Identify the Raga
c.parth...@gmail.com
here is a new puzzle for the Rasika. I am writing some note-
combinations of a scale, can you tell me what Raga is this, and if any
lyric/composition you remember. MgMg M D n D, (M) r g r S, [D] [n] S r
g, S M r, g r S. [] stands for lower octave.
(Longer posts are due, I'll write whenever I get time.)
Ciao!
Partha
C Parthapratim
It is hard to believe that there is no one on board who can identify
the Raga, though I am not ruling out the possibility. :(
Vivekanand P V
Ahiri Todi?
Abhishek
Isn't it Parmeshwari (Ahiri Todi sans Pancham)?
praful....@gmail.com
I would say Parmeshwari as well.
praful....@gmail.com
d n R S, S R n S R G, m G, m G, S R n S, d n R S
m = teevra madhyam
Abhik Majumdar
The notes in this phrase are congruent to the whole tone scale (where
the notes are uniformly spaced two semitones apart). In western music
it is associated widely with Debussy, though its use goes as far back
as at least Mozart. Carnatic music has a raga called Gopriya which
embodies this scale. In Hindustani music, by far the most widely known
use of it is by Mehdi Hassan. He refers to it as Sahera (IIRC) and has
set a ghazal to it.
Abhik
C Parthapratim
Parameswari is the answer, but not Ahiri Todi, earlier it was known as
Ahiri Bagesri. The latter one, posted by Praful, is indeed Sahera/
Gopriya, Mehdi Hassan has set not one but 4 Ghazals on this scale.
Ciao!
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
Wanted to say this earlier, that was a brilliant answer!. Getting to
Ahiri Todi from first principles was easy (as Vivek did, not to
detract from his effort). But clearly that was not the correct answer,
unless the Pancham had been left out as a joke (a very dim
possibility). But to connect the missing Pancham with Parameshwari was
a very smart move, and I still haven't figured out how you did it.
Very impressed!
Abhik
praful....@gmail.com
Yes indeed, he calls is raag sahera. and later Sultan Khan played a
sarangi solo. The whole tone scale is unyielding at first glance,
but Mehdi Hasan saheb really did a good job using the approach he
chose. Music India online has a nice recording of it.
- PK
Vivekanand P V
I don't know how I didn't notice the missing Pancham. Felt strange
just when I re opened the topic after a time. Must improve my
observatory faculty, nonetheless.
Surely, I was unaware of Parameshwari.
:)
praful....@gmail.com
The only one I have heard is jab tere nain. Can u share the other
3?
Thanks
- PK
sanjeev.r...@gmail.com
<c.parthapra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> here is a new puzzle for the Rasika. I am writing some note-
> combinations of a scale, can you tell me what Raga is this, and if any
> lyric/composition you remember. MgMg M D n D, (M) r g r S, [D] [n] S r
> g, S M r, g r S. [] stands for lower octave.
>
Aside from the other answers, the Deen Todi recorded by Parveen
Sultana corresponds to this scale.
Sanjeev
Nishant Sharma
How does removal of pancham turn ahiri todi into ahiri bageshri? I
have not even heard this ahiri bageshri name before. Is it mention in
Bhatkhande or other texts, or is there some old recording? I searched
on google, did not get any hit on ahiri or ahir bageshri.
Nishant
UVR
Same here. 'jab tere nain muskuraate hain' is the only one that I can
recall in Sehra. What are the other 3 Ghazals of Mehdi Hassan in this
raaga?
-UVR.
RC
>
> Same here. 'jab tere nain muskuraate hain' is the only one that I can
> recall in Sehra. What are the other 3 Ghazals of Mehdi Hassan in this
> raaga?
>
> -UVR.
Perhaps: "ik Khalish ko haasil-e-'umr-e-ravaaN rehne diya" is another
that
is being referred to.
RC
praful....@gmail.com
> Perhaps: "ik Khalish ko haasil-e-'umr-e-ravaaN rehne diya" is another
In this ghazal at musicindia online, He starts off saying something
similar about the scale being difficult, but it is not a full tone
scale. It goes something like ..
PnSG, SGmP, GmP, mP, SRnS etc
- PK
Abhik Majumdar
If m = teevra madhyam, this would amount to Amirkhani Kauns with the
addition of a R in the avarohi. Not a common mode, but not especially
difficult to sing either, at least nowhere near Sahera. Also, you're
right nowhere near the whole tone scale either. Unfortunately MIO
doesn't play on my laptop, so unable to listen to the song for myself.
Abhik
C Parthapratim
Ahiri-Bagesri is a name that is NOT found in Bhatkhande's. Should not
be very ancient, as Bagesri itself is not that ancient. It's just
handed down in the oral tradition with at best a fragment of a bandish
-- Manamohini Jagadambe etc. At least I don't have any antara of this
composition, so can't tell about any signature or period. Pt.
Ravishankar re-discovered the scale as Parameswari, the credit of this
name goes to him. Similarly, Shyam Bilawal as written by Ustad Hayaat
Ali Khan (my mom's Guruji), youngest brother of Baba Allauddin, was
renamed and reformulated as Tilak Shyam. "Sakhi ri kaise jaoon shyam
(hari) darasan ko/ Sautana sab jaage kare nigaranee" is a composition
that was already known, and is very much Tilak Shyam. Again, no
antara.
Removing P of Todi to reach Bagesri is ridiculous at its best. The
application of komal gandhar is different. In Bagesri, this g involves
an andolan with M, just what I wrote in the first place. Whilst in
Todi, rikhab's andolan with g is more apt. Prafull is here, he would
tell that these two g are completely different on Shruti scale.
3 of Mehdi Hassan's Sahera compositions are available commercially.
Two are already mentioned here, one in full, and one in part.
Unfortunately the Mehdi Hassan collection is not handy with me right
now, and I can't remember the first line of the third at this moment.
The fourth one is a very bad concert recording among a noisy crowd,
probably in Delhi. If you hear it you will recognize the tune as
Sahera, but I can't understand a single word of it.
Ciao!
Partha
C Parthapratim
For a quick reference, I have just recorded the fragments of
compositions and posted it here --
1. http://indianmusic.org.in/media/Ahir-Bagesri.mp3
2. http://indianmusic.org.in/media/Shyam-Bilawal.mp3
There is no Todi in the first clip.
Ciao!
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
your mother was taught by Hayat Ali?
> Removing P of Todi to reach Bagesri is ridiculous at its best. The application of komal gandhar is different.
You mean, in addition to the difference in rishabhs, right?
> In Bagesri, this g involves an andolan with M, just what I wrote in the first place. Whilst in Todi, rikhab's andolan with g is more apt.
Are we talking rikhab here or gandhar? Your first sentence above
refers to g, and the second one refers to r.
The name Shyam Bilawal also puzzles me. In your clip I noticed very
clear strands of Shyam Kalyan and Tilak Kamod (hence Tilak Shyam) ,
but where is the Bilawal? Was your mother taught just the astayis or
also the nature of the raga?
Abhik
C Parthapratim
OK, "g[Andhar]'s andolan with rikhab" will be a better formula
perhaps, though I don't find any problem with that English. The
rishabh is left to the Ahiri part already as komal r, so yes in
addition to that difference, g is completely different.
YES, for a few years immediately after she came to Kolkata from then
East Pakistan. The cheez was written by Khan-sahab on a very old
"gAner Khata", if you know what it means. Only the Sthayee part, no
AntarA. Bilawal is there, if you listen to it carefully, Tilak Kamod
itself is a Bilawal mel rAg. May be a more elaborate alAp would help
you understand.
Ciao!
Partha
C Parthapratim
Another thing -- Ahir-Bagesri is NOT from that lineage. This one comes
from my guru-ji, Kirana heritage.
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
Andolit Gandhar? Todi?
Abhik
C Parthapratim
Yes, haven't you ever heard Todi? If there is at all any andolan -- g
will be coupled with r, also in Gurjari rikhab will be coupled with S
instead. Listen to Bismillah Khan's Todi, or Vilayat-Bismillah
Gurjari.
Partha
C Parthapratim
The basic point is, what you pretend not see, that Todi's g has an
affinity towards r, and Bagesri's g has affinity towards M. Hence
Shruti's are different. Therefore, you never reach one from another by
replacing R/r or adding/subtracting P.
Partha
UVR
That's not 'sehra'. It's a raga that uses notes from Vachaspati,
whence the shuddha dha is conspicuous by its glaring absence. The
shuddha dha is one of the primary notes in sehra.
-UVR.
sanjeev.r...@gmail.com
So identical to "Fikr Hi Thehri To Dil Ko"?
The raga Dhankoni Kalyaan (composed by the late Pt. C.R. Vyas) uses
the scale you describe. Not sure about other names for it.
Sanjeev
UVR
First of all, thanks very much for giving me the opportunity to
clarify what I mean by "shuddha dha" -- I'm referring to the
*Carnatic* shuddha dha (= HCM 'komal dhaivat'), which is absent from
Vachaspati and present in Sehra.
Second, whilst the tune of 'Fikr Hi Thehri' does also use notes from
Vachaspati, I don't think it's set to the same raga as that of 'ik
Khalish ko'. One example: the teevra ma makes a bolder and more
conspicuous appearance in 'ik Khalish'. 'fikr hi' seems to feature it
in roughly the same percentage as caffeine in decaf coffee. (I speak
of the vocal tune, not the instrumental interludes.) The ambience and
feel of the two "ragas" is quite different from each other.
And, neither of them is the same raga as Sehra.
-UVR.
UVR
>
> 3 of Mehdi Hassan's Sahera compositions are available commercially.
> Two are already mentioned here, one in full, and one in part.
