Compound words in lyrics
Robin
but they almost automatically render into the words a sense of rhythm,
good language and good poetry.
The format which goes 'word-e-word'..
Seem to think that Sahir and Majrooh had a penchant for these. Was
listening to songs of Rafi-Majrooh last night - Pathhar Ke Sanam and
Mere Humdum Mere Dost. All of them have the compound word in them.
'Sham-e-Wafa' in the PKS song
'rang-e-malaal' in 'hui shaam unka khayal'
'aaj jaam-e-mayee' in 'chalkaye jaam'.
The title song of MHMD too has one and also, now that I think about
it, the other gem by Rafi-MS-LP - saari khushiyaan hai zamaane ke
liye, from Suhana Safar.
Too many songs of Sahir to cite here, on this subject.. 'rasm-e-ulfat'
from Taj Mahal, for example.
Or is this technique simply an integral part of lyrics with an Urdu
base?
(Which is also why we don't see them too often in today's 'aati hai
Khandala' and 'oonchi hai building' mahaoul)
Regards..Robin
Afzal A. Khan
Such compound words (or "murakkab" alfaaz) are a gift from
Persian (Faarsi). Most of these have either a "zer"
(represented by the Roman '-e-') or "pesh" (represented by
the Roman '-o-') in words like "raNj-o-raahat" (sorrow and
happiness) or "GHam-e-zeest" (sorrow/s of life). Persian is
one of the sweetest languages in the world and these compound
words not only sound nice to the ears but they also reduce
the length of the verse a poet is composing. Take the following
line from a sher by Ghalib (I think it was mentioned in a recent
thread) :
Boo-e-gul, naala-e-dil, dood-e-chiraaGH-e-mehfil
And try composing this verse in straightforward Urdu.
A point to be noted. The language of this particular line
can be called Faarsi or Urdu ! Both would be valid.
Afzal
Sudhir
words is quite common in Latin languages also, in Urdu there are
examples of combining more than 2 words. I am not an expert on
the language, and know few words from the lyrics. Just one example
on this subject:
Hum Hain Mataa-e-Koocha-O-Bazaar Ki Tarah
by: Majrooh Sultanpuri (most probably a pre-published
ghazal ) featured in film: DASTAK
--------------------------------------------
"Afzal A. Khan" <me_a...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<40CB26B3...@privacy.net>...
Ashok
>
>That way Urdu is really a great language. While combining two
>words is quite common in Latin languages also, in Urdu there are
>examples of combining more than 2 words. I am not an expert on
>the language, and know few words from the lyrics. Just one example
>on this subject:
>
> Hum Hain Mataa-e-Koocha-O-Bazaar Ki Tarah
>
> by: Majrooh Sultanpuri (most probably a pre-published
> ghazal ) featured in film: DASTAK
Nyet! Majrooh wasn't a perfectionist. He has mixed up "e o" constructions
with a "kii" construction. If he were a perfectionist, he'd've writt,n:
ham hai.n tarah-e-mataa-e-kuuch-o-baazaar
No matter that by the time you unfolded it, not only the song, but the
movie would've been o'er.
Ashok
V S Rawat
> That way Urdu is really a great language. While
combining two
> words is quite common in Latin languages also, in Urdu
there are
> examples of combining more than 2 words. I am not an
expert on
> the language, and know few words from the lyrics. Just
one example
> on this subject:
>
> Hum Hain Mataa-e-Koocha-O-Bazaar Ki Tarah
>
> by: Majrooh Sultanpuri (most
probably a pre-published
> ghazal ) featured in film:
DASTAK
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
>>
similarly,
tiir-e-nigaah-e-naaz nishaanaa Dhuu.NDhegaa -asad bhopali
-Rawat
Afzal A. Khan
This example is okay, as a sally in jest.
But "tarah" (like) is not a noun and cannot be combined
with a "zer-e-izaafat".
Afzal
Sudhir
in the writer's work, it does not matter if the passage was imperfect
and
in any case, our own skill level in the Urdu language is very low.
What gets our attention is some interesting 'Nukta-e-Nazar'. For this
ghazal, the last couplet, which is close to:
'Majrooh' Likh Rahe The Woh Ahad-e-Wafa Ka Naam
Hum Bhi Khade Huwe Hain Gunehgar Ki Tarah
what makes it memorable.
