On bAlamuralikrishna the vidwan of controversy
Ranganathan Srikanth
Musical personalities like bAlamuralikrishnA can rightly be called
a "controversial genius". Just as one hears a group of musically
well read enthusiasts swear on his traditioanally inappropriate bani,
he has created for himself, another equally authentic group will rave
romantically over his unsurpassed natural control of sruthi, bhava and laya.
What is the composition of this unique musician?
Why does he choose to sing a thodi with flatter notes?
What is the vAkgeyakAra in him that made him create some
unique suddha dhanyAsi, shanmukha priya, chandrika?
Or is it correct in calling them unique?
Or is it just that he chooses to hold on to a different branch in the
musical tree?
Why does he filter out the traditional rasa of a shankarabharanam, bhairavi
or a bEgada and present it in an insipid manner?
Or is it insipid, like plain milk and sugar is to a filter coffee lover?
The Music Academy for all its controversies pointed out this master
much earlier and honoured him with the sangEtha kalAnidhi!!
Almost every shabha has honored him, perhaps, in the city of madras. Yet
some groups feel he has not been given a fare share.
Ask any musician or musicologist of high calibre about bAlamurali and you
are sure to hear pharses like " even the devil has something to say",
"there is nothing the man can't do", "his sArIram is his shApam",
"a natural but uncaring genius" or the likes.
A master generator of poise in some krithis and a murderer of some!!
It is well known that dIkshitar krithis are some of the toughest to render from
a melodic point of view and an aspirant has to be trained by vidwans coming
in that lineage. Yet bAlamurali is able to partially simplify and render
some of dikshitar krithis straight out of the sampradAya pradarshini without
being formally trained in the dikshitar school(?).
He respects and practises some high traditional ideals like kAlam built into
krithis but with the same breath sacrifices the melodic detail. What is this
man made of?
His origins being in gOdAvari AndhrA (?) and that being far away from the
"traditional lock up" of tanjAvur is definitely a "malayamarutham" as far his
musical style goes. (like how hyderabad bros. music was when they came into the
scene a few years back)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I felt the thread discussing BMK degenerated into mud slinging. I am sure you
guys out there have asked the above questions to yourself sometime or the other.
Yet I hope this post serves as a wake up call.
I hope some very balanced, seasoned and thinking nettor comes up and puts
forward his/her thoughts. Please present your ideas in a thought rather than
nerve provoking manner. I personally would solicit srini pichumani's report on
his ideas on the matter.
I am sure there is more often than necessary a need to rearrange thoughts in
ones own mind rather, before accessing it for the bandwidth.
srikanth
ps: balamurali oru kElvi kuri? (balamurali, the unanswered)
Keywords:
Ranganathan Srikanth
>TyagaRaja Swamy -->> MaNAmBuChavidi Venkata Subbayya -->> Susarla
>DakhiNaMurty(he hails from Krishna Delta and musician of great standing
>in Andhra) -->> ParuPalli RamaKrishnayya -->> Dr. Balamurali.
> This clearly proves that though he is removed from Thanjavur
>delta his samPradaYaa is authentic. I am not trying to compare Dr.
>Balamurali with any one but only in his rendering can common man follow
>the Sahitya effortlessly.
Does bAlamurali get his unique style from thyAgarAja? May be!!
Did thyAgarAja sing todi, bhairavi or bEgadA with
flatter notes?(not western flatness)
Or did mAnambuchAvadi vEnkata subbiah sing with lesser dose
of gamakas or shakes?
Is bAlamurali's uniqueness attributed to him or is it from his
guru or from susarla gAru?
Ofcourse there are no doubts about his sampradAya.
For example his rendition of dEvi brOva samayamidE in chintAmani
is lonely amongst the other lakshanAs that float around. Infact
this pAtAntaram is from the AndhrA region and in that way
bAlamurali is traditional. He will render it only the way he learnt it
even if the heavens come down.
>I am not trying to compare Dr.
>Balamurali with any one but only in his rendering can common man follow
>the Sahitya effortlessly. It can be argued that since telugu is his
>mother tongue he happens to have advantage. But as one the netters
>pointed out even his tamil diction is impeccable.(No flames please).
Is the simplification of detail in music (density,richness) the reason
for his extra pronunciation clarity or is his voice's ductility or both?
For example vOlEti venkatEswarulu and nEdanUri krishnamUrthi both
contemporaries of bAlamurali also are telugus and definitely know
telugu very well. Can't the common man follow the lyrics in their
renditions? May be they pulp the lyrics in the gamaka laden style of
theirs!!
Please some knowledge nettor quench the thrist of this group....
-srikanth
Ram Nukala
>
> His origins being in gOdAvari AndhrA (?) and that being far away from the
> "traditional lock up" of tanjAvur is definitely a "malayamarutham" as far his
> musical style goes. (like how hyderabad bros. music was when they came into the
> scene a few years back)
He is not from godavari delta but he hails from Krishna delta.