Could you please clarify which the second one mentioned here is? If
it's "ik Khalish ko" then its classification as Sahera (sic) is not
appropriate.
> Unfortunately the Mehdi Hassan collection is not handy with me right
> now, and I can't remember the first line of the third at this moment.
> The fourth one is a very bad concert recording among a noisy crowd,
> probably in Delhi. If you hear it you will recognize the tune as
> Sahera, but I can't understand a single word of it.
>
If you would be so kind as to post clips online when you do get the
collection handy, that will be greatly appreciated.
-UVR.
sanjeev.r...@gmail.com
Ah - I read your post hurriedly. I mistakenly understood that you were
talking about Vachaspati minus (Hindustani) Shuddha Dha (Carnatic D2),
to which my remark about Dhankoni Kalyaan would then apply (Fikr Hi
Thehri does not use the Dha at all in the "sung" parts, though you're
also right that the teevra Ma is not quite as prominent as it could
be). If it's not painfully obvious by now, I have not heard "Ik
Khalish..." to-date.
Sanjeev
C Parthapratim
Sure I will, possibly as a new puzzle next week ;)
Partha
C Parthapratim
>
> - Show quoted text -
>If it's not painfully obvious by now, I have not heard "Ik
> Khalish..." to-date
Same here! I don't think it's the same composition that I was talking
about and can be confused as Vachaspati, with a dha or without a dha,
to be precise.
Partha
UVR
That's easily remedied (thought not necessarily with a good quality
audio clip). See here:
http://www.s-anand.net/hindi/khalish%20mehdi%20hassan
(caveat emptor: audio clips are from MusicIndiaOnline and SmasHits)
-UVR.
C Parthapratim
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't find any Sahera in it. Neither Vachaspati, at least the HCM
version. Rather traces of Madhu Kauns is there. However, from my
memory I'm trying to give a list : Jab Tere Naina is already mentioned
there, second is the last sher "Hasnewaale ... " from Bhooli Beesri
Chand is read in Sahera in one recording (he recorded it thrice or
more, I think), Then the third one is "Bichhadke Muddaton Baad Mile",
and the fourth one I told already I don't get a single word though the
first line is likely to be ending with something like kaashish!
I still don't have the MP3 disc which contains the first 3. It was
lent out to some friend who has passed away of late, and now I'll have
to get it from his brother, which is a little embarassing and I kept
deferring it. I'll get it some day.
Partha
sanjeev.r...@gmail.com
> Chand is read in Sahera in one recording (he recorded it thrice or
> more, I think),
"Hansnewaalon Se Darte The..." in Sehra? I would expect that sort of
thing from Ghulam Ali, but this sounds a bit out-on-a-limb for Mehdi
Hassan (not that he *couldn't*, but rather likely *wouldn't*) Curious
to hear this one.
Sanjeev
Abhik Majumdar
I have not disputed that point. If you take the trouble to go through
what I said earlier, it was your _other_ remarks, specifically about
andolan, that I find in consistent with either your own other
statements, or established practice.
> Therefore, you never reach one from another by replacing R/r or adding/subtracting P.
But it is your own claim that Ahiri Todi minus Pa equals Ahiri
Bageshri. That is what Nishant pointed out in his post. So are you
saying your own statement is illogical?
> Whilst in Todi, rikhab's andolan with g
And then:
> OK, "g[Andhar]'s andolan with rikhab" will be a better formula perhaps, though I don't find any problem with that English.
In other words, r's andolan with g = g's andolan with r. Hence,
andolit rikhab equals andolit gandhar!! Are you sure you don't "find
any problem" above?
> Hayat Ali Khan
Just occurred to me, do you mean Ayat Ali, Surbahar exponent and
instrument maker, also Bahadur Khan's father?
> Bilawal is there, if you listen to it carefully
Why don't you instead point to specific places in the _existing_
recording? Please don't bother to record a new one, because that will
inevitably contain your later, ex post facto interpolations.
> Tilak Kamod itself is a Bilawal mel rAg.
Eh? So does, say, Nat conform to the Bilawal mel / thaat. Should then
Tilak Shyam:Shyam Bilawal :: Nat Bihag:Bilawal Bihag? And then we
should rename Bahadur Khan's Nat Bilawal as . . . ?
> May be a more elaborate alAp would help you understand.
Like I said, that will contain your later interpolations. What I am
interested in is the contours of Shyam Bilawal as it was originally
sung. Since you were not directly taught the raga, and your
understanding of it derives from only half a bandish, I'd prefer more
authentic sources.
Abhik
C Parthapratim
> But it is your own claim that Ahiri Todi minus Pa equals Ahiri
> Bageshri. That is what Nishant pointed out in his post. So are you
> saying your own statement is illogical?
1. I HAVE NEVER MENTIONED AHIRI-TODI, LET ALONE WHAT IT BECOMES sans
P. It was, possibly Nishant who thought this way. I don't believe in
that way of identifying/memorizing scales at all.
> Just occurred to me, do you mean Ayat Ali, Surbahar exponent and
> instrument maker, also Bahadur Khan's father?
2. Yes the same person, but his name is also known as Hayaat. In fact
the correct Arabic word is Ayat, but in Bangla it is often confused
with Hayat, and this confusion also carries even in the context of
QurAn. We know him and talk about him as Hayaat Ali.
> Why don't you instead point to specific places in the _existing_
> recording? Please don't bother to record a new one, because that will
> inevitably contain your later, ex post facto interpolations.
3. Ah! How I wish you knew a little bit of music too, apart from
writing in English. Tell me how Tilak Kamod is Bilawal, where is
Bilawal in that? It's the G S R M G phrase. Also (P) M G treatment is
common with Bilawal. And for the same reason Shyam Bilawal is also
Bilawal. I have deleted those recordings from my computer, so can't
point out minute/second etc. But if you think you have heard Tilak
Kamod there, you have also heard Bilawal.
>Since you were not directly taught the raga, and your
>understanding of it derives from only half a bandish, I'd prefer more
>authentic sources.
4. I'd be happier if you could find another "authentic" source about
Shyam Bilawal.
However, this entire discussion is going to be "Intra-thread SPAM" (DG
et al), for our objective was Parameswari, not Shyam Bilawal, nor was
it Mehdi Hassan--Sahera--Vachaspati--&etc.
Ciao!
Partha
C Parthapratim
Vivekanand P V, and then Abhishek responded with correct answer but
incorrect theorization: Ahiri Todi sans Pancham. And then you Abhik,
talked a lot about missing Pancham etc.
"> Isn't it Parmeshwari (Ahiri Todi sans Pancham)?
Wanted to say this earlier, that was a brilliant answer!. Getting to
Ahiri Todi from first principles was easy (as Vivek did, not to
detract from his effort). But clearly that was not the correct
answer,
unless the Pancham had been left out as a joke (a very dim
possibility). But to connect the missing Pancham with Parameshwari
was
a very smart move, and I still haven't figured out how you did it.
Very impressed! "
Now it seems that you never knew what you were talking about.
Ciao!
Partha
C Parthapratim
You are right Sanjeev. It's indeed a very interesting recording, where
not just this sher, the other two/three sher are read in various other
scales. Another was in Charukeshi. More interestingly, at the
beginning of this song, he also talked a little about the alleged
tonal incongruity in modern Ghazal.
Ciao!
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
Yes, but that's what it is called, whether you like it or not. Let me
set out the facts so far in point form:
1. We have a scale SrgMPDn
2. This is referred to as Ahiri Todi
3. Minus P, it becomes Parameshwari
4. You claim (a) Parameshwari was earlier called Ahiri Bageshri
5. you claim (b) that Todi does not become Bageshri merely by removing
the P
The only way 4 and 5 can be reconciled is if you assert that Ahiri
Todi is a misnormer. If so I'd like to know why you say so.
> It was, possibly Nishant who thought this way.
As you point out later, it was actually Vivek. But like I said, that
is irrelevant. Do let us know how Ahiri Todi is not a Todi at all.
> his name is also known as Hayaat. In fact the correct Arabic word is Ayat, but in Bangla it is often confused with Hayat
They are two different words actually. 'Ayat' means a verse or a
passage from the Quran. 'Hayat' means life; it is not uncommon as a
first name.
> 3. Ah! How I wish you knew a little bit of music too
I'll ignore your presumption for the time being.
> It's the G S R M G phrase.
Do you mean this is a defining characteristic of the Bilawal ang? I
have in fact trouble reconciling it with most bilawals - Alhaiya,
Devgiri, hybrid ones like Yamani and Hamiri (I admit I don't know
Sarparda). And why? Because at least to me it appears straight out of
Jhinjhoti. Would you then call it a Bilawal also?
> Also (P) M G treatment is common with Bilawal.
Common, but not exclusive.
> I have deleted those recordings from my computer
Fortunately I had not. Feel free to download and point out.
http://sites.google.com/site/abhikrmic/Home/Shyam-Bilawal.mp3
> However, this entire discussion is going to be "Intra-thread SPAM" (DG et al)
I'm sure DG won't mind if you explain a little more. If you really do
explain, that is. All you have done so far is dodge questions and
foist unsubstantiated conjectures.
Abhik Majumdar
of Bilawal are generally the significance accorded to G, and
specifically the D-G phrase (not you, Town Crier). In fact, I'd say
the latter is the single biggest reason for treating Bihag as a
Bilawal variant. Tilak Kamod bears neither characteristic. Though G
can be used as a nyas swar under select circumstances (it is after all
a highly vakra raga), it cannot be stressed beyond a very limited
extent. And the DG phrase can be applied only under very very
restricted conditions if at all (which I doubt).
