Article on fading Indian Culture and HIndustani music - do you feel this way too?
Singing Mendicant
Frankly I thought of this as work that's not backed by research, what
are your views?:
http://www.livemint.com/articles/2009/12/18201628/Why-Indians-don8217t-want-t.html
Thanks and regards,
smita
Abhay
wrote:
> Hello all,
> Frankly I thought of this as work that's not backed by research, what
What part of the article did you think lacked research? The
comparative numbers the writer cites - with details of the sources -
indicate research carried out to an extent not usually found in non-
academic articles.
I agree with a lot of what he says about today's music scene. I wish
the author had looked at a few other cities, though. Take Chennai:
this is one city where I have found ticketed CCM concerts happening on
a sustained basis (not just in the December season), although there
are many free concerts too. Poona is another city where I have seen
many ticketed HCM concerts happening through the year (although I am
on weaker ground here as I have been out of Poona for well over a
decade now.)
Warm regards,
Abhay
hc408
I also think that had the Author included the smaller cities/markets
he may have not come to the same conclusion. I think As Abhay
mentioned Pune, Chennai, Hubli, Kolkota, Indore, Bhopal, Ahmedabad,
Gwalior, etc. I think there are concerts where tickets are sold and
artiste are performing. Another factor which the author did not
consider is the impact of new technology of streaming, youtube, the
organized impresario and agent system in the west and its effect on
the Artistes' remuneration etc. Performing on AIR since 1940s has
always been "free" to the audience and the payment scale for the
artistes has never been much to write home about. In an interview with
Pt. Ravi Shankar, He defines the Classical: "Our audiences were very
small.The very word classical, what does it mean? It belonged to a
class."
I personally have to take issue with this definition. In any case, I
am not sure if we ever had a system of "paid" or commercial concert
circuit as in the West "Road Show" well entrenched or well developed.
New York, London, VIenna have had concert halls and concerts since
last several centuries. Just as in the West Classical music has always
been for the few and never been for the masses. Comparing our
Hindustani Classical concerts is neither fair or apples to apples.
bnadig
wrote:
> Hello all,
> Frankly I thought of this as work that's not backed by research, what
>
> Thanks and regards,
> smita
Here in the US:
We pay to attend these house and basement concerts,
We pay (more than the entry fee) at benefit concerts
We pick and drop them (performers) from/to airports
We arrange and organize their programs
We put them up in our houses
We take them shopping and buy them gifts
We pay to partcipate and perform in most of the events
We pay as well as bring food to some of these events
We accompany (say tabla) them for free when they don't have any
We drive 100s of miles to attend concerts..
Hmm, I don't know if we are not paying for our culture...
Regards
Balu
PS: Dance/Music Arangetrams (for lack of a better term) are the only
'free' events that I have attended here
Daniel Fuchs
Singing Mendicant wrote:
>
> Hello all,
> Frankly I thought of this as work that's not backed by research, what
> are your views?:^
I believe the author ignored some important aspects... I'll just point
them out for now, without writing a full dissertation.
One is the question *why* particularly in Delhi concerts are so
frequently free of admission fees. The reason is sponsorship, not the
lack of readyness to pay. Audiences have just gotten used to the fact
that (at the most), they need to collect passes...
And obviously, "free" doesn't mean performers will also play for free.
The other is that despite ticket sales, many "classical" concerts or
festivals in the West would be impossible without public or private
funding. The world-renowned Wagner Festival in Bayreuth financed about
60% of the 2008 budget on its own (i.e. through tickets etc.), which is
pretty good compared with others.
"Realistic" ticket prices would certainly mean even less audience for
"high culture" as well.
Daniel
PS: Nice to see that RMIC is being taken over by real discussions about
ICM again, and out of the hands of the bloody spammers.
PPS: I would *really* appreciate it if people would read and remember
this before posting:
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html#ss2.1
Paddy
> > Frankly I thought of this as work that's not backed by research, what
On Dec 24 2009, 9:23 pm, bnadig <baluna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here in the US:
>
> Hmm, I don't know if we are not paying for our culture...