I don't know how you evaluvated Majrooh, but for me he was
a very good song (ghazal / nazm) writer, just a shade below
Sahir, but much more flexible. A have nicknamed him as:
Jim Dandy to the Rescue
Why so, for that I will have to write a long write-up about his work,
and
how he was called in to complete someone else lyrics, because (1) the
lyricst who started the song, got struck, (2) the MD had made
the
tune and needed a song to fit the meter plus the song situation (3)
the Director had some pre-existing ghazal in mind and wanted a
new lyrics with similar theme (example: ARZOO / Ae Dil Mujhe Aesi
Jagah Le Chal Jahan Koyi Na Ho / inspired from: Uncle Ghalib's
evergreen ghazal / Rahiye Ab Aesi Jagah Chal Kar Jahan Koyi Na Ho
Plus Teri Aankhon Ke Siwa Duniya Mein Rakha Kya Hai / from;
Faiz Ahmad 'Faiz' nazm
Sudhir
-------------------
adhar...@hotmail.com (Ashok) wrote in message >
Nimish Pachapurkar
maild...@yahoo.com wrote on 6/13/04 11:49 AM:
> For us ordinary folks, who are not in to finding errors and ommissions
> in the writer's work, it does not matter if the passage was imperfect
> and
> in any case, our own skill level in the Urdu language is very low.
>
> What gets our attention is some interesting 'Nukta-e-Nazar'. For this
> ghazal, the last couplet, which is close to:
>
> 'Majrooh' Likh Rahe The Woh Ahad-e-Wafa Ka Naam
> Hum Bhi Khade Huwe Hain Gunehgar Ki Tarah
>
As much as you might like the above sher, the apogee of this Ghazal for me
is definitely:
siidhii hai raah-e-shauq, pe yuu.N hii kahii.n kahii.n
Kham ho gayii hai gesuu-e-dil_daar kii tarah
Unfortunately, this couplet has been omitted from the film version.
- Nimish
PS: BTW, the last sher is
'majaruuh' likh rahe *hai.n* vo *ahal-e-vafaa* kaa naam
ham bhii khade hue hai.n gunah_gaar kii tarah
Sudhir
a pre-published one.
Sudhir
-----------------
Nimish Pachapurkar <nim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BCF216F7.5320%nim...@hotmail.com>...
paabagil
> >
> > What I'm terming 'compound words' must have a more appropriate term
> > but they almost automatically render into the words a sense of rhythm,
> > good language and good poetry.
> >
> > The format which goes 'word-e-word'..
> >
> > Seem to think that Sahir and Majrooh had a penchant for these. Was
> > listening to songs of Rafi-Majrooh last night - Pathhar Ke Sanam and
> > Mere Humdum Mere Dost. All of them have the compound word in them.
> >
> > 'Sham-e-Wafa' in the PKS song
> >
> > 'rang-e-malaal' in 'hui shaam unka khayal'
> >
> > 'aaj jaam-e-mayee' in 'chalkaye jaam'.
> >
> > The title song of MHMD too has one and also, now that I think about
> > it, the other gem by Rafi-MS-LP - saari khushiyaan hai zamaane ke
> > liye, from Suhana Safar.
> >
> > Too many songs of Sahir to cite here, on this subject.. 'rasm-e-ulfat'
> > from Taj Mahal, for example.
> >
> > Or is this technique simply an integral part of lyrics with an Urdu
> > base?
> >
> > (Which is also why we don't see them too often in today's 'aati hai
> > Khandala' and 'oonchi hai building' mahaoul)
> >
> > Regards..Robin
>
>
>
> Such compound words (or "murakkab" alfaaz) are a gift from
> Persian (Faarsi). Most of these have either a "zer"
> (represented by the Roman '-e-') or "pesh" (represented by
It's a vaav, Afzal saahib, called, fittingly, "vaav e atf". Like in
the famous Sahir song:
Cheen *o* Arab hamaaraa ...
[I couldn't participate in the recent discussion on this song, but I
thought it was a very good depiction of the "urban" majnooN.
Previouly, Urdu poetry was mostly concernd with the majnooN who would
dart into the woods at the slightest provocation ... Sahir changed
this to the person who would wander in the city streets instead. But
then I remembered Majaaz's famous nazm, "ai Gham e dil kyaa karooN, ai
vehshat e dil kyaa karooN ..."
This nazm was later adopted for a film also and sung by the inimitable
Talat (can you tell which song appeared first in the movies?). I bet
Sahir was inspired by this nazm while penning "Cheen o Arab..."
> in words like "raNj-o-raahat" (sorrow and
> happiness) or "GHam-e-zeest" (sorrow/s of life). Persian is
> one of the sweetest languages in the world and these compound
> words not only sound nice to the ears but they also reduce
> the length of the verse a poet is composing. Take the following
> line from a sher by Ghalib (I think it was mentioned in a recent
> thread) :
>
> Boo-e-gul, naala-e-dil, dood-e-chiraaGH-e-mehfil
>
> And try composing this verse in straightforward Urdu.
phool kee Khushboo, dil kee aah, mehfil ke chiraaGh kaa dhuvaaN! :)
> A point to be noted. The language of this particular line
> can be called Faarsi or Urdu ! Both would be valid.
The izaafat is fast disappearing from modern Urdu poetry, though; the
new fad is the "fakk e izaafat" ... but this is outside the scope of
this discussion board.