Abhik
Abhik Majumdar
P is itself incorrect, because the shruti of g changes? To that
limited extent I agree you have what can be considered a valid
agreement. I am not sure I agree with it, though. Parameshwari is
relatively new, as yet there exist neither hard-and-fast formal rules
nor a widely accepted aesthetic conception of the Raga which are
universally accepted. I see no bar in alternating within Parameshwari
both Bageshri-like phrases like gMDnS' as well as Todi-derived phrases
like SrgrS, or even hybrids of the two angs.
Abhik
Vivekanand P V
1. You claim: "....as Bagesri itself is not that ancient...." Any
proofs to substantiate this claim?
2. You say the *r* is left to Ahiri side of the raga. Do you mean the
existence of *r only* is essential for constituting Ahiri ang?
2. Do you say the Parameshwari or Ahiri Bageshree (Your claim) doesn't
contain a strand of Todi in it?
--
v
C Parthapratim
1. The "scale" that you mention for Ahiri-Todi and sans P which
allegedly becomes Ahiri-Bageshri (Ahir-Bagesri) aka Parameswari,
simply does not mean anything to me. Defining a scale essentially from
S and then as a linear sequence is a typical Bhatkhande-ian distortion
derived from some early Agra doyens whose alap would start essentially
from S irrespective of whatever Raga he would render later on. For us,
no raga start that way. Ahir-Bagesri ascending sequene is [D] [n] S r
g, S Mg r, S M_g M D; underscore _ denoting a touch note. D being the
vaadi, any skeletal treatment should start from there. S is NOT that
significant in this scale. Please note that the first 7 members denote
Ahiri as in Ahir-Bhairav, and the rest stands for Bagesri. There is no
Todi in it. Your confusion arises out of ironing out the basic
phrases.
Now what is the basic fault in your logic? You are mapping all Ragas
that use the same-named notes onto a single string/field of
characters. Thus SrgMDnS becomes a substring of SrgMPDnS! This is
where all yor arguements rest on. By your logic then, since all Marwa,
Puriya, Sohni are mapped onto SrGmDNS the scope for individual
identities is crunched. Same goes with Bhupali, Deshkar. You identify
both of them as SRGPDS, and arrive there (there, where?) by changing M
to G from Durga, or N to D from Hansadhwani! What can be more
ridiculous than this?
2. I don't agree with your Bilawal analysis. D-G is a typical phrase
of Allahiya Bilawal, you may use it in a couple of other variants but
NOT in many other variants, like Yamani. Whenever you insert G P D G
bluntly in it, there arrives a contradiction with the Yamani spirit.
Listen to Abdul Karim's Yamani Bilawal (often mislabelled as Devgiri)
"Pyara nazara nehi aaye"(sic) or its elaborate version (though not
quite accurate) by BJ, to find that there is no explicit D-G jerk, and
also listen how D P M G R is treated. Also listen to AK's illustrative
sargam there. BJ occassionally used this D-G, but I believe as a
Tirobhav combination along with the normal G M P NDN (P) M G. D-G is
not absolutely necessary a phrase.
Bilawal's beauty and essence is there lying in the G neighbourhood.
Listen to MM's treatment of various Bilawal's. Also listen to RS's
Devgiri Bilawal, and listen to the recurrence of and emphasis on the
GMGR combination. What can't be written here in our usual notation
system is the timing of the KaN notes that makes the difference
between a Bilawal variant and Jhinjhoti. Notes are same, but on the
time-scale they are miles apart. Like, S M can become Malkauns or
Kedar or Bhairavi. Everything depends on how you go from one note to
another. And by the way, there IS Bilawal in Jhinjhoti.
3. Analysing Ahiri-Todi is out of scope and is a non-sequitur here.
Someone made a mistake about finding a Todi that never was there, and
if that has to be substantiated, it is his responsibility, not mine. I
maintain that there is no Todi or its distant cousin in the scale we
are talking about. I, on the other hand, already talked about the
possible source of the error. Learn to appreciate the ragas as they
are, don't iron them out as Bhatkhande did.
4. Ayat/Hayat dichotomy possibly has two different attributes. One
being that poor Bengali speaking common people do not know much about
the presence of two different words, it's all the same for them.
Second, people from Kumilla area have a tendency to add an extra soft
H before any word starting with a vowel. Since both my mom and Khan
Sahib lived in that area for a long time, this was perfectly normal
for them.
Ciao!
Partha
C Parthapratim
1. Absence of proof of existence of Bagesri --- the Audab - Sadab
scale belonging to Kafi family -- is enough a proof of its non-
existence in "that" ancient time. Circumstantial evidences contrary to
its existence in those days are many -- I need not repeat them I
believe, or if I have to -- then please open a new thread for Bagesri,
I'll try to explain whatever little I have learnt.
Your other Q's are already answered in the other longer mail.
Thank you
Partha.
Abubakr
Another some such "gimmick" (if you will, but it works for me!) is his
drift into Lalat on "subh na mil saki" portion of the matla of the
ghazal "mein khyal hoon kisi aur ka". The matla in its entirety
reads,
"Jo Meri Reyazat-E-Neem Shab Ko Saleem Subh Na Mil Saki
To Pir Is Key Mani To Yeh Hue Keh Yahan Khuda Koi Aur Hai"
Vivekanand P V
scale belonging to Kafi family -- is enough a proof of its non-
existence in "that" ancient time.
Do you say Audav-Shadav ragas didn't existe in ancient times? Sangeeta
Ratnakara and Bruhaddeshi both recognise such ragas and even Sangeeta
Darpana also mentions such existence. Indeed the old texts have many
references to this ancient raga. One such Shloka is discribing the
pictorial nature of this raga. It was called as
"Vageeshwaree" (goddess Saraswati) which is in modern hindi accent
bageshree.
>>Circumstantial evidences contrary to
its existence in those days are many
We'll wait to know if there are such.
Did you address my 2nd and 3rd questions? I don't find any answers in
the longer mail. I think I'll not be wrong if I ask for more
particular answers.
C Parthapratim
Bagesri is believed to be first sung by Tansen in Akbar's court, 16th
century.
How do you know that Vageeshwaree mentioned in Sangeeta Darpana is the
same as Bagesri? Simply because they have names that sound alike?
Quote the text, where and how you found it. Which Darpana you are
referring to? There are quite a few books by the same name. Even if
there was a similar name of the scale, which is very likely, that can
not be the same scale.
How can it be the same even after shifting the entire swara-sthaan on
Shruti scale? In fact, is there any raga in HCM that corresponds in
ditto with its ancient namesake? Do you really think it's possible?
The Kafi, as we hear it now was called Bilawal/Shankarvaranam once
with all its Shuddha swaras, did you know that? And if you believe so
much in those visual imageries then I'd request you to read at least
one book -- Ragamala Painting by Klaus Ebeling -- to find out how so
many contradictory visual concepts went by the same Raga name, or so
many different scales that are otherwise miles apart carried the same
visual connotation! Read it first and some related books like Colonel
Randhawa's (I forgot the title of the book), study miniature paintings
a little, and then come back here. An ancient (sounds so) name
Bhagyashree would also become Bageshri in your "modern Hindi accent".
Your other questions: you did not find my answers because you did not
read the longer mail. I said -- 2. identified which part is Ahiri,
it's not just r, but an entire phrase, for a scale can't be identified
with a single note; and 3. categorically denied any Todi in Ahir-
Bagesri aka Parameswari. Though Parameswari is an independent scale,
renamed, re-christened, so is free to carry a Todi trait, Pt.
RaviShankar himself did not play any Todi in Parameswari. He should
have consulted the musicologists of course, but fortunately he didn't.
Ciao!
Partha
Mohan Joshi
> (RaviShankar) himself did not play any Todi in Parameswari.
I know I am jumping in at a late stage, but I just cannot resist
this. I clearly hear snatches of Bilaskhani in Ravishankar's LP of
Parmeshwari. So whats up?
> He should have consulted the musicologists of course, but fortunately he didn't.
Thanks. That brought a smile.
Mohan
C Parthapratim
Eventually Bilaskhani is a Bhairavi, though named Todi :) We were
actually talking about pure Todi streaks.
Ciao!
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
Let me cut the ramble with a couple of questions:
1. Do you deny Ahiri Todi the status of a raga?
2. If not, do you assert there is no Todi in it?
Coming to your conception of Ahiri Bageshri:
> the first 7 members denote Ahiri as in Ahir-Bhairav, and the rest stands for Bagesri.
In the light of the foregoing, let us look at the phrases you yourself
had provided:
> [D] [n] S r g
Which part is this, Ahir Bhairav or Bageshri?
> S Mg r
Same question repeated.
> 2. I don't agree with your Bilawal analysis. D-G is a typical phrase of Allahiya Bilawal, you may use it in a couple of other variants but NOT in many other variants, like Yamani.
Once again, let me try and cut short the rambling:
1. You don't agree with my understanding of Bilawal in terms of D-G
2. You had earlier asserted Tilak Kamod corresponds to the "Bilawal
Mel" because it features GSRMG.
Would you say, therefore, that GSRMG is more characteristic of BIlawal
than DG is?
> Bilawal's beauty and essence is there lying in the G neighbourhood.
But try lying in the G neighbourhood in Tilak Kamod? It is manifest to
even to one of my limited musical knowledge that we can do it under
extremely restrictive circumstances.
> What can't be written here in our usual notation system is the timing of the KaN notes that makes the difference between a Bilawal variant and Jhinjhoti.
And I assert that no amount of skilfully timed KaN notes can shoehorn
GSRMG into Bilawal, far less establish that cluster as a definitive
characteristic of Bilawal. Once again, I will not place any credence
over your own understanding of Bilawal (which I feel is highly
suspect). Instead, I will ask you to substantiate through outside
sources. Please point to any Bilawal recording of a well-known
musician available on the net, where the phrase GSRMG can be
determined. Time you moved towards converting hypotheses into theses.
