ranks behind it.
talking about beautiful khayal compositions, how about the beautiful
one paluskar renders in bageshree kanada? thats where this argument
started.
gore gore mukh par, besar suhayo...
now i doubt even 2-3 pct of khayaliyas or listeners understand what
the word "besar" in the opening line means. platts will tell you its
either a mule ( khacchar, a gadha unable to reproduce) or a nose ring.
obviously it means nose ring in this context. but since most people
dont know the meaning in either sense i am willing to predict that, in
a decade or two, it will be replaced by "besan" or "besur". and then
the parthas of the future will complain the lyrics are "ridiculous".
okay, now, lets spare poor gajanan bua. his culpability here is slight
compared to the excesses of today. and he was never a great singer,
just a good one.
let me, instead, step into the lion's den.lets compare the same khayal
composition rendered by paluskar and by amir khan. paluskar is far
more faithful to the text and respects the boundary warren has
( implicitly) drawn between aesthetically pleasing elongation of the
vowels vs being faithful to the text. amir khan, who should have known
better, (after all he was singing in his native tongue, paluskar was
not), does a far worse job of it. the horrible cacophonium does not
help. nor does the ati vilambit beat --you can walk around flora
fountain before he returns to sam. the problem with ati vilambit is it
encourages this sort of excess, a normal beat does not. and preferring
bol taans as the flourish is far wiser than indulging in pointless
taanbazi.
you should hear a western classical singer perform voice culture
exercises---its not too different from the way modern indian singers
sing. but the western classical singer knows that exercises intended
to train his voice are not intended to be performed on the concert
stage; no more than repetitious scales are intended for a concert
stage during a piano recital.
you know, i think the real tragedy is this discussion has gone on so
long! what sort of world do we live in where deliberate muffling of
texts in a vocal composition is not only forgiven, not just accepted,
but also encouraged???
taubaa, taubaa, taubaaa......!!!!
C Parthapratim
@Vinay: I'd suggest you do an experiment, in four lines.
1. Take the 75 most common ragas and their widely accepted "ragadhyan"
2. Take all the known/traditional cheez and compare the lyric with
"dhyan" (roughly 650)
3. Calculate the percentage of "true-to-emotion" lyrics.
4. See if more than 80% (i.e. most of them) are not 'true-to-
emotion' (crap in my diction).
I have also done this experiment on my collection of books and
recordings (which is by no means a small one you know).
What is not-even-funny-but-pathetic in my view that you believe
(honestly) that learning music must include learning Hindi/Urdu/Braj-
Bhasha/Persi/god-knows-what-more too. Music becomes secondary,
Bilaskhani becomes tertiary (and therefore who cares if it is Todi or
Bhairavi), but the correct wordings of "Nike Ghungariya" becomes
primary. I told you before, you are free to believe what you want,
just spare me.
P.S. when Tagore translated that one, "toiletry" was actually used
with that connotation, "cosmetics" was not discovered then, or was not
in vogue outside America. It sounds ridiculous now, and you are not
wrong to subscribe to what William Radice or Ketaki Kushari Dyson
thought, but then, you must be aware of the intertextual backdrop.
Partha
Akash
You can listen to some Bandishes composed by Pt. Gajananbua. Several
of his disciples and their disciples have sung these. They recently
published a MP3 CD with over 70 bandishes composed by Gajananbua & Pt.