Zafar
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>For us ordinary folks, who are not in to finding errors and ommissions
>in the writer's work, it does not matter if the passage was imperfect
>and
>in any case, our own skill level in the Urdu language is very low.
>
yeah but the passage was not "imperfect" :) like Afzal sahib pointed
out, lafz-e-"tarah" can not be used in an izaafat (or a compound word)
>What gets our attention is some interesting 'Nukta-e-Nazar'. For this
>ghazal, the last couplet, which is close to:
>
> 'Majrooh' Likh Rahe The Woh Ahad-e-Wafa Ka Naam
> Hum Bhi Khade Huwe Hain Gunehgar Ki Tarah
>
>
>what makes it memorable.
Lovely sh'er!! (thanks to Nimish for the correction).. especially the
second misra is a killer!
Thanks for sharing!
Amit Malhotra
(Majrooh likh rahe haiN voh "ahl-e-wafaa" ka naam)
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>What I'm terming 'compound words' must have a more appropriate term
>but they almost automatically render into the words a sense of rhythm,
>good language and good poetry.
>
the word-e-word compound words are called : izaafat.
Of course, these compound words are used in "urdu" more than "hindi"
as they are a gift from Farsi (like Afzal sahib pointed out). One
thing to note about these compounds is that they are never made
between a hindi and a farsi word, but only between a farsi and a farsi
word.
>
>Or is this technique simply an integral part of lyrics with an Urdu
>base?
>
I'd say yes, it is an integral part of Urdu poetry (note that i said
urdu poetry, not lyrics with an urdu base... i guess calling one
language urdu or hindi is a very debatable topic... for more
references, see posts entitled "Urdu hai jiskaa naam" in google
archives).
>(Which is also why we don't see them too often in today's 'aati hai
>Khandala' and 'oonchi hai building' mahaoul)
>
they definitely don't have any place in these kind of songs, but you
do hear every now and then the more common compound words such as
"dil-e-beqaraar" (as in pehlaa nashaa) or "dard-e-dil" or the likes.
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>It's a vaav, Afzal saahib, called, fittingly, "vaav e atf". Like in
>the famous Sahir song:
>
>Cheen *o* Arab hamaaraa ...
>
>[I couldn't participate in the recent discussion on this song, but I
>thought it was a very good depiction of the "urban" majnooN.
>Previouly, Urdu poetry was mostly concernd with the majnooN who would
>dart into the woods at the slightest provocation ... Sahir changed
>this to the person who would wander in the city streets instead. But
>then I remembered Majaaz's famous nazm, "ai Gham e dil kyaa karooN, ai
>vehshat e dil kyaa karooN ..."
>
>This nazm was later adopted for a film also and sung by the inimitable
>Talat (can you tell which song appeared first in the movies?). I bet
>Sahir was inspired by this nazm while penning "Cheen o Arab..."
>
Wouldn't it be right to say that on the whole, Sahir's poetry was very
much inspired by Faiz and Majaaz's style?
Amit
Afzal A. Khan
Amit Malhotra wrote:
>
> >(Which is also why we don't see them too often in today's 'aati hai
> >Khandala' and 'oonchi hai building' mahaoul)
> >
>
> they definitely don't have any place in these kind of songs, but you
> do hear every now and then the more common compound words such as
> "dil-e-beqaraar" (as in pehlaa nashaa) or "dard-e-dil" or the likes.
> Amit Malhotra
I can't quite say whether "husn-e-KhaNdaala" or
"aab-o-hawaa-e-Ooty" would be permissible !
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
paabagil wrote:
"waav-e-'atf" = A very unfortunate slip on my part.
About the poems of Majaaz and Sahir : "Ai GHam-e-dil"
predates "Cheen-o-'Arab" by a few years (as far as their
use in films is concerned).
Afzal
Ashok
>
>thing to note about these compounds is that they are never made
>between a hindi and a farsi word, but only between a farsi and a farsi
>word.
>Amit Malhotra
What about Arabic words? What about Turkish words?
The idiots who make these rules seem to think that
words have relgions!
Then there is
aab-e-ruud-e-ga.ngaa
"ga.ngaa" is Farsi or, perhaps, Muslim?
Ashok
Ashok
>
> I can't quite say whether "husn-e-KhaNdaala" or
> "aab-o-hawaa-e-Ooty" would be permissible !
>
>
> Afzal
Why the hell not? Place names aren't allowed in these
constructions? Or, are only Aryan place names allowed?
Language is for communication not for exhibiting one's
ethnic pride.
Ashok
paabagil
> On 13 Jun 2004 22:44:12 -0700, paab...@hotmail.com (paabagil) wrote:
>
> >It's a vaav, Afzal saahib, called, fittingly, "vaav e atf". Like in
> >the famous Sahir song:
> >
> >Cheen *o* Arab hamaaraa ...