> Someone made a mistake about finding a Todi that never was there
I have in the beginning of this post already highlighted the problems
with this claim of yours, so will not elaborate on them.
About your response to Vivek:
> Bagesri is believed to be first sung by Tansen in Akbar's court, 16th century.
And then:
> How do you know that Vageeshwaree mentioned in Sangeeta Darpana is the same as Bagesri? Simply because they have names that sound alike?
Quote the text, where and how you found it.
It is funny that you demand precise citations from Vivek without
offering any for your own assertions about Bageshri being first sung
by Tansen.
> Second, people from Kumilla area have a tendency to add an extra soft H before any word starting with a vowel.
Plausible :) Am reminded irresistibly of a relative-by-marriage, and
his distinctive inflexions.
Abhik
C Parthapratim
Listen Abhik, I feel it's pointless to argue with blind people. All
the questions you have repeated are answered already. Your basic
philosophy about raga-structure is wrong -- read the second paragraph.
A raga is not just a mapping on a linear swara-scale. I told you to
listen to some specific recordings of Bilawal, did you do that? You
didn't, for had you done that you woldn't have come up with the same
thing again.
About reply to Vivek, I am telling from the beginning that there is NO
proof that exists, and I said "it is believed" such and such. You want
to see an echo of belief? Go to Wikipedia then, find the Bageshri
article there. I say there is NO proof, Vivek says there is proof. Now
who is supposed to cite the proof? What kind of lawyer you are? I'll
destroy you in any court of the world. :) Apply a little common sense.
I also asked which Darpana. If it is Damodara Pundit's then that is a
17th century phenomenon, 100 years after Tansen, beginning of modern
age. What is so ancient about 1650s onwards?
GMGR, GRMG, SRGM, SRMG, RGMRG, RMGS, SGRGMG with apt timings and KaNs
are all applicable for Bilawal, any variation. It doesn't become a
Jhinjhoti unless M comes with a thrusted KaN R. Tilak Kamod as an
offshoot on the outer periphery of Bilawal domain use one line,
Allahiya use another or all, Devgiri use yet another. What's your
problem in it?
Whether Todi or Ahiri-Todi is a raga or they are not, is absolutely
irrelevant here in this entire discussion. About Ahiri anga, first you
listen attentively to any standard Ahir Bhairav, say Amir Khan Sahab's
and then come back to the phrase I wrote in part of Aroha there, You
will find yourself the common phrase.
Ciao!
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
There is excellent reason to think otherwise. Notwithstanding the
similarities in notes and the Bhatkhandenian classification, the
individual lagaavs, kans and shrutis (as Parthapratim is so fond of
discussing) differ significantly across the two ragas. Once again this
is apparent even to my humble musical perceptions. Ramashreya Jha's
demonstration is remarkable here. The distinction between Bhairavi and
Bilaskhani Todi begins around 3.40. The specific demonstration at 4.15
I found especially interesting:
http://www.sawf.org/audio/bhairavi/jha_bhairavispeak.ram
Abhik
Abhik Majumdar
Correction - what _you_ think is my basic philosophy may be incorrect,
I have personally never espoused. All I did do is ask you how GSRMG is
a characteristic of Bilawal. Even this was in response to your own
assertion that Tilak Kamod belongs to the Bilawal Mel because of the
GSRMG phrase.
> About reply to Vivek, I am telling from the beginning that there is NO proof that exists, and I said "it is believed" such and such.
> I say there is NO proof, Vivek says there is proof. Now who is supposed to cite the proof?
Incorrect. Vivek has cited _prima facie_ proof (i.e. not conclusive,
but apparent at first sight). This may not be enough to establish his
point, but is certainly adequate to shift the onus on you. Please do
not be so sure you'll destroy me in any court.
> GMGR, GRMG, SRGM, SRMG, RGMRG, RMGS, SGRGMG with apt timings and KaNs are all applicable for Bilawal
"Applicable". OK, let us assume it is indeed _applicable_ (which I
guess is possible if one works really, really hard at it). Does that
make it a _characteristic_ phrase of Bilawal? Characteristic enough to
ascertain Tilak Kamod falls in the Bilawal Mel because it incorporates
GSRMG?
And please don't go off on a tangent about Bhatkhande's linear mapping
of notes and how this is faulty, because you yourself said Tilak Kamod
falls within the Bilawal mel because of the GSRMG phrase.
> I told you to listen to some specific recordings of Bilawal, did you do that?
Say, are you my headmaster or my grandfather, that you claim for
yourself the authority to check my homework? In any case, the onus is
on _you_ to substantiate this assumption that GSRMG is a defining
characteristic of Bilawal. Please point out a recording that makes
significant use of this GSRMG phrase, which is:
1. made by a recognised musician
2. accessible to all (preferrably on the net)
3. of a known variety of bilawal
4. uploaded on a third-party server (I don't trust you to upload some
dubious recording on your own server, like you did with those Mansur
and "Bhurji Khan" recordings)
> listen attentively to any standard Ahir Bhairav, say Amir Khan Sahab's and then come back to the phrase I wrote in part of Aroha there
I have been listening to that recording for the last 22 years. Till
date I have not noticed any incidence whatsoever of komal gandhar. At
least you agree that your phrases { [D] [n] S r g } and { S Mg r }
(which I just copy/pasted from your own post) contain komal gandhar?
And lastly:
> Listen Abhik, I feel it's pointless to argue with blind people.
Blind? As in the boy who could not see the emperor's new clothes?
Abhik
vinay pande
okay--now that we have settled this argument and everyone now has a
collective headache, can we hear the rest of that bandish in shyam-
bilawal, or subah ki tilak kamod, or whatever it is? its got a nice
catchy tune and i like it very much! hayaat ali had good taste in
music, whatever his qualifications in musicology....
vinay
C Parthapratim
> > Your basic philosophy about raga-structure is wrong
>
> Correction - what _you_ think is my basic philosophy may be incorrect,
> I have personally never espoused.
After so much talking about with a P, without a P, with a dha or
without (Bachaspati case) -- if you say that linear mapping onto a
field or subfield of tones is not your philosophy -- you don't have a
philosophy at all. I'm afraid you move very easily between SENILITY
and SANITY. It's easy, just drop LI and change E to A, as you did in
reaching Ahir-Bagesri from Ahir-Todi!
All I did do is ask you how GSRMG is
> a characteristic of Bilawal. Even this was in response to your own
> assertion that Tilak Kamod belongs to the Bilawal Mel because of the
> GSRMG phrase.
>
> > About reply to Vivek, I am telling from the beginning that there is NO proof that exists, and I said "it is believed" such and such.
> > I say there is NO proof, Vivek says there is proof. Now who is supposed to cite the proof?
>
> Incorrect. Vivek has cited _prima facie_ proof (i.e. not conclusive,
> but apparent at first sight). This may not be enough to establish his
> point, but is certainly adequate to shift the onus on you. Please do
> not be so sure you'll destroy me in any court.
>
> > GMGR, GRMG, SRGM, SRMG, RGMRG, RMGS, SGRGMG with apt timings and KaNs are all applicable for Bilawal
>
> "Applicable". OK, let us assume it is indeed _applicable_ (which I
> guess is possible if one works really, really hard at it). Does that
> make it a _characteristic_ phrase of Bilawal? Characteristic enough to
> ascertain Tilak Kamod falls in the Bilawal Mel because it incorporates
> GSRMG?
I did not write GSRMG as a phrase, let alone characteristic phrase. I
wrote G S R M G as the locus of emphasis with all their respective
treatments. As a phrase it doesn't come in Tilak Kamod too, or if it
does, only in Taankari as Vilayat Khan sahab did. Try and understand
the difference.
>
> And please don't go off on a tangent about Bhatkhande's linear mapping
> of notes and how this is faulty, because you yourself said Tilak Kamod
> falls within the Bilawal mel because of the GSRMG phrase.
>
I also wrote the (P) M G coupled with the above. A Raga has
essentially an architectonic aspect. Single-out any of the supporting
columns, the structure melts down to nothingness.
> > I told you to listen to some specific recordings of Bilawal, did you do that?
>
> Say, are you my headmaster or my grandfather, that you claim for
> yourself the authority to check my homework?
You demand substantiation, and when they are submitted you act like a
schoolboy evading homework. How do you expect to understand if you
don't do your homework, huh?
In any case, the onus is
> on _you_ to substantiate this assumption that GSRMG is a defining
> characteristic of Bilawal. Please point out a recording that makes
> significant use of this GSRMG phrase,
I repeat, I have not written it as a phrase. I took the trouble to
press the space-bar every time, and you evaded the trouble reading
them.
which is:
>
> 1. made by a recognised musician
Does Gopeswar Bandyopadhyay pass the recognition test? I don't
remember the URL, but may be Google will help you.
> 2. accessible to all (preferrably on the net)
> 3. of a known variety of bilawal
Known to whom? To you, or to the musician?
> 4. uploaded on a third-party server (I don't trust you to upload some
> dubious recording on your own server, like you did with those Mansur
> and "Bhurji Khan" recordings)
:) But you have "Shruti-tai" to testify.
>
> > listen attentively to any standard Ahir Bhairav, say Amir Khan Sahab's and then come back to the phrase I wrote in part of Aroha there
>
> I have been listening to that recording for the last 22 years. Till
> date I have not noticed any incidence whatsoever of komal gandhar. At
> least you agree that your phrases { [D] [n] S r g } and { S Mg r }
> (which I just copy/pasted from your own post) contain komal gandhar?