On Dec 27 2009, 4:40 am, Daniel Fuchs <dfuchs8stud.uni-
goettingen...@web.de> wrote:
>
> The reason is ..not the lack of readyness to pay.
Keeping aside the fact that each civilisation has its own economics
and that arts/culture needs secular temporal patronage the article's
question is important i.e. why is a disproportionately large
percentage of live/recording music offerings priced Rs.
0+personalTimecost?
I think it's because we do not have the market -the institution to
help discover the prices. There's over supply (too many producers of
too various qualities) and a tall demand (music is part of the daily
life so a paid supply will be expected to be of a higher order, and
given the civilisation here 'higher' may mean the spiritual realm),
and no institution to mediate the demand and supply. The government
orgs at best can maintain the patronage and keep off certification and
concert business (AIR's grading has unintentionally probably done more
harm than good; govt sponsored concerts parcel limited funds and
limited capacity to limited audience, wasteful; the patronage should
be on institutions, not individuals or performances). The religious
orgs are better placed, have the mandate, to make the market but our
politics have decayed all but their capacity to run rituals. In this
wake individual artists and agents (Spicmacay etc) try to play all
kinds of market roles but it's just shooting in the dark. As the
author alludes its arguable that gharanas may have, unintentionally or
otherwise, contributed to the absence of the market.
I think a re-emergence of religion, separate from the state, is
required before music can regain its supreme role in the life of man
in India.
Regards,
Paddy
Imnot Apadmashri
> I think a re-emergence of religion ... is required before music can
> regain its supreme role
OMG! Isn't that medicine worse than the disease?
DG
Vishwaroopa Sharma
> > On Dec 22, 5:50 am, Singing Mendicant <smita.bel...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hello all,
> > > Frankly I thought of this as work that's not backed by research, what
> > > are your views?:http://www.livemint.com/articles/2009/12/18201628/Why-Indians-don8217...
>
> On Dec 24 2009, 9:23 pm, bnadig <baluna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here in the US:
>
> > Hmm, I don't know if we are not paying for our culture...
>
> On Dec 27 2009, 4:40 am, Daniel Fuchs <dfuchs8stud.uni-
>
> goettingen...@web.de> wrote:
>
> > The reason is ..not the lack of readyness to pay.
>
> Keeping aside the fact that each civilisation has its own economics
> and that arts/culture needs secular temporal patronage the article's
> question is important i.e. why is a disproportionately large
> percentage of live/recording music offerings priced Rs.
> 0+personalTimecost?
I confess I didn't decipher your post fully; so, I restrain myself
commenting on your opinions.
It is only a sect of such neo-USA-cultured economy freaks who rant
"free concerts ruin the culture"; while they largely fail to establish
how paid concerts will help to enhance the culture. Monetary
transactions never helped the establishment of excellence. The real
hazard of this opinion-floating-author is the notion which his ranting
sets up by inference that more remuneration = more quality. Anyone who
knows the musical traditions of India better than this money freak,
would know how childish this claim stands.
Another observation is, classical music retained itself by genuinely
committed performers and well-cultured audience. Even when our music
was feared of royal nourishment at the time of Indian independence, it
is this duo of artiste-audience which uplifted the music and
popularised like never before. AIR, apart from its inherent
inabilities served a lot in the existence of such a grand culture.
Dhrupad, which was once feared to be extinct, bounced back to the
arena due to the same fact. Rudraveena, which was once abandoned from
the arena has returned now. A medium city like Hubli and Dharwad would
witness a good number of quality audience for every musical concert
(of course 99% concerts here are free!). The number of serious
students of music has grown in many folds from past several years.
Classical musicians have been recognised as celebrities. This all
happened in India, where, as the author fears, majority concerts are
free.
As far as the cassette and CD business is concerned, I stand against
the author. Because, market runs by several inevitable comparisons
amongst a genre. Take for example a bollywood movie is sold for Rs.