Anant Manohar Joshi.
http://www.audiofarm.org/pages/1865-pandit-gajananrao-joshi-s-compositions
Thanks,
Akash
C Parthapratim
>
> Thanks,
>
> Akash
Thanks for the beautiful music!
vinay
>
> - Show quoted text -
======================================================================
partha---here are two other fraudulent premises in your argument--
1/the notes of (indian classical) raags are meant to signify "noble"
sentiments. religious perhaps?
says who?? when looking for coconuts or prudes perhaps you need not
look at khayaliyas, or even bhatkhande. just look in the mirror.
this conflation of indian classical music and religious or spiritual
experience is just daft! i think, much more than bhatkhande, in modern
times, vishnu digambar paluskar was responsible for this. for example
kumtekar-ji, our teacher used to tell us, he changed the words of
"allah jane, maula jane" to "ram jane, prabhu jane". and he used to
complain which "miyaan-ji" composed miyaan ki malhar? it must have
been an ancient hindu sage who did it. of course the origins of this
foolishness and bias can squarely be placed within the "reform"
movement that started in 19th century calcutta and bombay
presidencies. the effort to look more like the colonial masters
usually involved blaming the erstwhile muslim rulers for all that was
wrong with hinduism as it was being practiced. this is just an early
form of talibanization. and the wholesale adoption of marxist claptrap
in bengal ( especially among the rich bhadralok, who can actually
afford to be marxist)--even though it has been dumped in every other
part of the civilized world-- is a logical extension of the same
phenomenon.
2/khayal is an "anivaddha" form, and the lyrics therefore do not
matter by definition.
thats absurd!! ! what does the word "khayal" mean or signify? how can
the thought or idea or composition itself not matter when you are
communicating that thought ? why is it called "khayal" in the first
place??
i understand some of the animus against me ( on these pages) is
because i am allegedly biased against marathi and bengali speakers.
yes i am a native hindi speaker, that does not mean in any way that i
am biased against bengali or marathi speakers--indeed, i make a huge
effort to follow or understand those languages even though i cant
speak marathi or bengali too well.
for example, while i was a student there the motto of my college,
elphinstone, in bombay, was changed by principal p s rege, a marathi
poet, to medieval marathi------"shvaas he prabandh ho aave"--let every
breath be a composition. it replaced a pedestrian latin motto of
montstuart elphinstone's family and, as you would expect, all the
bawajis were up in arms! i had to translate the marathi for their
benefit ( and also of the rss/shiv sena types)--and the latin too-- to
pacify them and to try and reason with them that though the change was
likely politically motivated it, nevertheless, represented an
improvement in literary terms.
to prove my fairness in that regard let me take on a fellow hindi
speaker, tho probably bihari not ulta pardeshi, the recently departed
grand vizier of musicology, ramashreya jha. i am informed that he
"corrected" the popular yaman drut bandish "langar turak..." that
paluskar and others sing to "langar tu kar...".
i mean, how misinformed can you be!!!!???? the word "turak" ( a
colloquialism of "turk" ) appears repeatedy in medieval indian poetry
and therefore in khayals. to anyone even slightly familiar with indian
history it is obvious the reference is to the mercenary soldiers in
the armies of the muslim kings of north india, the sultanate, and the
mughals who followed them. they were considered, variously, arrogant,
proud, mischievous,handsome ....again look at platts dictionary if you
are not familiar with the poetry of 14th-18th cent india. it will be
obvious the khayal bandish as sung by paluskar, though not clearly
enunciated, is more or less correct....and that ramashraya jha, who
should have known better, is utterly wrong.
i think it is more than a coincidence that khayaliyas who live in,
perform in, or have been trained in north india appreciate the
obvious: that words of khayals are not just important; they should not
just be pronounced clearly and correctly; but that they are the
essence of khayal music. and there is nothing that precludes these
khayaliyas from being maharashtrians, bengalis, gujaratis,
punjabis....just look at omkarnath thakur, paluskar, krishnarao
pandit, sharatchandra arolkar and many, many other singers. likewise
your being a north indian does not itself assure you will do justice
to the words of khayal music. but then i think this should be obvious;
and the tragedy is that i have to lay out the obvious at such length.
as for sparing you my thoughts --
a/ you are free to neither read them nor respond;
b/ you should likewise spare us the nonsense you have been spouting on
these pages.
v
vinay
and as for "raag dhyaan", how much of this is pure invention?
of course now you will quickly dive into natya shastra and other such
sources to find what raag dhyaan is or was.
fine. but when you do, and before you surface, please also read the
clear strictures in those texts against manhandling lyrics.
finally, the idea that you will sing a form of poetry that you
deliberately refuse to understand is beyond pathetic. it is stupid and
obtuse. its the sort of quality one seeks to find in the other
definition of "besar" that i gave you earlier. ( and i mean no offence
to that noble animal , it was, after all, the prophet's mount.)