>
Yes there is Komal g in what I wrote, but the gamak and pace in [D]
[n] S r part is to be compared with possible extension as a phrase [D]
[n]SrSr[n]S[D][n][D], not the landing note g. Again in S Mg r, the g
is almost not audible, but the bold outline SMr is comparable with its
Ahir-Bhairav counterpart.
> And lastly:
>
> > Listen Abhik, I feel it's pointless to argue with blind people.
>
> Blind? As in the boy who could not see the emperor's new clothes?
>
No, blind as an Ostrich that hides the face in sand and thinks nobody
sees his vulnerability.
> Abhik
C Parthapratim
>
> - Show quoted text -
Antara? Lost!! I have the wordings, but don't know the tune. May be I
can compose a tune again in that given line. Will that do? But RS's
Tilak-Shyam is already there to override and pre-empt any Shyam
Bilawal, not to mention the self-styled musicologists.
Ciao!
Partha
C Parthapratim
Ramashreya Jha! It took me a minute to recall the name. Well, all what
he said is g's lagaav from r is a (one of many) Todi characteristic
and that is there in Bilaskhani too. Fine. Then he continued to say
that "therefore/hence/Sutarang Bilaskhani is a Todi" and our friend
Abhik started believing him, contrary to all musical/institutional/
Bhatkhande-ian belief that thAt origin (if at all, for the moment) of
Bilaskhani is Bhairavi!
However, I beg to differ. It's closer to Bhairavi than Todi. The Todi
r-g is part of Bilaskhani but not essential. Proof? Listen to D V
Paluskar. The sam is on g and rather applied straight than with a
specially designed Todi lagaav. Listen to Amir Khan. Again sam on g,
and often straight, sometimes Todi, sometimes not. And never in
laikari, or tankari. Listen to Nikhil Banerjee. He did justice to all.
Played r-g, played S-g, [n]-g, [d]-g, [P]-g in equal proportions and
never deviated from Bilaskhani. Listen to Ali Akbar Khan. His
favourite seems to be S r Mg, S r P M g, like Amir Khan's. Now, these
recordings are more Bilaskhani for me than what HE proposes. Thank god
they never asked musicologists.
Finding one characteristic phrase and identifying an entire raga with
that is fallacious! It's the same fallacy of finding the style of
beards of Tagore, G B Shaw, Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx that they all
had in common with the big male goat, and then concluding that all
great men are goats. Same goes with Tilak Kamod, Bilawal, Shyam
Bilawal. All of them are Bilawal, not because of one phrase or two.
It's the approach, the structure and its balance that is important,
not this or that phrase. It's the locus of emphasis, or how the
"centre of gravity" moves around, is what we are talking about.
Now wait a minute. I have a serious reservation about that Bhairavi
Lakshangeet. Not that it was wrong or something. But ... Did I hear
Ramrang signature at the end of it? But all what he sang is a
variation of the old Lakshangeet "Bhairavi Kahi Mana manee ..." that I
learnt some 30 years back from one my teachers who is an Agra Gharana
disciple. I knew there are three or four other regional variations of
the same composition. Now taking a traditional cheez, tweaking a
little here and a little there, and putting a signature in it --- is
hardly any musical ethics.
It reminds me a joke. You all knew that. But can't resist torturing
you more by repeating. PRECISION TECHNOLOGY. As a proof of their
achievements, USA made a needle that is a only a few microns thick. It
came to Japan, and the Japanese engineers ran a drill and turned that
needle into a hollow pipe. Then the pipe came in India. The Indian
government set up (within 15 years, not much) a department for AQUIRED
PRECISION TECHNOLOGY (APT), and they printed on the same pipe, "Made
in India". Well, I have a more apt name for this APT-ness. I believe
you all know that name.
Ciao!
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
> r-g is part of Bilaskhani but not essential. Proof? Listen to D V
> Paluskar. The sam is on g and rather applied straight than with a
> specially designed Todi lagaav. Listen to Amir Khan. Again sam on g,
> and often straight, sometimes Todi, sometimes not. And never in
> laikari, or tankari. Listen to Nikhil Banerjee.
For all your reference to the great masters, you don't seem to have
understood anything of what Jha says. r g can be applied to Bhairavi
also. All he asserts is that when you apply r g _in a particular way_
(as in without andolan on the gandhar as in Bhairavi, and of a
particular shruti, distinct from the shruti of g in Bhairavi), the
Todi aspect becomes clear. This is not by any means a hard-and-fast
rule, as in that you HAVE to use this phrase to establish Todi. But
when you do use that phrase in that specific manner, Todi is
established and Bhairavi dispelled.
Abhik
Abhik Majumdar
This reminds me of this Legionnaire Beau Peep comic strip, where he
asks his dumb friend Dennis to count to ten. Dennis goes, "One, two,
three . . . er Beau, do you want the rest in any particular order?"
Why? Let us inductively infer how a 'locus of emphasis' is distinct
from a phrase. What is a phrase? Surely a set of notes in a
discernible order. But then, so is a 'locus of emphasis' a set of
notes. At least G S R M G is. Therefore, if the distinction between
locus and phrase is to be maintained, it is the discernible order that
must be dropped.
However, when we come across a set of notes like G S R M G, two
observations may be made. One, G occurs twice. Two, there is a jump
from R to M to G. Which means that there is indeed an inherent order
in the presentation of notes (else a mere S R G M would have sufficed
to establish a "locus of emphasis"). In which case the distinction
between G S R M G and a phrase like GSRMG reduces to the negligible.
And credence for this is found when someone uses G S R M G as a
justification for including Tilak Kamod in the Bilawal Mel.
> Does Gopeswar Bandyopadhyay pass the recognition test? I don't remember the URL, but may be Google will help you.
Too lazy to google for it yourself, are you? Funny sort of grandfather
you claim to be. You set homework, but without citing album numbers.
And now you claim some Gopeshwar Bandyopadhyaya recording is available
on the net, but you not only don't specify the timing or provide the
URL you don't even say what raga is being presented!
> Yes there is Komal g in what I wrote, but the gamak and pace in [D] [n] S r part is to be compared with possible extension as a phrase [D][n]SrSr[n]S[D][n][D], not the landing note g. Again in S Mg r, the g is almost not audible, but the bold outline SMr is comparable with its Ahir-Bhairav counterpart.
Now are you talking of Ahir Bhairav here or Parameshwari/Ahiri
Bageshri? Presumably the latter. That is to say [D] [n] S r should be
pronounced as in Ahir Bhairav, not as in Ahiri Todi. A most unnatural
construction, as we lawyers say. Stretches credibility.
In any case, what happens to the phrases that do contain g? At 0.03 of
your own recording, there is a g r S phrase. Does this g derive from
Ahir Bhairav or Bageshri? Then again, at 0.14 (very briefly) and 0.18
two clearly distinct shrutis of g are used. The second one is clearly
Bageshri; the first one, lower in pitch, is equally clearly not. If
not, where does it derive? Surely not Ahir Bhairav? This is hardwired
into the bandish even. In the 'Jagadambe' phrase, the '-ga-' syllable
(at 0.40) incorporates a r g r S phrase. Once again, despite its
conjunction with r, does the g derive from Bageshri?
> No, blind as an Ostrich that hides the face in sand and thinks nobody sees his vulnerability.
Once again, I'll give it the ignore it deserves. Vulnerable SHEEESH!!
Abhik
C Parthapratim
Yes r-g with a roll to end up on a particular shruti, and it's not
exclusive. That's what I wrote, only if you cared to read! But then --
here is the catch -- presence of that r-g doesn't make Bilaskhani a
Todi.
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
> exclusive. That's what I wrote, only if you cared to read! But then --
> here is the catch -- presence of that r-g doesn't make Bilaskhani a
> Todi.
I completely disagree here. You are free to jigger your own
definitions of Todi, even contend Gujari Todi is not a Todi, but your
one-off ideas have to make sense to others. So far it does not.
In any case, this r g phrase is used in Parameshwari too. Furthermore,
it can derive from neither Ahir Bhairav nor Bageshri, that is, it must
derive from outside of either raga. Which means that the ragangas of
Ahir Bhairav and Bageshri are not exhaustive of the characteristics of
Parameshwari.
Abhik
C Parthapratim
> > I did not write GSRMG as a phrase, let alone characteristic phrase. I wrote G S R M G as the locus of emphasis
>
> This reminds me of this Legionnaire Beau Peep comic strip, where he
> asks his dumb friend Dennis to count to ten. Dennis goes, "One, two,
> three . . . er Beau, do you want the rest in any particular order?"
>
> Why? Let us inductively infer how a 'locus of emphasis' is distinct
> from a phrase. What is a phrase? Surely a set of notes in a
> discernible order. But then, so is a 'locus of emphasis' a set of
> notes. At least G S R M G is. Therefore, if the distinction between
> locus and phrase is to be maintained, it is the discernible order that
> must be dropped.
>
> However, when we come across a set of notes like G S R M G, two
> observations may be made. One, G occurs twice. Two, there is a jump
> from R to M to G. Which means that there is indeed an inherent order
> in the presentation of notes (else a mere S R G M would have sufficed
> to establish a "locus of emphasis"). In which case the distinction
> between G S R M G and a phrase like GSRMG reduces to the negligible.
> And credence for this is found when someone uses G S R M G as a
> justification for including Tilak Kamod in the Bilawal Mel.
>
You are still not there. A musician's feeling is necessary here. All
of music can't be translated into words. It that was possible, people
would have never took the trouble to sing.
> > Does Gopeswar Bandyopadhyay pass the recognition test? I don't remember the URL, but may be Google will help you.