His lineage is as impressive as it can get. His maternal grandfather is
Prayaga RangaDasu(one of his famous songs is 'RamuDu UdhBavinChiNaadu' a
staple song during RamaNavami in Andhra) who was VaggeyaKara in his own
right. His guru ParuPalli RamaKrishnaYyaGaru traces his guruParampara
to TyagaRaja Swamy.
TyagaRaja Swamy -->> MaNAmBuChavidi Venkata Subbayya -->> Susarla
DakhiNaMurty(he hails from Krishna Delta and musician of great standing
in Andhra) -->> ParuPalli RamaKrishnayya -->> Dr. Balamurali.
This clearly proves that though he is removed from Thanjavur
delta his samPradaYaa is authentic. I am not trying to compare Dr.
Balamurali with any one but only in his rendering can common man follow
the Sahitya effortlessly. It can be argued that since telugu is his
mother tongue he happens to have advantage. But as one the netters
pointed out even his tamil diction is impeccable.(No flames please).
One of Dr. BalaMurali's contribution to Carnatic Music and Telugu in
particular are his:
* Composing music and rendering of BhadraChala Ramdasu's
songs(he is the same ramDasu mentioned in TyagaRaja swamy's DevaGandhari
Raga magnum opus 'KsheeraSagara Sayana' in the charana 'Dheeru Dou
RamaDaasu ni ...'.
). But it has to be recognized that unlike AnnamAcharya's Pada's which
were not set to any tune and were not sung in Andhra temples at all,
Ramdasu's kirtana's were sung at temples. But Balamurali's soulful
rendering made them reach wider audience.
* Singing of 'TatVams'(means philosophy) whose authorship
is unknown(I think). These are like poems sung by Savaite Sadhus at some
point in past. He set the music and rendered them on AIR and these pieces
of literature would have been confined to thesis topic except for his
effort.
Srikanth Gopalan
: right. His guru ParuPalli RamaKrishnaYyaGaru traces his guruParampara
: to TyagaRaja Swamy.
: TyagaRaja Swamy -->> MaNAmBuChavidi Venkata Subbayya -->> Susarla
: DakhiNaMurty(he hails from Krishna Delta and musician of great standing
: in Andhra) -->> ParuPalli RamaKrishnayya -->> Dr. Balamurali.
Why are so many Carnatic musicians so stuck up about this tracing back
to Thyagaraja? The Lalgudi lot and the Maharajapuram lot are two other
families that are bent on inflicting this origin tracing to Thyagaraja
on the general public.
I guess it is the same phenomenon in H.music where everybody
eventually claims discipleship to Tansen.
-Srikanth
kalyanaraman shivkumar
American Independence Day Celebration
by
American Artistes :
James Pomerantz (Sitar)
and
George Ruckert (Sarod)
accompanied on the tabla by Srinivas Krishnan
Date: July 1st
Day : Saturday
Time: 6:00pm
Place: Pittsburg Temple
followed by a special feature on vedic chants by
Jodi Nagel : piano
--
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman (shiv...@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Office phone : (614)-292-8578 Home phone : (614)-299-8634
Office : 2015, Neil Ave., DL 474-57, Columbus OH 43210
Home : 77, W. Northwood, # D, Columbus, OH 43201
--
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman (shiv...@cis.ohio-state.edu)
Office phone : (614)-292-8578 Home phone : (614)-299-8634
Office : 2015, Neil Ave., DL 474-57, Columbus OH 43210
Home : 77, W. Northwood, # D, Columbus, OH 43201
Srini Pichumani
Ram Nukala <nuk...@swim5.eng.sematech.org> wrote:
>
>TyagaRaja Swamy -->> MaNAmBuChavidi Venkata Subbayya -->> Susarla
>DakhiNaMurty(he hails from Krishna Delta and musician of great standing
>in Andhra) -->> ParuPalli RamaKrishnayya -->> Dr. Balamurali.
Balamurali sings his own kriti in kApi on this very subject...
The kritis goes like this:
bhAvamE mahAbhAvamurA aham-
bhAva rahita nirmalamaina manO (bhAvamE)
the caraNam runs like
guruvula guruvula guruvula guruvE vara tyAgarAju mAku
guruvula guruvula guruvE ... vEnkaTasubbayya ...
paramaguru dakShiNAmurti ...
...
-Srini.
ps: "paramaguru" is a standard term for one's Grand-Guru.
Vidya Sagar Vankayala
From the keyboard of Ram Nukala <nuk...@swim5.eng.sematech.org> in <Pine.A32.3.91.950627...@swim5.eng.sematech.org> ::
>On 27 Jun 1995, Ranganathan Srikanth wrote:
> * Composing music and rendering of BhadraChala Ramdasu's
>songs(he is the same ramDasu mentioned in TyagaRaja swamy's DevaGandhari
>Raga magnum opus 'KsheeraSagara Sayana' in the charana 'Dheeru Dou
>RamaDaasu ni ...'.
>). But it has to be recognized that unlike AnnamAcharya's Pada's which
>were not set to any tune and were not sung in Andhra temples at all,
>Ramdasu's kirtana's were sung at temples. But Balamurali's soulful
>rendering made them reach wider audience.