> >
> >[I couldn't participate in the recent discussion on this song, but I
> >thought it was a very good depiction of the "urban" majnooN.
> >Previouly, Urdu poetry was mostly concernd with the majnooN who would
> >dart into the woods at the slightest provocation ... Sahir changed
> >this to the person who would wander in the city streets instead. But
> >then I remembered Majaaz's famous nazm, "ai Gham e dil kyaa karooN, ai
> >vehshat e dil kyaa karooN ..."
> >
> >This nazm was later adopted for a film also and sung by the inimitable
> >Talat (can you tell which song appeared first in the movies?). I bet
> >Sahir was inspired by this nazm while penning "Cheen o Arab..."
> >
>
> Wouldn't it be right to say that on the whole, Sahir's poetry was very
> much inspired by Faiz and Majaaz's style?
I bet you won't mind if respond to this question in some detail, with
some background info annexed? Would you, Amit saahib? :)
Since Sahir, Majaaz and Faiz were members of the Progressive Writers'
Movement -- a literary movement with strong Marxist leanings -- they
had a similar literary agenda (yes, they wrote their poetry with an
agenda in mind). This explains why they sometimes sound similar. (In
fact, I've heard Sahir being dubbed as "a poor man's Faiz"!)
Now coming to 'filmi' poetry: I think Sahir is at least an order of
magnitude better poet than any other "regular" lyricist of HFM,
considering the quantity of the quality work he has produced. But when
taken outside the tinsel town, Sahir flounders in comparison with even
the lesser poets of his times, like, as I said above, Faiz.
Gulzar's case is very similar: Very good inside films (who else could
write such lines these days, "teree kamar ke bal par nadee muRaa
kartee thee/hansee tiree sun sun kar fasal [sic] pakaa kartee thee",
from "Machis"; or, one of my personal favorites, "vo yaar miraa
Khushboo kee tarah/hai jis kee zabaaN Urdu kee tarah, from "Dil Se"),
but falls flat in real literary world.
All this in my humble opinion,
Zafar
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
what the hell religion has to do with anything? is Farsi a religion
or is Hindi a religion?
Amit
>Ashok
Ashok
Answer my first question above. Then you might see.
>is Farsi a religion
Don't know.
>or is Hindi a religion?
No. Urdu is, for some.
Ashok
>Amit
Ashok
>
>> Nyet! Majrooh wasn't a perfectionist. He has mixed up "e o" constructions
>> with a "kii" construction. If he were a perfectionist, he'd've writt,n:
>>
>> ham hai.n tarah-e-mataa-e-kuuch-o-baazaar
>>
>> No matter that by the time you unfolded it, not only the song, but the
>> movie would've been o'er.
>>
>> Ashok
>
>
>
> This example is okay, as a sally in jest.
>
> But "tarah" (like) is not a noun and cannot be combined
> with a "zer-e-izaafat".
>
>
> Afzal
I wonder if people pull these rules out of their hat.
Here's an excerpt from an article that appeared in
ALUP sometime ago. It's by way of being reflections on
a stanza by Ghalib
seekhe haiN meh.ruKhoN ke liye ham musavviree
taqreeb kuChh to behr.e.mulaaqaat chaahiye!
The writer's name is Sarwar A. Raz.
<<
(3) :taraH.e.misra': kuChh log :misra'.e.taraH: ke ma'nee meiN
likhte haiN. aur yeh Ghalat hai. izaafat ke usool se in donoN
ke ma'nee muKhtalif haiN:
taraH.e.misra' = misre' kee taraH
misra'.e.taraH = taraH kaa misra'
farq saaf zaahir hai. vazaaHat kee zaroorat naheeN hai.
>>
Ashok
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>In article <40CC8348...@privacy.net>, me_a...@privacy.net says...
>>
>> But "tarah" (like) is not a noun and cannot be combined
>> with a "zer-e-izaafat".
>>
>>
>> Afzal
>
>
>I wonder if people pull these rules out of their hat.
>Here's an excerpt from an article that appeared in
>ALUP sometime ago. It's by way of being reflections on
>a stanza by Ghalib
>
>(3) :taraH.e.misra': kuChh log :misra'.e.taraH: ke ma'nee meiN
>likhte haiN. aur yeh Ghalat hai. izaafat ke usool se in donoN
>ke ma'nee muKhtalif haiN:
>
>taraH.e.misra' = misre' kee taraH
>
>misra'.e.taraH = taraH kaa misra'
>
>farq saaf zaahir hai. vazaaHat kee zaroorat naheeN hai.
>>>
It's very clear Ashok that you don't see the fact that usage of the
word "tarah" is different in the way you put it and in the way Sarwar
sahib has put it.