>
> Too lazy to google for it yourself, are you? Funny sort of grandfather
> you claim to be. You set homework, but without citing album numbers.
> And now you claim some Gopeshwar Bandyopadhyaya recording is available
> on the net, but you not only don't specify the timing or provide the
> URL you don't even say what raga is being presented!
>
Bilawal of course. My original homework is still there, and I believe
you have all those in your possession. GB is a new addition only,
optional. I have that recording on my computer. If you say I can
upload it to my server. I couldn't find the site, but I remember I
have downloaded it from a new, personal site of someone, some
sitarist, who was then travelling in Europe, and I got the link here
on RMIC.
> > Yes there is Komal g in what I wrote, but the gamak and pace in [D] [n] S r part is to be compared with possible extension as a phrase [D][n]SrSr[n]S[D][n][D], not the landing note g. Again in S Mg r, the g is almost not audible, but the bold outline SMr is comparable with its Ahir-Bhairav counterpart.
>
> Now are you talking of Ahir Bhairav here or Parameshwari/Ahiri
> Bageshri? Presumably the latter. That is to say [D] [n] S r should be
> pronounced as in Ahir Bhairav, not as in Ahiri Todi. A most unnatural
> construction, as we lawyers say. Stretches credibility.
>
What is unnatural about it? Anyway, this is the Ahir-Bhairav style
movement that is intended in Ahir-Bagesri, not the Todi style, or Ahir-
Todi style.
> In any case, what happens to the phrases that do contain g? At 0.03 of
> your own recording, there is a g r S phrase. Does this g derive from
> Ahir Bhairav or Bageshri? Then again, at 0.14 (very briefly) and 0.18
> two clearly distinct shrutis of g are used. The second one is clearly
> Bageshri; the first one, lower in pitch, is equally clearly not. If
> not, where does it derive? Surely not Ahir Bhairav? This is hardwired
> into the bandish even. In the 'Jagadambe' phrase, the '-ga-' syllable
> (at 0.40) incorporates a r g r S phrase. Once again, despite its
> conjunction with r, does the g derive from Bageshri?
>
If I did that, that's a mistake on my singing. Actually half-leaning
on couch and recording on a laptop is certainly not the ideal position
to sing. Moreover, this raga is not in my regular riyaaz. It has to be
the Bagesri g, not the Todi g even if it is in conjunction with r.
C Parthapratim
Happy listening :) Bye!
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
I am very suspicious of people who use 'musician's feeling' and
suchlike abstract concepts and then decline to upload their own
recordings :P
Somehow you don't seem keen to let us know what kind of a musician you
yourself are.
> Bilawal of course.
What Bilawal?
> I believe you have all those in your possession.
I don't know how you believe it. As a matter of fact I don't.
> If I did that, that's a mistake on my singing.
On the contrary I think you are very surel. Like I pointed out, the
rgrS phrase is intrinsic to the bandish.
> It has to be the Bagesri g, not the Todi g even if it is in conjunction with r.
This is where I disagree with you. I tried singing it just now. It
sounds stilted, in fact downright artificial.
Abhik
C Parthapratim
> > You are still not there. A musician's feeling is necessary here.
>
> I am very suspicious of people who use 'musician's feeling' and
> suchlike abstract concepts and then decline to upload their own
> recordings :P
>
> Somehow you don't seem keen to let us know what kind of a musician you
> yourself are.
>
> > Bilawal of course.
>
> What Bilawal?
>
Shudh Bilawal, Dhamar.
> > I believe you have all those in your possession.
>
> I don't know how you believe it. As a matter of fact I don't.
Then have them gathered first, listen to them, the masterpieces, and
only then talk music. I can help you with whatever collection I have,
for I don't believe in music company's copyright, in copyright issues
I don't give them a ....
>
> > If I did that, that's a mistake on my singing.
>
> On the contrary I think you are very surel. Like I pointed out, the
> rgrS phrase is intrinsic to the bandish.
>
> > It has to be the Bagesri g, not the Todi g even if it is in conjunction with r.
>
> This is where I disagree with you. I tried singing it just now. It
> sounds stilted, in fact downright artificial.
>
> Abhik
True, this raga, and many such combination scales are stilted and most
probably that is why these are not in the popular domain. Ahir-Bagesri
is a theoretical possibility, so is Parameswari the new avatar, but
maintaining its theoretical purity and singing it too with a mortal
voice is not my cup of tea at least. As I said, it has to be either a
Bagesri g, or to stretch Bagesri trait a little further one is allowed
a half-KaN on Shuddha R, which seems impossible in actual singing.
Invariably the Todi g creeps in, just what happened in my case (I
downloaded it again from my server, and now I remember I conciously
tried that g, which became atikomal g, somewhere in between R and
Bagesri g).
What kind of musician I am? Well, what are your classifications? I
don't remember since when I sing, and my first Gurus were my parents,
mom belonging to Maihar and Gwalior school, and father being a Senia
gharana sitarist, a disciple of Jitendramohan Sengupta who was also
Vilayat Khan's mentor for sometime. I have obtained the highest degree
the Bhatkhande Sangeet Mahavidyalay offers, Sangeet NipuN. Though I am
not sure it helped my music at all. But that is when I got a little
bit of Agra taleem. Then I switched to Kirana school. Pt. Aloke
Chattopadhyay, who is still holding the Kirana lineage in Kolkata, is
my Guru. I was a professional musician for some time, sang for AIR
etc. But then I quit, and confined myself in my own learning,
practice, and a little bit of teaching. In fact, when I recorded for
my film, I entered a professional studio after 12 years or so. Now you
decide the 'kind', I am not even interested in knowing.
Ciao!
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
> Shudh Bilawal, Dhamar.
Incorrect. It is actually labelled 'Bilawal ka prakar'. Indeed it
contains so many influences of other ragas it is difficult to to treat
it otherwise:
http://sarangi.info/sarangi/vocal/gopeshwarbandyopadhyay_bilawalkaprakar.wma
> True, this raga, and many such combination scales are stilted and most probably that is why these are not in the popular domain.
On the contrary, I don't find your rendition stilted. It is only your
insistence on only one kind of gandhar, and insistence on removing the
Todi ang, that gives it its stilted character.
> What kind of musician I am?
You are right these classifications don't matter. What we meant was,
why this manifest reluctance to share your own performances with the
rest of us? This when you insist only performers ought to comment on
music?
Abhik
C Parthapratim
> > > What Bilawal?
> > Shudh Bilawal, Dhamar.
>
> Incorrect. It is actually labelled 'Bilawal ka prakar'. Indeed it
> contains so many influences of other ragas it is difficult to to treat
> it otherwise:
>
>
No, not this one. I didn't have this. Anyway, thanks for pointing to
the new link..
UVR
'matla' here must be a typo. You surely mean maqta. The matla of
this Ghazal is
maiN Khyaal hooN kisi aur kaa mujhe sochta koi aur hai
sar-e-aa'inaa meraa aks hai, pas-e-aa'inaa koi aur hai
-UVR.
Bhuvanesh
FWIW, I agree with Abhik on this. I have never been able to see any
resemblance between Bhairavi and Bilaskhani Todi, even though they
belong to the same thaat. Listen to Amir Khan's Bilaskhani Todi, and
then to his Komal Rishabh Asavari, and you will see some similarities
-- more, at any rate, than with Bhairavi.
Quite an interesting discussion, by the way :)
Bhuvanesh
C Parthapratim
>
> - Show quoted text -
Indeed, Bilaskhani or Komal Rishabh Asavari (... Asavari todi, even
Komal Asavari) are very close to each other. To my mind, sometimes
they are the same except for a few little differences like Bilaskhani
comes [d] [n] S, and Komal Rishabh Asavari takes [n]_[d][n]_[d] S,
etc. By the way, refer to BJ for Komal Rishabh .. -- that's his forte
-- not AK's. Now the ustad/pandit who would tell about Bilaskhani and
Bhairavi's similarity, they would do that citing certain phrases
including the Vadi/Samvadi note of Bilaskhani that are also equally
used in Bhairavi. For example, gP d_Pnd (underscore being touch note,
but here a very short glance at P) can be used in both. If followed by
M g_rg_r -- Bilaskhani pops up. But if followed by {S}n{r}{S} (d) P
--- it's the standard Bhairavi line. There are many such common
phrases actually.
However, one may consider Bilaskhani as an independent raga/ragini.
Why does it have to be a Todi, or why do you have to classify as a
kind of Bhairavi? Finding common phrases and thus classifying in
general is fallacious, the same fallacy of finding common type of
beard between Tagore and a goat!
Thank you for making the discussion more interesting.
Ciao!
Partha
Abhik Majumdar
I admit you have a point there. One of my favourite Kumar Gandharva
recordings is of a morning mehfil where keeps referring to the raga as
Bilaskhani (simpliciter).
However, to my mind it is much closer to Todi than Bhairavi, due to
the way specific notes are pronounced. If Darbari and Suha can be
considered part of the same family notwithstanding their manifest
distinctions, then surely it's not stretching the point to include
Bilaskhani into the Todi family.
Of course, some may contend why Darbari and Suha have to be classified
together. And indeed there can be no answer to that - treating the two
as dissimilar entities is perfectly sound reasoning in its own way.
Then again, I've heard some people inject a Darbari-like gMRS into
Suha and insist on calling it Suha Kanada. Once again I have nothing
to say to that. To each his own, I guess.
Personally (and only personally) I'd be more comfortable perceiving
Bilaskhani as a Todi. However, I think classifying it as a Bhairavi
species is inappropriate at a more general level.