>
> * Singing of 'TatVams'(means philosophy) whose authorship
>is unknown(I think). These are like poems sung by Savaite Sadhus at some
>point in past. He set the music and rendered them on AIR and these pieces
>of literature would have been confined to thesis topic except for his
>effort.
IMHO, the best contribution would be the Thillana's. I *personally*
rate them along with Shri lalgudi's, under contemporary Thillana
compositions, both in technicality and 'Lalithyam'.
>> srikanth
Musically,
Vidyasagar.
Srini Pichumani
>
>IMHO, the best contribution would be the Thillana's. I *personally*
>rate them along with Shri lalgudi's, under contemporary Thillana
>compositions, both in technicality and 'Lalithyam'.
>
>Vidyasagar.
I particularly like his varNams ... have heard the following
saraguna gAvumu - tODi or dEsiya tODi
OmkAra praNava - ShaNmukhapriyA
E nAdamu - nATa
calamu jEsina - rAmapriyA
Is there a cassette of just his varNams alone ?
-Srini.
Krishna Kunchithapadam
:
: [entire article deleted to save net bandwidth]
:
Yet again, I am moved to write about music criticism and
appreciation in spite of every desire not to engage in what is
increasing becoming an unproductive use of my time (and even
more, the time of people who read RMIC). In my opinion,
Balamurali does not need anyone to defend him---his music is
there for people to listen to and draw their own conclusions
from.
However, we have an example here of BRC Iyengar making the most
ridiculous statements prefaced with a comment that "... we
Critics are open-minded ...". His article is an example of why
critics (or some of them) are most pointedly _not_ open-minded.
Laying claim to extra wisdom because of a lifetime of listening
does not place Iyengar's statements beyond criticism---and I will
proceed to do offer my opinions on Iyengar's biases here.
I am not going to quote each and every sentence in Iyengar's
article; I suggest people read the original for reference.
However, I will bring one common theme in his article to your
attention. On all aspects of musical performance and composition
where objective evaluation is possible, Iyengar admits (albeit
grudgingly) Balamurali's eminence. However (and as I expected
and want you to note) Iyengar faults with Balamurali on
subjective aspects of music. If this alone is not a display of
an attitude that is the anti-thesis of "open-mindedness", I do
not know what is.
Before others go on to claim Iyengar's right to his opinions, I
will further clarify my position. I do not have anything against
people trashing Balamurali's music---I accept it as part of the
subjectivity of music appreciation. However, I am against
Iyengar's claims that his statements about Balamurali and his
music are somehow deserving of special consideration due to his
(Iyengar's) status as an unbiased critic.
I also do not expect everyone to agree with my statements. But
if you choose to respond to me (either by mail or post) please
make sure that you do not bring in subjective opinions into the
discussion---at least if you want a response from me. I promise
to devote potentially unlimited time explaining my position on
music appreciation (as many people who have contacted me by email
will probably attest to) but I simply will not respond to knee-
jerk, biased, _subjective_ opinions that cannot be debated,
analyzed, or critiqued.
Iyengar's points with my comments.
(1) Many of Balamurali's compositions have not taken off, while
not one of the compositions of the Trinity has failed.
In the first place, the statement about the compositions of the
Trinity is plain wrong. There is considerable debate about what
even constitutes an authentic composition of the Trinity.
Dikshitar's compositions had to wait for the early part of this
century to gain popularity. And it is silly to claim that all of
Syama Sastri's compositions are all well-known in any reasonable
sense of the word.
I do not doubt that _some_ of the compositions of the Trinity are
so popular that standards of popularity can be defined based on
them. However every composer, pre- and post-Trinity, has his/her
share of well-known and unknown compositions.
The position of the Trinity is rather special in Carnatic music.
Tyagaraja, Dikshitar, and Syama Sastri have gained a special
status in musical history for a number of reasons---primary among
them for their musical scholarship, but also through chance.
Anyone familiar with historys know how much a select few can be
glorified, and how many can be almost completely obliterated from
our collective memories for reasons that have nothing to do with
merit alone.
Let us also keep in mind that Balamurali's compositions are
relatively new, certainly newer than those of the Trinity. To
expect the same or a comparable level of popularity for his
compositions is being stupid.
Popularity of a composition often has nothing to do with the
inherent merits of the composition. The mistaken belief that
anything which survives does so _only_ because of its
unquestionable superiority (and by contrast, that which does not
survive perished because of its inherent defects) is at the root
of much unnecessary controversy in music, especially Carnatic
music. Before anyone quotes "natural selection" at me, let me
point out that no respectable evolutionary biologist today will
grant primacy or an exalted role to adaptive selection---a
complex and fascinating interplay between inherent merits and
historical contingency determines the final result of almost any
outcome in almost any walk of life (with the possible exception
of a rigorously objective endeavor like science, even which is
not immune to personalities). Music is no exception. Venerating
the Trinity as inerrant gods is really insulting them, their
antecedents, their contemporaries, their successors, and music as
a whole.