Like Afzal sahib pointed out, "tarah" (LIKE) is not a noun and can
not be combined with other words by using an izaafat. But you failed
to see that Sarwar sahib did not use the word "tarah" as "Like" but
rather the word is used as a noun in "misra-e-tarah". Of course, you
would know that if you knew what "misra-e-tarah meant. In any case,
I'm just going to give you some meanings from Platts :
[...] laying (a foundation); fixing (a position, &c.); foundation
[...]
in "misra-e-tarah" this is what "tarah" means. It is a noun here and
can be used in an izaafat.
But when tarah is used as an adverb, it can not be used in an izaafat.
Hence you would be wrong in saying that Majrooh should have put
"tarah" in his long compound word.
For your information, I don't think anyone here is putting "Rules out
of their hats", just figure out exactly what is being talked about
before jumping up and down about it.
Amit Malhotra
Afzal A. Khan
Our reference was to the word as used in Majrooh's ghazal
in "Dastak". Here, the word "tarah" means "like", as in the
song : "GhuNgroo kee tarah...". When the word is used in this
sense, it cannot be compounded, as I have already stated in my
previous post. The extract from ALUP that you have cited
refers to something else. When a misra is suggested beforehand
to the participating poets, they are expected to compose and
recite their ghazals in that radeef, qaafiya and behr. I am sure
you are well acquainted with these terms and this practice.
Most Mushaairas these days are "GHair~tarhee" i.e no such misra
is suggested in advance. The tradition of a "tarhee" Mushaaira
can still be followed if the participating poets are local
folks and it is possible to communicate the "misra-e-tarah" to
all of them well in time. This "tarah" is a different word....
"Tarah" is also used in another sense --> "tarah de jaana"
which is something like "to ignore or deliberately fail to
notice, in the sense of "absolving" something.
Afzal
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>In article <5igrc0lckdoqd74cd...@4ax.com>, am...@bollyvista.com says...
>>
>>On 14 Jun 2004 07:33:59 GMT, adhar...@hotmail.com (Ashok) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <qbfqc0115f2hb3jhm...@4ax.com>, am...@bollyvista.com says...
>>>>
>>>>thing to note about these compounds is that they are never made
>>>>between a hindi and a farsi word, but only between a farsi and a farsi
>>>>word.
>>>
>>>>Amit Malhotra
>>>
>>>What about Arabic words? What about Turkish words?
>>>The idiots who make these rules seem to think that
>>>words have relgions!
>>>
>>>Then there is
>>>
>>>aab-e-ruud-e-ga.ngaa
>>>
>>>"ga.ngaa" is Farsi or, perhaps, Muslim?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>what the hell religion has to do with anything?
>
>
>Answer my first question above. Then you might see.
>
>
allright, your first question before. From what I understand, words
of Hindi origin can not be put in an izaafat. Words of Persian origin
obviously can be. I think UVR also touched on this subject during the
"urdu jis ka naam hai " series started by Zafar sahib on RMIM/ALUP not
so long ago. perhaps you should revisit that. When it comes to
Arabic and Turkish words, from what I understand, they can also be
used in an izaafat.
Now, let's talk about "aab-e-ruud-e-gangaa" that you keep on bringing
up in your discussions (recall: 1999/04/09 , a reply by Ali Minai to
you on this topic in the archives of ALUP, which incidently answers
the same questions that you are asking me here). I think Mr. Minai
made it very clear to you that "gangaa" is used here as a proper noun,
isn't it? Hence it can be used in the izaafat. Please do refer to
that reply if you want to refresh your memory about these issues on
izaafat.
Now, i think i have answered your question, but I really Don't see
what religion has to do with anything here. We are talking about
languages and not religions. It seems to be clear that the izaafat
rule is borrowed from Persian and that's why words that are not
originally found in Persian lexicon are not used in an izaafat. Hindi
words qualify for that hence they are not used in an izaafat. Arabic
and Turkish words probably do appear in the Persian lexicon so they
can be used in izaafat. As i don't know Persian, I can't comment on
that more than what I just said.
>>is Farsi a religion
>
>Don't know.
>
No. Now you know.
>
>>or is Hindi a religion?
>
>No. Urdu is, for some.
>
>
No, it's probably a language that some love a lot. But when you
consider languages to be religions, you sound like those uneducated
north americans that i talk to often when they say, "Do you speak
Indian"? or the french people that end up asking me "Alors tu parles
hindou" (So you speak Hindu?).
Amit Malhotra
>Ashok
>
>
Ashok
>
>allright, your first question before. From what I understand, words
>of Hindi origin can not be put in an izaafat. Words of Persian origin
>obviously can be. I think UVR also touched on this subject during the
>"urdu jis ka naam hai " series started by Zafar sahib on RMIM/ALUP not
>so long ago. perhaps you should revisit that. When it comes to
>Arabic and Turkish words, from what I understand, they can also be
>used in an izaafat.