50/- and still lesser. How come you expect a normal novice listener
(who are the majority) to spend Rs. 300/- and still more for a CD
worth 70 mins or lesser? I'm not talking about those who could spend;
but, it is those who cannot. They inevitably compare the classical
music CDs with those of film songs. This is why they do not purchase,
and, as the consequence music shops are afraid of these high rated ICM
CDs, which mark up very little sale. this is why when you are
searching for an ICM album, you are disappointed many a times by no
stocks. Where will this take? I've noticed a fairly medium music
company "Lahari" (of Bangalore) has started to price all their CDs
(MP3s included) below Rs. 50/-. Albeit their collection is smaller,
their CDs have reported good sales. I wish the dying SaReGaMa thinks
on this line.
~
VS
Imnot Apadmashri
against:
> more remuneration = more quality.
An exact equation is certainly absurd, but the truth may not be too
far. Bhimsen Joshi, Kishori Amonkar Ravi Shankar, Ali Akbar,
Bismillah Khan were all both highly regarded and highly rewarded. In
even earlier times the best often got royal patronage.
When Vishwaroopa complained that classical CDs are priced too high, I
am sure most rmic-ers agree. But even big record companies are
already coming around. See for example
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/ICD030/
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/ICF047/
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/ICC015/
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/ICC084/
This site mentions US prices. Indian prices are much cheaper.
Cheers!
DG
bnadig
Vishwaroopa Sharma
wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:30 pm, Vishwaroopa Sharma <vkr...@yahoo.in> tilted
> against:
>
> > more remuneration = more quality.
>
> An exact equation is certainly absurd, but the truth may not be too
> far. Bhimsen Joshi, Kishori Amonkar Ravi Shankar, Ali Akbar,
> Bismillah Khan were all both highly regarded and highly rewarded. In
> even earlier times the best often got royal patronage.
And therefore? Are you saying that great musicians always charge more?
You may not explicitly; but it is evident at least to me. I've problem
when you use the highly assertive word "truth lies...”. Hence your
assertion needs a justification on: Better (or the best) the
musician=Higher (or the highest) the remuneration.
While you have named a few good men (of course woman/women included!);
it is also true that, when these artistes started charging too much,
they were unfortunately on their twilights. Take for example; Ravi
Shankar officially remembers the era of 1960s as his best, when his
monetary condition was pathetic. Bhimsen Joshi, when asked twice for
the bests from his live renditions, picked up his recordings of 1960s
and 70s. Nonetheless he was a "reachable" artiste at that time.
Kishori Amonkar's music and her remuneration quibbles are open
secrets. There was a time when she really sang for gods. But,
certainly is stopped long back, even much before she started charging
6 digits. Her new albums are better to prove the lost empire.
Whatever the artiste charges, the quality of his performance is never
assured. At the best it is expected. The matter with this economy-
buff's article is still childish. He leaves this first stage of
algorithm and jumps directly to the most irrelevant one, the price of
an admission ticket. How come a ticket of worth some bucks would
assure a quality in advance? Disgusting.
~
VS
Imnot Apadmashri
> more remuneration = more quality
I gave a few examples, andVishwaroopa shot back:
> And therefore?
Ok, I'll elaborate if I must
In the context of the discussion, the sets
X: musicians of the 20th century whos music was highly regarded
and
Y: musicians of the 20th century who were paid well
have a substantial intersection
It does not necessarily follow from what I said before, but today I am
also claiming:
The regard a musician's music earns, summed over their lifetimes, (to
the extent a number can be assigned to it) has a substantial positive
correlation to the amount of money they earn making it, also summed
over their lifetimes.
> it is also true that, when these artistes started charging too much,
> they were unfortunately on their twilights.
True. I am missing its relevance to the present discussion, though.
Therein hangs another thread if you wish.
> Whatever the artiste charges, the quality of his performance is never
> assured.
Can it ever be, in any creative art? It may also be that the
uncertainty is greater for some artists than others, but again, I miss
the relevance.
This has been a thought-provoking thread, and it was fun posting in
it, but I think I may have provoked more than just thought. I'll make
this my last post in this thread.
DG