Finally, the statement about the lack of popularity of some of
Balamurali's compositions flies directly in the face of Iyengar's
concluding remarks asking people not to evaluate performers based
on the response of the audience. To wit, the "loud but empty
applause of many is not necessarily better than the subdued but
considered appreciation of a few". Sadly, "open-minded" critic
Iyengar has failed to apply his own admonitions to himself. The
"failure" (if one can call it that) of some of Balamurali's
compositions to "take-off" is no indication of Balamurali's
talent as a composer or of the merits or defects of his
compositions, either the ones that did "succeed" and the ones
that "failed".
Ironically, it is Balamurali himself who has worked hard to
popularize many of the "unknown" compositions of the Trinity.
More on this later.
(2) Some of Balamurali's mannerisms are revolting to the
listener.
Instead I find this _remark_ revolting. This statement alone
blows away any credibility that Iyengar can lay claim to as an
unbiased commentator. If this is the "open-mindedness" of a
critic, then such critics should be [insert your favorite method
of censure here].
Am I justified in saying that M.D.Ramanathan's squint eye is a
blemish on his music. Am I justified in saying that Semmangudi's
dribbling reflects on his musical knowledge. Can I even get away
with such pronouncements on a public forum without being flamed
by people who respect the music of Ramanathan and Semmangudi.
Iyengar's remark about Balamurali's smile is a cheap insult---
plain and simple.
(3) Balamurali deviates from Sampradaya. His renditions of many
kritis carry the stamp of his personality and differ from
that of other musicians.
Exactly the same statements can be inserted into a glowing
tribute to Balamurali without change.
What is wrong with a musician interpreting a composition in a way
that is uniquely his or hers. In fact, people often make the
same remarks about many other musicians (e.g. no one can sing
"nanu palimpa" like Maharajapuram Viswanatha Iyer, or that GNB
has placed his mark on this or that kriti). I guess this is okay
because these musicians are dead or belong to that "hoary" past
that some people are so fond of looking up to.
He who ignores history is a fool, and will put his foot into his
mouth. When Purandara Dasa (venerated as the "Pitamaha" of
Carnatic music) was composing his gitas and padas, he was
deviating from Sampradaya. Tyagaraja was about as deviant from
Sampradaya as one could get---once again the forces of history
have all but obliterated the legacies of the musicians who
preceded him, not because he was "better" than them, or he made
them "redundant". Tyagaraja was an innovator who was almost
single-handedly responsible for the current popularity of ragas
like Kalyani and Kharaharapriya. That a musician deviates from
Sampradaya is in itself not a statement about the quality of the
music. It is in the nature of music to evolve, and such
evolution occurs by going beyond contemporary practice. It is
the blind devotion to tradition that must be criticized by
discerning rasikas and music critics.
I have said this before, and will continue to say it as long as
there are people willing to listen. The innovations and heresies
of each generation become the accepted tradition and dogma of the
succeeding generation. This is the truth. People who do not see
this are blind. If a musician can earn his/her deserved
accolades only after he/she has been dead and gone, then I am
sorry for the sad state of our music and our tradition.
Persisting with this attitude will ensure the marginalization and
destruction of one of the few few things that an Indian could
legitimately and proudly claim as the product of his/her
culture---its music. One simply has to watch the constant
bickerings among the critics, and increasing elitism and
sectarianism in music go hand in hand with a growing disaffection
with classical music among most people, especially the younger
generation.
(4) Balamurali introduces an intermission into his concerts.
Maybe Iyengar has an iron bladder, but I appreciate the chance to
stretch my legs, relax, and visit the restrooms during an
extended concert. Perhaps Balamurali wishes to do the same or is
at least sympathetic to the concerns of his audience. Statements
about the break in a "rasika's emotional pitch" is plain
nonsense. Perhaps an intermission is a break in the emotional
pitch of one particular rasika named Iyengar is the proper way to
describe this biased opinion.
(5) Balamurali takes his audience for a ride. He annoyingly
presents his compositions, and not those of the Trinity.
Perhaps Iyengar expects the musical world to divine Balamurali's
compositions or perhaps he expects only Balamurali's students to
sing these compositions. The above remark does not square with
the previous comment about the lack of popularity of some of
Balamurali's compositions. Apparently, the fair playing ground
for Iyengar is to have a performer not sing his compositions on
stage and yet expect _all_ of them to become popular in a few
years.
It is also incorrect to say that Balamurali does not sing the
compositions of the Trinity. Balamurali has not only popularized
some of the relatively rare works of the Trinity, he has also
paid careful attention to tracking authentic versions of the
sahitya of many kritis and the lakshanas of many ragas. Saying
that Balamurali does not sing "enough" of the Trinity's
compositions once again betrays a biased close-minded subjective
opinion.
(5) Balamurali's technical displays are pointless.
Is it not one of the jobs of a music critic to explain
technicalities to an audience and educate them. Perhaps there
are more people than Iyengar imagines who listen to Balamurali in
particular for his attention to structure and patterns, as for
his attention to pronunciation and raga.