Abhik
Vivekanand P V
There is of course no point in continuing this noise as you have
accepted that at least Tansen has (believed to be !) sung it. To me,
this is sufficient to prove its existence in that time (at least at
16th century, as far as the scope of this thread is concerned !).
>>How do you know that Vageeshwaree mentioned in Sangeeta Darpana is the
>>same as Bagesri? Simply because they have names that sound alike?
How could you say, then, it was not being sung as we do it now? Do you
have any recordings of Haridas, Tansen, Baiju? (I'm afraid, if you
could come out with a bunch of such proofs one day! I've already seen
the Bhurji Khan's and still recovering!)
>>Quote the text, where and how you found it.
वीणा विनॊदी कमलायताक्षी सौंदर्य-लावण्य सुगौरगात्रा ।
प्रत्युःसमीपे कमनीय कण्ठा वागीश्वरी कौशिक रागिणीयं ॥
>>There are quite a few books by the same name. Even if
>>there was a similar name of the scale, which is very likely, that can
>>not be the same scale.
I know. And you know I'm fortunate enough to read them in Sanskrit
rather than relying on some second hand accounts. I just wonder and
cannot control laughing for your ignorance-induced-audacity. It's
hilarious that you ask for the other man to prove himself rather than
substantiating your claims. It is you who claimed that Bageshree is
not an ancient raga; and recently added that it was being sung by
Tansen. Produce the substantiating base for your claims.
After all you are neither an Indian Police and nor this RMIC a police
torture room.
>>How can it be the same even after shifting the entire swara-sthaan on
>>Shruti scale? In fact, is there any raga in HCM that corresponds in
>>ditto with its ancient namesake? Do you really think it's possible?
I don't know whether to laugh at this inconsistency or to care
replying. Let me, for the time. When you doubt that there were no
similarities between the ragas sung in the ancient time and the new
ones even when the names are same; observe and keep in mind that it is
a sheer doubt. Such 50% inferences cannot substantiate anything except
the fact that it cannot be verified unless you have a recording of
both times. Since it is not possible (!) it cannot be a room to raise
a severe allegation and rant like police.
>>The Kafi, as we hear it now was called Bilawal/Shankarvaranam once
>>with all its Shuddha swaras, did you know that?
Any proofs for this claim? Your claims would be validated only after
you back them with proper justifications. Making noise is a cheap
trick. I suppose you know it well.
>>And if you believe so much in those visual imageries then I'd request you to read at least
>>one book -- Ragamala Painting by Klaus Ebeling -- to find out how so
>>many contradictory visual concepts went by the same Raga name, or so
>>many different scales that are otherwise miles apart carried the same
>>visual connotation! Read it first and some related books like Colonel
>>Randhawa's (I forgot the title of the book), study miniature paintings
>>a little, and then come back here.
This is exactly your problem. You never care to read the other man
properly, as I could see a lot of noise you are exhausting through
different posts in several threads.
What I've told is the verse gives a 'pictorial' nature of
Vaageeshwaree. If you know a little Sanskrit then you would read the
verse I quoted. My point is the pictorial nature described here in
this verse justifies the name Vaageeshwaree (goddess Saraswati). So,
the name of Goddess and the ancient name of raga are both coincided
well in the verse. The verse also tells that Vageeshwari is a Ragini
of Raga Kaushika. So is the derivation.
>>An ancient (sounds so) name Bhagyashree would also become Bageshri in your "modern Hindi accent".
We don't find such a raga in any old texts. Therefore there is no
question of considering such an issue at all. It is your assumption.
Cite your reference if you ever encountered a raga called
"Bhagyashree" in any ancient Sanskrit Books.
>>Your other questions: you did not find my answers because you did not
>>read the longer mail. I said -- 2. identified which part is Ahiri,
>>it's not just r, but an entire phrase, for a scale can't be identified
>>with a single note;
You are now trying to twist your tongue. You were quite comfortable
saying once that r is left to Ahiri part of it and g M D n (or
combinations thereof) as Bageshree. Now when asked particularly, you
take a U-turn and start reciting the usual Dhrupadia's saga. If you
believe that a scale or notations cannot make a raga, then why do you
write such puzzles which invariable take refuge in notation system?
I'm sure you are just projecting the story of 'the-emperor's-new-
clothes'. Funny adaptation indeed!
>>and 3. categorically denied any Todi in Ahir-
>>Bagesri aka Parameswari. Though Parameswari is an independent scale,
>>renamed, re-christened, so is free to carry a Todi trait, Pt.
>>RaviShankar himself did not play any Todi in Parameswari. He should
>>have consulted the musicologists of course, but fortunately he didn't.
Forget Ravi Shankar. I'm talking about your uploaded gem. The gem is
indeed screwed up by Todi strongly. Even a care-free listening would
endorse the immigration to Todi realm (0.14 to 0.17 and 0.38 to
0.42).
--
V
Abubakr
Indeed. It was the maqta I was referring to. I do know the distinction
between the two, believe me. :)
C Parthapratim
Your "Shloka" is "Highly Suspicious". However, I'll verify the
original tomorrow and then write. Other parts of your logic has
several flaws. Anyway, that should be discussed together.
Ciao!
Partha
C Parthapratim
Having a good laugh is good for your health. Thank you too for letting
me enjoy my share of the laugh. Here there are 1012 members of this
forum, excluding you and me, who will laugh at you after reading this
mail.
Your mail is a little disorderly. So I have to find the correct order
and reply accordingly.
1. About your claim to have read ALL those in sanskrit -- Wonderful!
You read Damodara’s Sangeet Darpan in Sanskrit. Then you read
Fakirulaah’s Sangeet Darpan (a version of Raja Man Singh’s MANKUTUHAL)
in Sanskrit! Then you went on reading Gopeswar Bandyopadhyay’s Sangeet
Darpan (also known as Geet-Darpan, written in Bangla) in Sanskrit. And
even you read Mysore V Ramarathnam’s Sangeet Darpana (written in
Kannada, published by University Press: Prasanga) in Sanskrit too! You
know them all! However, I'll come to your "quotation" a little later.
2. In any standard text of Indian history, 16th century will be marked
as the end of the medieval ages, as 17th century is the beginning of
early modern ages. By 16th century, Renaissance has take place, Bhakti-
andolan has taken place and its offshoot primitive kind of secularism
has started gaining grounds, the feudal mode of production is
developed to the fullest, and a near-uniform legal / juridical system
prevailed in a large part of the country. Ancient? Huh! Thank you, but
no thank you.
3. You don't need recordings of Mian Tansen always! Some common sense
is also needed. "Yasya nasti swayampragnaa tasya shaastra karoti
kim?"- ChaNakya. In modern Bagesri, even 50 years back, P was rarely
used, and that too used to come as "Arsha-Prayog". Now, P is included
in the basic aroha-avaroha (Vide Rajan Parrikar article). All the
ragas are changing, and in 100 years of time everything changes.
Listen to a Rahmat Khan Yaman clipping and compare it to Yaman you
know, and also to Shudh Kalyan if you know. http://indianmusic.org.in/media/clip1.mp3
In fact, these are only minor changes. The major change has taken
place with the placement of Shrutis. You might have known (read in
original Sanskrit!!) that the octave is divided in 22 shrutis. Whether
these shrutis are equal or not, whether there should be actually more
than 22 in modern context is a different issue. However, it is known
that in Ratnakar, the Shuddha mel was named Bhairavi (with all shuddha
swara) and now that is transferred to Bilawal. How? You also might
have known (if I am not overestimating you) the formula
"Chatushchatushchatushchaiva sadajamadhyamapanchamaah / dwedwe
nishadagaandharou tristree rishabhadhaivatah" [ 4 shrutis for S M P
each, 2 for N and G, and 3 each for R and D], which is being followed
from the 11th century onwards. Nobody ever contested this formula, not
even our friend Prafull who has undertaken fresh experimentation with
these shrutis. The family of Teevra-Kumdvati might have grown bigger,
but the new members are not baptised as yet.
The problem is where is the note? It can't take up all the shrutis at
once. If Sa and all subsequent notes takes the last shruti of the
alloted group (swaswastya) then the all-shuddha scale becomes
something close to our Kafi. But if they are placed on the first
shruti of the group (swaswadya), only then the all-shuddha scale
becomes our Bilawal. Now this positioning has been last recorded in
Srinivasa (RagatatvaVivodh: beginning of 18th century) which is
clearer in formulation in comparison to the other older texts, and
therefore it can be assumed with certainty that all raga mentioned
before this period has undergone a massive isomorphic change after the
first half of the 18th century. It is a matter of different research
that how to back-calculate these isomorphic changes and place them at
par with the older Ragas.
You have no idea what Bhagyashree is. But Bhagyashree is a known Raga/
Ragam and there are recordings available. One is by Nikhil Banerjee, a
short piece; then there is one by Ranashreya Jha (Conference) {news
clip at http://www.iitk.ac.in/spicmacay/articles/intensive.pdf }; and
the latest one being Bombay S Jayashri's track "Ramam Ghanashyamam" in
the album Salokyam (2005). Listen to this scale and translate back to
the swaswastya scale, you will find Bageshri, a little different in
shrutis. Keep Sa as invariant.
4. Finally, your so called quotation! Either you are insane or a cheat
or a fool to have quoted this one in support of your contention.