Think about this: what is the common feature of Persian, Arabic and
Turkish?
>Now, let's talk about "aab-e-ruud-e-gangaa" that you keep on bringing
>up in your discussions (recall: 1999/04/09 , a reply by Ali Minai to
>you on this topic in the archives of ALUP, which incidently answers
>the same questions that you are asking me here). I think Mr. Minai
>made it very clear to you that "gangaa" is used here as a proper noun,
>isn't it? Hence it can be used in the izaafat. Please do refer to
>that reply if you want to refresh your memory about these issues on
>izaafat.
Then explain to me why Afzal acts like he has mental constipation
with expressions like (these are his own examples) "husn-e-KhaNdaala"
or "aab-o-hawaa-e-Ooty". Khandala and Ooty are proper nouns, no?
Or, is it the case that only those proper nouns that are listed in
the Persian Gazetteer can be used?
What a bunch of jokers!
>Now, i think i have answered your question, but I really Don't see
>what religion has to do with anything here. We are talking about
>languages and not religions. It seems to be clear that the izaafat
>rule is borrowed from Persian and that's why words that are not
>originally found in Persian lexicon are not used in an izaafat. Hindi
>words qualify for that hence they are not used in an izaafat. Arabic
>and Turkish words probably do appear in the Persian lexicon so they
>can be used in izaafat. As i don't know Persian, I can't comment on
>that more than what I just said.
The question is: do you know enough to do all the commenting and
hectoring you have already done?! Judging by the "don't know"s
and "seems"s and "probably"s that litter what you have written,
you don't. In any case, it is clear that you don't. Otherwise,
how could you come with something ridiculous like only nouns
are allowed in izaafat constructions! Leastways, you should
know "Mughal-e-Azam"!
>>>is Farsi a religion
>>
>>Don't know.
>>
>
>No. Now you know.
Obviously from a great authority on Farsi!
>>
>>>or is Hindi a religion?
>>
>>No. Urdu is, for some.
>>
>>
>
>No, it's probably a language that some love a lot. But when you
>consider languages to be religions, you sound like those uneducated
>north americans that i talk to often when they say, "Do you speak
>Indian"? or the french people that end up asking me "Alors tu parles
>hindou" (So you speak Hindu?).
>
>Amit Malhotra
I am saying that you jokers are making a religion of Urdu.
Ashok
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
did i say only nouns are allowed in izaafat? what really "seems" to me
is that it's a waste of time typing anything to you because you "seem"
to be much more constipated than anybody else here regarding anything
that anybody disagrees with you on.
>>>>is Farsi a religion
>>>
>>>Don't know.
>>>
>>
>>No. Now you know.
>
>Obviously from a great authority on Farsi!
>
whatever that is supposed to mean!! Anybody that says FARSI is a
religion is a nutcase in my opinion.
>>>
>>>>or is Hindi a religion?
>>>
>>>No. Urdu is, for some.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, it's probably a language that some love a lot. But when you
>>consider languages to be religions, you sound like those uneducated
>>north americans that i talk to often when they say, "Do you speak
>>Indian"? or the french people that end up asking me "Alors tu parles
>>hindou" (So you speak Hindu?).
>>
>>Amit Malhotra
>
>
>I am saying that you jokers are making a religion of Urdu.
>
and your point is?
Amit
P.s. don't bother replying to the last question i asked... I have
conclused that it's a waste of time to talk to you about this, at
least not here on RMIM cuz not only is it an off topic for RMIM, but
also an "off-topic" for your intellect.
>
>
>Ashok
Abhay Phadnis
> Now, let's talk about "aab-e-ruud-e-gangaa" that you keep on bringing
> up in your discussions (recall: 1999/04/09 , a reply by Ali Minai to
> you on this topic in the archives of ALUP, which incidently answers
> the same questions that you are asking me here). I think Mr. Minai
> made it very clear to you that "gangaa" is used here as a proper noun,
...used *here* as a proper noun?? Can 'gangaa' be used, anywhere, as
anything other than a proper noun?
Warm regards,
Abhay
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
I didn't really put any focus on "here" :) but thanks for pointing
out that I should be careful in selecting words when saying something.
Anyway, check out Platts, I'm sure you know of it:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X53611298
see if Gangaa can be used as anything other than a proper noun.
Regards
Amit Malhotra
Afzal A. Khan
I suppose many RMIMers are not quite aware that
there are Aryan place-names and non-Aryan
place-names. Thanks for ......
Afzal
Devendra Sharma
I wonder if one can include "shaam-e-awadh", "subh-e-banaaras" and
"shab-e-maalwaa" to the list!!
devendra
>
> Afzal
V S Rawat
In shammi kapoor's manoranjan, Sanjeev Kumar plays a make
believe nawaab to impress Zeenat who did not know urdu at all
he uses terms such as, "aap tan-e-mulaayam hii nahii.n
man-e-mulaayam bhii hai.n goyaa ke aap to mulaayam-e-aazam hai".