Once again I will point out the style used by Iyengar (and used
by many other critics of music)---this style is not restricted to
criticising just Balamurali's music. If the critic cannot fault
the technical aspects of a musician's performance, they will
claim that the wizardry is in fact "sterile", "without bhava",
"pointless", "futile" and so on. These are all subjective
opinions. In making these the critic is no more qualified than a
lay listener. It is also easy to make such accusations because
there is no way someone can objectively evaluate to what extent
these remarks are true, or learn anything of value from them (all
they learn is to continue to blindly propagate the myth that a
musician's technical prowess is without "bhava"). If I
thoroughly questioned Iyengar as to why Balamurali's technical
displays are "pointless" he will hedge his way about before
finally coming down to the statement that "it seems pointless to
_him_". This is not objectivity, this is not open-minded
criticism; and the badge of critic-for-Sruti does not alter it
one bit.
As I said at the outset, my purpose in writing this essay was not
to defend Balamurali---unlike some others I have absolutely _no_
training in music and cannot claim years of experience, personal
acquaintance with _any_ musician of note (including Balamurali),
or scholarship of any kind; in short I am not qualified to defend
(or criticize) any musician any more than any other lay rasika.
My point in writing this essay was to point out how someone (like
Iyengar) abuses their position as a critic for a magazine and
foists a load of ridiculous, biased opinions on an audience (and
has the cheek to claim that they are being "open-minded").
You can replace the word "Balamurali" in the above essay with the
word "Seshagopalan" or the word "Yesudas" or the word
"Unnikrishnan" and all my remarks will apply in both the broad
and the specific sense. My essay is not a defense of Balamurali
(or any specific musician) but a plea for a better understanding
of musical history, the role of contingency in the ascendency (or
demise) of the figures in this rich history, and an appreciation
of the distinctions between subjective and objective standards of
criticism.
Let us learn to respect each musician for their strengths and
weaknesses. And when we do criticize them, let us learn to be
meticulous in identifying our opinions as subjective when they
actually are.
For more information on my opinions on music, I invite you to
check out (and mail me for further clarifications):
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~krisna/icm.html
--Krishna
BRC Iyengar
thought
it would be appropriate to post here.
brc iyengar
Let me warn you that whatever I say is my personal opinion and not in my
capacity as the Critic of SRUTI, lest someone should write to the Chief
Editor and say that Śyour criticą has said this and that about
Balamuraliąs. True, I do write to other papers but that is a different
matter.
I note that you are a FAN of Balamurali; you have therefore reasons to be
biased. Any adverse comment about B would certainly upset you;
understandable. Just as we Critics are open minded, I expect you to be so
in assessing or enjoying music. To say again that a few Nettors did not
do a good job...mud slinging etc. is not fair. It is their opinion;
forget it. I hope I will be able to help you in giving a Śbalanced
assessmentą. A Critic, as you know, is a necessary evil and criticism, an
evil necessity. Hopefully I will post you sometime my article Śon critics
and criticismą.
Balamurali is a genius..... wait, wait. donąt get excited! And a genius
is more often eccentric and B is no exception. I have been listening to
his music eversince he blossomed. He is also a Vaggeyakara, which means
he has two facets in his art- Geyakara and Vak-kara. Let me first attack
him as a Geyakara. The Ścomposition of this unique musicianą(about which
I made some comments in one of the issues of Sruti:, are his compositions
in 72 mela ragas. To compose songs in ragas like Kanakangi or Sucharitra,
almost two ends of mela ragas, is no joke. His thillanas are exquisite;
they bear a unique stamp. But there are many more of his compositions,
majority of which have not taken off. Why? On the contrary, take the
compositions of the Trinities; not one of them has failed. Mind you, they
run into thousands. That makes the difference. I leave the rest for your
interpretation.
And now as a performer. He has a tendency to go tangential. Note, it is
again the genius that speaks. Nevertheless, it is off the beaten track. I
mean it is away from what is referred to as Sampradaya. I hasten to add
that I have my own interpretation of Sampradaya; let us not get bogged
down in this. In short, his music is different. Let me be bold and say
that he has a tendency to exaggerate simple things, bordering on
showmanship not deliberately, though. In this exercise, he wastes time.
This, I guess is a reflection of unspelt or unintended ego. Add to this
his smile, which invokes laughter. Some of these mannerisms, however
unrelated they are to music, are revolting both to the lay as well as the
connoisseur. One can enjoy his music better, with closed eyes! His music
is also eccentric. For instance, his way of rendering the piece,
Nagumomu, which is so much linked with his personality is one thing; and
just compare it with how the same piece is presented by late Musiri.
Listen to both and find out yourself, in an unbiased critical way, the
difference. Each may have his own individuality; but one has the edge
over the other. Listen to it again; you will see that edge; its is a
razors edge! Yet another example of his eccentricity is the way he
announces and implements the ugly intermission in a serious concert. Is
it not unworthy in a situation when rasikas have been driven to an
emotional pitch? Also he takes the audience, perhaps unwittingly, for a
ride. One more thing which is annoying to the audience is the way he
presents his own compositions, one after another and seldom includes the
works of Trinities, and even if he does, it is not significant. All these
matters however unconcerned with his music, all the same have watered
down the creativity he indeed, puts in.