First, you have misquoted. And thus tried to take all 1013 members for
a ride here. The first word of the second line is "Patyuhsameepe" not
Pratyuhsameepe. The word means "with the [her] husband". Now who is
Saraswati's husband? Mythology doesn't tell you about a husband of
Saraswati, does it? Then come to the last part. Vageeshwaree is the
adjective of Koushika here. This entire text is a description of
Koushika ragini, not of vageeshwaree!! Now mythologically who is
Koushika/koushiki? It is Durga's other name. How can Durga be the
husband of Saraswati?? Lastly, the format of the entire book Sangeet
Darpan by Catura Damodara Mishra suggests that there is no "shloka" in
it. It is a prose, or at the best free-verse text. Which is also
evident in the part you cited. The meters varied in the two lines
here. Count them again. I am thankful to Dr. (Mrs) Kalpika
Mukhopadhyay (HOD, Department of Sanskrit, Visva-Bharati) for a close
reading of the text you suggested as a proof.
5. What is a proof, how a proof is validated, is an age-old problem of
philosophy. Try reading about different kinds of proof in standard
texts. To prove that Chaitanya was NOT born in say 10th century, you
don't expect Chaitanya to appear at 9th century and say "No I'm not
born in 10th century". You have to wait until he is born and then you
have something to cite. So proof of negation is proof by negation. I
wrote "it is believed that Tansen sung Bageshri in 16th century" but
that doesn't mean Tansen really did. If at all he sung something of
the same name, that must be a different scale, I have already
explained why. The first proof of existence of this scale, in a
composition signed Sadarang, dates back only to late eighteenth
century. Bageshri CAN NOT be ANY OLDER than this.
6. Your understanding of ragas are marvellous!! Not worth responding
to. So I won't engage in any debate about r of Ahiri, or Todi in my
clip. I'd suggest you to leave musical discussions to other people
here.
Would be happy not to see you again!
Partha
C Parthapratim
> the latest one being Bombay S Jayashri's track "Ramam Ghanashyamam" in
> the album Salokyam (2005). Listen to this scale and translate back to
> the swaswastya scale, you will find Bageshri, a little different in
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A little correction: I used a word "swaswastya", which should be read
"swaswantya", swa+swa+antya. It was a typo in the first instance and
then duplicated by copy-paste.
Partha
djames
Partha, You had said earlier I believe that there was
"circumstantial evidence" that bageshri was introduced at the time of
Akbar. If the above is that evidence I am not convinced. Granted,
that is not ancient times and from that time until Sadarang there is
long period. You very well might be right, but it still seems
speculative, from what i can understand. Are you also saying that the
use of P in bageshri is modern? I would have thought otherwise,
considering the number of bandishes in Bhatkhande with very prominent
P indicating a very different bageshri from the modern version. By
the way, your insulting tone to people who disagree with you is
obnoxious. james
C Parthapratim
Whatever evidence I have tried to present in the earlier mail was not
in support of existence (of Bagesri at Akbar's time), but just the
opposite. No wonder you are not convinced with the proof of existence.
Same here. It is a speculation that it existed in that time ("it is
believed ...") that I echoed from popular belief and a Wiki article
(not even an article, a note indeed). I maintain that modern form of
Bagesri is indeed a modern scale, no older than Adarang-Sadarang's
era, which is late 18th century.
Regarding P in Bagesri, Bagesri is defined in Bhatkhande as an Oudav-
Shadav raga with S g M D n, {S} n D M, g M g R aroho-avaroha pair. If
P were formally accepted in the theoretical domain, it would be a
Oudav-Sampurna scale instead. Use of P is specially mentioned in
Kramik Pustak Malika (Vol III) as a special application and Bhatkhande
also held that "some" artists do that only to add to the beauty. You
are right to have found P in certain Bandish/compositions in the
format of a Chhut-taan (MPDn) D_M gMgR, like the composition Ms
Gangubai Hangal sings often. Bhatkhande was a man of the transition
period (aren't we all?) and since he did not mention dates with those
compositions, one should not be very sure about their antique value.
New and old compositions are mixed in the compilation, ironing out the
possibility of detailed historical scrutiny.
Regarding rudeness: I am rude to those people who come up with a rude
face in the first place. I am not the one to tolerate silently and
answer politely however rude the questioner is. And on the other hand,
I believe I have not been rude in answering your mail, since your mail
is pertinent and courteous.
Ciao!
Partha
djames
that out of the 11 khayals 6 are of the standard bageshri including
the commonly sung ones, then there are 5 khayals all with the sam on
P. It gives a very different picture of bageshri, much closer to
kafi. Granted there is no historic indication of which would be an
older model, it is a version that has almost disappeared, and would
seem older (just my intuition). james
Sushil Sharma
>
> > >>Quote the text, where and how you found it.
>
> > वीणा विनॊदी कमलायताक्षी सौंदर्य-लावण्य सुगौरगात्रा ।
> > प्रत्युःसमीपे कमनीय कण्ठा वागीश्वरी कौशिक रागिणीयं ॥
>
> 3. You don't need recordings of Mian Tansen always! Some common sense
> is also needed. "Yasya nasti swayampragnaa tasya shaastra karoti
> kim?"- ChaNakya.
Apologies for a rather late intrusion in your scholarly discussion. I
have only two quick points to add.
[I am following ITRANS transliteration scheme here, for Sanskrit
words.]
First, the more common (and correct) form of this quote from
chaaNakyaniiti is: "yasya naasti swayampraj~naa shaastra.n tasya
karoti kim.h" (as can be verified with reliable editions of
chaaNakyaniiti, shaar~Ngadhara paddhati, and Bohtlingk's Indische
Spruche). "shaastra" being a neuter noun in Sanskrit, its nominative
singular is shaastra.n, and "shaastra karoti kim" (as quoted by you),
would obviously be incorrect.
...
> it. It is a prose, or at the best free-verse text. Which is also
> evident in the part you cited. The meters varied in the two lines
> here. Count them again. I am thankful to Dr. (Mrs) Kalpika
> Mukhopadhyay (HOD, Department of Sanskrit, Visva-Bharati) for a close
> reading of the text you suggested as a proof.
Second, with no offense to your reference to Dr. Mukhopadhyay, I am
surprised at this assertion about the meter of the verse cited by P.
V. Vivekanand. Both with and without the obvious correction in the
first word (patyuH instead of pratyuH) all the four paada-s of the
verse cited by P.V.V. are in the well-known indravajraa meter, as any
student of Sanskrit literature would explain. Traditional lakShaNa for
indravajraa meter is "syaadindravajraa yadi tau jagau gaH", that is,
"two ta gaNa-s, ja gaNa, and two guru varNa-s". In simpler terms, each
of the 4 feet of the Indravajraa meter has 11 varNas arranged in the
pattern"SSISSIISISS", representing a guru varNa by S and a laghu varNa
by I respectively. There is no metrical variation in the verse cited
by P.V.V, as all four paada-s follow the same prosodic pattern. Could
you please explain what you meant with "The meters varied in the two
lines here. Count them again", as the assertion appears to be in
contradiction to basics of Sanskrit prosody?
Regards,
Sushil
C Parthapratim
> On Jun 19, 2:15 am, C Parthapratim <c.parthapra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 16, 6:35 pm, Vivekanand P V <pvvi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > > >>Quote the text, where and how you found it.
>
> > > वीणा विनॊदी कमलायताक्षी सौंदर्य-लावण्य सुगौरगात्रा ।
> > > प्रत्युःसमीपे कमनीय कण्ठा वागीश्वरी कौशिक रागिणीयं ॥
> ...
>
> > 3. You don't need recordings of Mian Tansen always! Some common sense
> > is also needed. "Yasya nasti swayampragnaa tasya shaastra karoti
> > kim?"- ChaNakya.
>
> Apologies for a rather late intrusion in your scholarly discussion. I
> have only two quick points to add.
> [I am following ITRANS transliteration scheme here, for Sanskrit
> words.]
>
> First, the more common (and correct) form of this quote from
> chaaNakyaniiti is: "yasya naasti swayampraj~naa shaastra.n tasya
> karoti kim.h" (as can be verified with reliable editions of
> chaaNakyaniiti, shaar~Ngadhara paddhati, and Bohtlingk's Indische
> Spruche). "shaastra" being a neuter noun in Sanskrit, its nominative
> singular is shaastra.n, and "shaastra karoti kim" (as quoted by you),
> would obviously be incorrect.
>
> ..
transciption, I typed in a phonetic transliteration. I'll try and
adapt the "paddhati".
>
> > it. It is a prose, or at the best free-verse text. Which is also
> > evident in the part you cited. The meters varied in the two lines
> > here. Count them again. I am thankful to Dr. (Mrs) Kalpika
> > Mukhopadhyay (HOD, Department of Sanskrit, Visva-Bharati) for a close
> > reading of the text you suggested as a proof.
>
> Second, with no offense to your reference to Dr. Mukhopadhyay, I am
> surprised at this assertion about the meter of the verse cited by P.
> V. Vivekanand. Both with and without the obvious correction in the
> first word (patyuH instead of pratyuH) all the four paada-s of the
> verse cited by P.V.V. are in the well-known indravajraa meter, as any
> student of Sanskrit literature would explain. Traditional lakShaNa for
> indravajraa meter is "syaadindravajraa yadi tau jagau gaH", that is,
> "two ta gaNa-s, ja gaNa, and two guru varNa-s". In simpler terms, each
> of the 4 feet of the Indravajraa meter has 11 varNas arranged in the
> pattern"SSISSIISISS", representing a guru varNa by S and a laghu varNa
> by I respectively. There is no metrical variation in the verse cited
> by P.V.V, as all four paada-s follow the same prosodic pattern. Could
> you please explain what you meant with "The meters varied in the two
> lines here. Count them again", as the assertion appears to be in
> contradiction to basics of Sanskrit prosody?
>
> Regards,
> Sushil
I am referring back to Dr. Mukherjee with your input. May be she has
overlooked something. However, that doesn't have any bearing on what
we were talking about. The meter of the text is only incidental
observation, but Vageeshwaree being the adjective is central here.
Partha