Zeenat indeed got impressed and a song breaks out
goyaake chunaa.nche
-----------
The point it: all the persons knowing a slight bit of urdu
could understand what is meant by this new terminology.
-Rawat
Ashok
I would like to join issue with you on two topics. (The second one
a bit later.)
In article <6f3cbf2.04061...@posting.google.com>, paabagil@hotmail.c
says...
>Now coming to 'filmi' poetry: I think Sahir is at least an order of
>magnitude better poet than any other "regular" lyricist of HFM,
>considering the quantity of the quality work he has produced. But when
>taken outside the tinsel town, Sahir flounders in comparison with even
>the lesser poets of his times, like, as I said above, Faiz.
I find what you say above highly disturbing, given the mental image I
have of Sahir's stature in the world of Urdu literature. Now, I know
nothing whatsoever about Urdu poetry and literary criticism, so my
mental image is based on scattered impressions that I have gathered
from assorted sources, such as what other people say, awards, and
such. What you say is so much at odds with my mental image that I
feel oblighed to seek clarification and elaboration from you. It might
help to lay out a few of the assorted sources of my impressions:
. Almost independently of his work for films, he is a major published
poet in Urdu and his literary works appear to be highly regarded by
connoisseurs of Urdu poetry
. The emotions and high regard that Amrita Preetam--a Jnanapitha
award-winning literateur in her own rights--had vested in Sahir
. Majrooh was unhappy about the contrast between how he himself
was regarded in Urdu literary circles and how Sahir was (this is
based on what Majrooh said when he got the Ghalib Award in 1980)
. Evaluations like the following:
<<
After the death of Allama Iqbal, the greatest Urdu poet of the 20th
century by consensus amongst the literati, many eminent poets emerged
on the horizon of Urdu poetry. Amongst them the notables were Firagh
Gorakhpuri, Josh Maleehabadi, Noon Meem Rashid, Sahir Ludhyanvi and
Faiz Ahmed Faiz. Though no one could reach the exalted heights
attained by Faiz, each left his imprint on the cornucopia that is Urdu
poetry.
>>
(These are the opening lines of an article on Sahir by one Shamim
Ahmad. I'll presently post the article on an independent thread.)
Also, your sentence above clearly implies that, according to you,
Faiz is one of the lesser poets of the relevant era. I can't tell
whether it is a quirk of careless phrasing or your considered
evaluation of Faiz.
Judging from the literary scene in my own language (Kannada), I
can see how an assessment of a very good filmi poet, such as yours
of Sahir, can hold water. The best filmi poetry in Kannada, however
good, is many leagues behind, as judged by the standards of literary
poetry. I, however, had thought that Sahir's case was different.
And, your evaluation of Faiz--as one of the lesser poets of the
period is--nothing short of shocking.
So, I would like to hear at length from you on the following:
* What, to the extent one could generalize on such matters, is
the general assessment of Faiz and Sahir as poets in the Urdu
literary world? And who, by general consensus, are the great
Urdu poets of the post-Iqbal era?
* What is your own assessment of Faiz and Sahir as Urdu poets?
And who, according to you, are the great Urdu poets of the era?
(Of course, this question is relevant only if your assessment
is signficantly different from the general literary consenus.)
Ashok
PS: For now, I am staying clear of Gulzar; his case is, if anything,
much messier. (No, that's not the second matter on which I'll join
issue with you, either!)
Afzal A. Khan
I am sure Zafar Saheb will give his views in due course.
I would just like to pose one question. What exactly do
we mean by "filmi poetry" ?
I think we should make a distinction between strictly
literary compositions used in films or specially written
for films and other types of lyrics which would hardly
be regarded as "literary" by the discerning public.
Examples of the first type : "Kabhee ai haqeeqat-e-muntazar.."
Also, Sahir's own "JinheN naaz hai Hind par..." (though it
has been watered down a bit). I think, in this field, Sahir
(amongst Indian poets) reigns supreme.
Examples of the second type : Songs like "Ah, chhoR do
aaNchal zamaana kya kahega", "Maana janaab ne pukaara naheeN",
"Meree neeNdoN men tum, mere KH(w)aaboN men tum" etc.
I am leaving aside songs like "Lal lal gaal" and "C, A, T,
Cat".
It is my submission that composing songs of the Second Type
is also an art, even though it may not have much "literary"
merit per se. It is not given to many to come up trumps
in this particular field. And, in this context, I feel
Majrooh is arguably the "greatest" (if we can use such an
expression) amongst Indian poets. He is so versatile.
Another fine exponent was JaaN Nissar Akhtar, though his output
is quite limited. Percentage-wise, JNA has done a superb job.
My comments are limited to poets who were basically Urdu
poets.