Every essay he presents has a different face, like the other side of the
moon. Whether it is a beautiful face or not, is for the rasikas to judge
He has very rich voice and unfortunately he is too aware of it!
Unfortunatley again, he more often abuses it, particularly in the higher
octaves (kalla Koral). His laya gnana is something extrordinary, but
there are many slip-ups in his swarasthanas. His thirmanams in
swarakalpana are mindboggling, but where does that lead to... how many
can follow it... what is the purpose and aim. To me it is an exercise in
futility. I can write more.
Well, I can write much more. In anycase, wait for a feature article on B
in Sruthi. It is on the cards. Incidentally, I wish to state that
feature articles on leading musicians is time consuming. I may tell you,
it takes over a year to complete one. Understand the work Sruthi does
for you!
A word about the audience, which I find is relevent here. As at
present,the reaction of an audience will somehow always be commensurate
with the effect created, precisely because,it is subconcious. Thus,
there are performances that release noisy and vociferous, yet meaningless
and empty applause;it echos their own emptiness. And there are others to
which the audence reacts less spontaneously, yet whose worth is not only
immeasurably greater but their effect, immeasurtably deeper. It is
defenitely wrong to draw conclusions from the effect made on an audience,
i.e., from their volume of the applause, as to the real strength of the
impression made by a work, let alone as to its quality.
Krishna Kunchithapadam
:
: In article <3suotb$a...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, Vidya Sagar Vankayala
A few of additions to the list of varnams by Balamurali that
Srini provides above:
amma ananda dayini gambeera natta
aabaala gopala amritavarshini
ninu neranammiti kharaharapriya
I have not come across a cassette of Balamurali's varnams alone.
A compilation of 6 of his tillanas is available from Sangeetha
cassettes (among other places).
--Krishna
Sunil Srinivasmurthy
BRC Iyengar <iye...@futuretense.com> writes :
>To compose songs in ragas like Kanakangi or Sucharitra,
>almost two ends of mela ragas, is no joke. His thillanas are exquisite;
>they bear a unique stamp. But there are many more of his compositions,
>majority of which have not taken off. Why? On the contrary, take the
>compositions of the Trinities; not one of them has failed. Mind you, they
>run into thousands. That makes the difference. I leave the rest for your
>interpretation.
It is very difficult to say that all compositions which are beautifull
will become famous.An example of this is the gem of Tyagaraja "Vachama gocharame"
which is very good,but not famous.This doesn't take away the beauty of the
composition & mean they have failed.It will remain a beauty even if no
one sings it.
Similar is the case of most of Shyama Shastry compositions.Only around 25
of his compositions are heard in the present day concerts even though
he has composed more than 200 Kritis.
It is worth recollecting the Papanasam Sivan-Araikudi incident.Araikudi
used to sing the Thodi song "Karthikeya" composed by P.Sivan in his concerts
& had made it famous. P.Sivan told Araikudi that he(Araikudi) had become famous
by singing his composition & demanded money as royalty for singing his
compositions.Araikudi argued that the compositions had become famous
on account of his singing & he stopped singing this song in Thodi in his
concerts & started singing Koteeswara Iyer's composition in Thodi(dont exactly
remember the song) in his concerts & made that famous.
Another interesting incident was when Mysore Vasudevachar heard GNB sing his
Kamach song "Brochevarevarura".He remarked that when he first composed
his song it was like a poor father who married off his daughter without
any precious jewellery on her,but now after hearing GNB sing this song,
he was feeling as happy as a father would feel when he saw his daughter
come to see him adorned with all precious jewellery.
This raises a very interesting question.What makes a song to become famous?
Is it the composer or the beauty of the composition or having a Sishya parampara
who'll preserve the compositions or a future musician who sings
it embellishing it with his own sangathis laden with bhava,melody etc...
Any opinions on this ?
Sunil
Ranganathan Srikanth
Krishna Kunchithapadam, please hold on. There are nettors on rmic
who loves, loathes, understands and finally places a musician in his/her
mind after grasping all the good and bad perceived by a variety of rasikas
around them and by their own intelligence. Many create their own subjectiveness
from the subjective ideas gathered by seniors, contemporaries and surely
sometimes juniors. The chronological allusion is very important. Mr.Iyengar is
a seasoned listener and critic. You may have severe fist crunching urges when
you hear something -ve about BMK. But please treat your fists to the
walls next to you. Don't sling mud on the net.
BMK possibly cannot be a perfect musician by any stretch of imagination.
Both subjectively and objectively he surely has faults. So let everyone
discover these from others who are more experienced and heard him from his
youth performing.
You did raise very valid and logical points. There is a way though to raise it.
Please put it forward with some mariyAda. It doesn't take much time for
each of us here to start mud slinging on the net.