C Parthapratim
Firstly, your insight in the ragabhav/ragadhyan is incomplete and is
pathetically filtered through the modern American ethno-musicolgical
bullshit. When we talk about the dhyan, we would refer to the legends/
tales (that were) associated with each raga, some of which are also
depicted in what-we-call Ragamala paintings as the illustrations of
those legends. So in the Culture of Music, the gamut of those tales is
an integral part. Those are not religious, and before jumping to
conclusion and insulting me or anybody else, please check out that
most of those tales are based on Shringaar, but not all of them are
erotic in nature. Nayika-Lakshanam, inherited from Bharata, is the
major component of most tales, and are associated with Ragas, while
the Bhakti theme is only 8/9 centuries old. During the Indo-Persian
period most old tales and hence lyrics have been replaced by the
devotional and/or courtesan's theme, and the aberration kicked off
right there. Later, only 250 years back when further changes in HCM
gave rise to the modern forms of the ragas and "swarasthan", the
dissociation of music with lyrics came to be more obvious. Tell me,
what has "karim nam tero" got to do with Malhar, Miyan-ki or Biwi-ki?
One doesn't have to be a coconut to talk about dhyan.
Secondly, the strings of notes/tones/frequencies do form meaningful
words for human beings, though the "meaning"/"signified" may not be
fit for translation into other verbal media. Definition of words goes
actually far beyond the "dictionary words". Your lyrics are formed
with the latter and is therefore forming only a subset of the entire
spectrum of possibilities. I can understand Spanish with not knowing
ALL of the dictionary words, similarly I can comfortably get through
the vocal music even though not listening to all those dictionary
words.
Khayal. Some say it comes from kawal/qabal. However, in modern usage
it may mean dream, desire, wish, free will and many other things. By
all those connotations, and by all standard (printed) textbooks
(written by the coconuts, of course), the genre Khayal is "Anibaddha"
-- kind of free form that is somehow anchored with a rhythmic
structure/meter that acts as a postscript in the post-modern novels.
In a way, Khayal in HCM is rather a post-modern form, while Western
Classical usually is a different proposition, which is rather a
Romantic one. There are only two groups of people who would prefer
Khayal as Nibaddha sangit, namely the Jaipur-wale(s) and the followers
of the AmirKhani Structured Music. For the Majority however, khayal is
a free-form.
Ramashreya Jha: Like you, I don't have much respect for that man, too.
But there are people following this thread who think he is God of
Music or something. So please don't drag him in our discussion.
Thanks
vinay pande
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
============================
raag dhyan, where it is not pure invention, is convention. where did
the convention come from? a folk form, almost certainly, that became a
convention and got codified over time. what sort of folk form? almost
certainly a folk song. why does a bhatiyali dhun remind you of boatmen
in bengal? because so many of the original and subsequent compositions
are about boatmen in bengal. and that is why it is so essential to
preserve and perpetuate original lyrics by, most importantly, singing
them correctly after understanding what they are saying, in the first
place.
obviously what i said above does not apply to raags that are later
concoctions. for these there is no raag dhyan and if one is ascribed
to it, i think it is most likely pure invention.
i have no time to waste on po-mo nonsense, any more than i have to
waste on other ideologies. so please do not suggest that what i am
saying is informed in any way by po-mo. it is not. it is informed by
common sense.
C Parthapratim
You proved once again the old saying: "Common sense is the most
uncommon thing in the world" :P