I am personally a good fan of bAlamurali. I see a certian genius in him
not be seen elsewhere and allow enough poetic licence to accomodate
his vagaries. But to see how he fits into the sampradAya of carnAtaca
sangItham only time will tell. What he does is sometime the reinventing
of the whell and sometimes the elucidation of the fundamental. I would
personally love to hear ideas and also wish that you and everyone participate
in the discussion. Don't scare away personalities through your acrimony. Why
balamurali? Every artist has had his/her share of musical lacking. What is wrong
is becoming aware of them? Only then can one form a certian mental conception
of his/her art.
srikanth
Srinivasan Ramaswamy
: srik...@elnath.engin.umich.edu (Ranganathan Srikanth)
: wrote:
: [...]
: >Don't scare away personalities through your acrimony.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: I doubt if a 'pazham thinnu kottai pOttavar' i.e. "seasoned
: listener and critic" like Sri. Iyengar would be `scared away`
: by the comments of a single Krishna Kunchithapadam ;-)
: We want 'personalities' on the net; so please don't
: comment on (read 'mud-sling') their posts. Hard luck to
: those personalities who don't have access to the net.
: --sundar
--
*******************************************************
Srinivasan Ramaswamy (Res: 518-274-2142 Off: 276-2955)
Einstein, on the chicken crossing the road : "Whether
the chicken crossed the road or the road crossed the
chicken depends on your frame of reference".
What the caterpillar calls the end of the world, the
Master calls a butterfly. -- Richard Bach, "Illusions"
*******************************************************
Sundar
BRC Iyengar
>It is very difficult to say that all compositions which are beautifull
>will become famous.An example of this is the gem of Tyagaraja "Vachama gocharame"
>which is very good,but not famous.This doesn't take away the beauty of the
>composition & mean they have failed.It will remain a beauty even if no
>one sings it.
But there are many more of his compositions majority of which have not
taken off. Why? Mind you, they run into thousands. This makes the
difference; I leave the rest for your interpretation.
I have never stated that they have not taken off because they are
substandard or not good. Readers has wrongly interpreted my
interrogation. There are many reasons why a krithi will not take off. It
may be nitty-gritty in construction, may be in an intricate raga
difficult to effectively portray (like varalai, as some netter has
refered to); the thala may be a tough nut to crack, the eduppu may be
tricky, or in the overall sense, may be too mundane, may be too academic,
may be lacking grammer. If BMK零 krithis have not taken off, it may be
any of the aforesaid reasons or a combination of one or more. This is
exactly why I have not stated the reason and I refuse to mention them,
because they will turn out to be personal. My suggestion to leave it for
interpretation is deliberate, but not ill-conceived. Many of the reasons
mentioned are not necessarily disqualifying features. The virtue by
itself may inhibit such take off. Some one has rightly refered to the
compositions of Shaya Sasti as not popular; it is the inbuilt laya
strength that acts as a warning and may even frighten. It is again the
merit and not any diqualifying feature. For instance how many artists
sing the krithi Ninnuvinaga in Poorvikalyani. Even if they do, a good
many sing it in the more convenient misra chapu, while actually it is set
to Deshadi, Misra Nadai. To my knowledge, among the contemporary
musicians, it is only KVN who sings the right way
Yet another factor is the threateningly large number of compositions that
are avilable for rendition. No body wants to take the risk in attempting
a rare composition. That singing has taken a commercial turn is too
evident, The result is, every artist has a set of krithis well worked
out in all the features, say a maximum of 50 and he/she goes on repeating
them at every concert. I once asked a very popular young artist, how many
songs she knew. She said about 500. To the next question as to how many
she was actually singing, she said, about 50! As I know, Ariyakudi could
sing not less than 45songs in raga thodi alone. Add to this the
curtailed duration of a concert these days and the nuisance of chits
asking for aft repeated songs, and thus imposing one person零 wish on the
rest of the audience. There are many such constraints and perhaps, BMK零
compositions may not be in the singer零 priority list
The composition of Kotiswara Iyer in Thodi, made popular by Ariyakudi is
Kalithira Vandarul Sukumara
brc iyengar
BRC Iyengar
Please read what I have posted to Sunil Srinivas. I have made clear some
points> BKSąs compositions have not taken off<. Thank you for your
compliments. I may further clarify that I belong to Ariyakudi school and
was a performing artist till I was 65. One day I thought I should say
quits for performing, when people would ask me why and not why not. I
have added responsibility, because, every performing musician to day, in
Carnatic music, knows me personally and highly respects me. I have a set
of disciples, amongst whom, two have turned out to be excellent
performing artists, classed A in AIR. With my experience, I thought I
could share my knowledge with others and even learn from people like you.
I therefore entered the net and I find that it is not as pleasant an
experience as I thought it would be! I have however, not given up hopes.
For what it is worth, I am giving my reactions to KKąs 7 page essay.
I would have been vastly disappointed if the reaction to my essay on BMK
was not what it has been; it is nothing new. As I stated in the very
beginning there, łA critic is a necessary evil and criticism an evil
necessity˛. It is common knowledge that a critic cannot please
everybody. Some appreciate and a few shout. As any other critic, I give
them the treatment they deserve. I have the required nerve to take it,
neither elated by the compliments nor overreact to mud slinging. It is
exactly for this reason that a few, why a mejority of the critics play
safe and use superlatives, liberally. The tragedy is they are liked.
I have not claimed any łextra wisdom˛ or łspecial consideration˛ with łmy
badge as Critic of Sruti˛, as alleged. In fact, at the very commencement
of my essay, I have dissociated my self from Sruti, as for as my
communications in the net are concerned. All the comments and many more
like my having an łiron bladder˛ are uncalled for; it echos the emptiness
of the netter. I have not used many terms quoted as said to have come
from my mouth, like łpopularity˛, łpointless˛ etc. Many of the
generalised comments are irrelevant. There is no relevant reference to
music as such. I wonder why some waste their łvaluable time to
unproductive use˛ like the way they have done, these people who confess
that they have łabsolutely no training in music˛.
Let us learn to behave like cultured people and not like savages. Let us
learn through the net and let us thank everybody who is constructively
contributing. Life is short.
Some more about BMK:
As I told earlier, he is different, who has embarked on a new enterprise
- a rediscovery of the classical music of the past and its recreation
through the embracing of a neo-classical style. As a neoclassiicist, he
paid hommage both to the melodic sensibility and the forms favoured by
the new generation, which wanted something new, something totally
different. He seems to have determined to make the history his own, to
use it for whatever attracted or inspired him at that moment, whatever
the occasion or the circumstance and to use it to create a new work- a
designed playfulness of his own works. He has thus got into somewhat
outside the orbit of the main stream. In the evolution of music, he has
cut a niche of his own. Because he has already made a decision to break
with the past, it is no longer perceived as a crushing weight. Perhaps
reworking and learning from the past, he discovered further dimentiuons
in his own voice. He is not necessarily for or against, contribute ot
confirm, sustain or destroy a tradition. If his neoclassic style is
commented as idiosyncretic, he is least perturbed. He has a strong
conviction, right or wrong, that he is there to replace łunending melody
with discrete order, syncretic and synthetic forms with self-contained
ones and emotional self expression with strictly musical statements˛
(underline, mine). It is paradox packed, self imposed music.
Perhaps growing more confident and encouraged by some-whosoever it is-,
he has found himself in a position to dictate the terms of his works,
overlooking the perfectionist, but yet contributing as many facets as
possible, stipulating stringent criteria on his own terms for the
performance of his pieces, playing them over and over again.
He has said(though not in these words), łfor me, as a creative musician,
coposition is a daily function that I feel compelled to discharge. I
compose because, I am made for that and cannot do otherwise. I stumble
upon something unexpected. This unexpected element stikes me. I make a
note of it. At the proper time, I put it to profitable use...˛
He seems to add, ł Some think that I write nonsense. They donąt listen
right. They want to nail me down. But I wonąt let them! On the next
occasion, I do something quite different that bewilders them˛.
He does not believe in the pristine principles of the past, but has
supreme confidence in the practical purview of the present. He is a
paradox for the puritan, a bore for the conservative and an avathara for
the neoclassicist.
BRC
S Sharma
> >TyagaRaja Swamy -->> MaNAmBuChavidi Venkata Subbayya -->> Susarla
> >DakhiNaMurty(he hails from Krishna Delta and musician of great standing
> >in Andhra) -->> ParuPalli RamaKrishnayya -->> Dr. Balamurali.
>
> >delta his samPradaYaa is authentic. I am not trying to compare Dr.
> >Balamurali with any one but only in his rendering can common man follow
> >the Sahitya effortlessly.
>
> Did thyAgarAja sing todi, bhairavi or bEgadA with
> flatter notes?(not western flatness)
> Or did mAnambuchAvadi vEnkata subbiah sing with lesser dose
> of gamakas or shakes?
> Is bAlamurali's uniqueness attributed to him or is it from his
> guru or from susarla gAru?
> Ofcourse there are no doubts about his sampradAya.
> For example his rendition of dEvi brOva samayamidE in chintAmani
> is lonely amongst the other lakshanAs that float around. Infact
> this pAtAntaram is from the AndhrA region and in that way
> bAlamurali is traditional. He will render it only the way he learnt it
> even if the heavens come down.
> >Balamurali with any one but only in his rendering can common man follow
> >the Sahitya effortlessly. It can be argued that since telugu is his
> >mother tongue he happens to have advantage. But as one the netters
> >pointed out even his tamil diction is impeccable.(No flames please).
>
> for his extra pronunciation clarity or is his voice's ductility or both?
> For example vOlEti venkatEswarulu and nEdanUri krishnamUrthi both
> contemporaries of bAlamurali also are telugus and definitely know
> telugu very well. Can't the common man follow the lyrics in their
> renditions? May be they pulp the lyrics in the gamaka laden style of
> theirs!!
> Please some knowledge nettor quench the thrist of this group....
> -srikanth
Two purpose
- the "traditional-Chantamani" one stems from the Shanmukhapriya roots/parent with the accidental/anya swara D2 [chatutushruthui Dhaivata] taking a bigger load than D1
- the BMK-Chantamani starts from Ma [as a base] on C Shruti, and it sounds like Ramapriya [surprise] without R in Arohana
any help in reconciling, decrypting, or appreciating what's happening here - will be a big help.