Afzal
Ritu
>
> Examples of the first type : "Kabhee ai haqeeqat-e-muntazar.."
> Also, Sahir's own "JinheN naaz hai Hind par..." (though it
> has been watered down a bit). I think, in this field, Sahir
> (amongst Indian poets) reigns supreme.
Just want to know, how is 'Jinhe naaz hai hind par' watered down. Is
it in thought and content or is it in writing flair or in beauty of
expression using which comes by utlising a language well (words with
refined meaning in urdu being watered down to 'Hindustani' words not
having as much punch). I would think it might be the latter. What do
you say?
> My comments are limited to poets who were basically Urdu
> poets.
Oh ok.. I was just going to ask you about Shailendra. I feel his
lyrics have a lot of literary value but from whatever I know he did
not seem to have any contribution to the world of Hindi literature.
Can someone shed more light on this? I had put this question on SKS
and Vinayak had pointed out one or two songs he *did* write. But seems
there is nothing substantial.
Regards
Ritu
>
>
> Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Ritu wrote:
>
> "Afzal A. Khan" <me_a...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<40D228DF...@privacy.net>...
>
> >
> > Examples of the first type : "Kabhee ai haqeeqat-e-muntazar.."
> > Also, Sahir's own "JinheN naaz hai Hind par..." (though it
> > has been watered down a bit). I think, in this field, Sahir
> > (amongst Indian poets) reigns supreme.
>
> Just want to know, how is 'Jinhe naaz hai hind par' watered down. Is
> it in thought and content or is it in writing flair or in beauty of
> expression using which comes by utlising a language well (words with
> refined meaning in urdu being watered down to 'Hindustani' words not
> having as much punch). I would think it might be the latter. What do
> you say?
>
>
> > My comments are limited to poets who were basically Urdu
> > poets.
>
> Oh ok..
> Regards
> Ritu
>
> >
> >
> > Afzal
I was only referring to the fact that the original line was
"Sana~KH(W)aan-e-taqdees-e-mashriq kahaaN haiN". And I am
sure you know it well. Probably feeling that the line may
not be readily understood/appreciated by many film-goers, it
was re-written as "JinheN naaz hai Hind par woh kahaaN hain".
"Watered down" is to be understood in this limited context.
Afzal
paabagil
Thank you Ashok saahib, to taking notice of my words :)
> Dear Zafar,
>
>
> I would like to join issue with you on two topics. (The second one
> a bit later.)
>
> In article <6f3cbf2.04061...@posting.google.com>, paabagil@hotmail.c
> says...
>
> >Now coming to 'filmi' poetry: I think Sahir is at least an order of
> >magnitude better poet than any other "regular" lyricist of HFM,
> >considering the quantity of the quality work he has produced. But when
> >taken outside the tinsel town, Sahir flounders in comparison with even
> >the lesser poets of his times, like, as I said above, Faiz.
>
> I find what you say above highly disturbing, given the mental image I
> have of Sahir's stature in the world of Urdu literature. Now, I know
> nothing whatsoever about Urdu poetry and literary criticism, so my
> mental image is based on scattered impressions that I have gathered
> from assorted sources, such as what other people say, awards, and
> such. What you say is so much at odds with my mental image that I
> feel oblighed to seek clarification and elaboration from you. It might
> help to lay out a few of the assorted sources of my impressions:
>
> . Almost independently of his work for films, he is a major published
> poet in Urdu and his literary works appear to be highly regarded by
> connoisseurs of Urdu poetry
>
> . The emotions and high regard that Amrita Preetam--a Jnanapitha
> award-winning literateur in her own rights--had vested in Sahir
Amrita Preetam? Firstly, she is not even an Urdu writer: she writes in
Punjabi; secondly, aren't you aware of the scandal between Sahir and
her?! LOL
> . Majrooh was unhappy about the contrast between how he himself
> was regarded in Urdu literary circles and how Sahir was (this is
> based on what Majrooh said when he got the Ghalib Award in 1980)
> . Evaluations like the following:
>
> <<
> After the death of Allama Iqbal, the greatest Urdu poet of the 20th
> century by consensus amongst the literati, many eminent poets emerged
> on the horizon of Urdu poetry. Amongst them the notables were Firagh
> Gorakhpuri, Josh Maleehabadi, Noon Meem Rashid, Sahir Ludhyanvi and
> Faiz Ahmed Faiz. Though no one could reach the exalted heights
> attained by Faiz, each left his imprint on the cornucopia that is Urdu
> poetry.
> >>
If I'm not mistaken, this Shamim Ahmed is the brother of critic/poet
Salim Ahmed. I've read a few of his articles but he is not a regular
critic and remains an almost unfamiliar figure. So, in my opinion, his
judgment does not matter much.
> (These are the opening lines of an article on Sahir by one Shamim
> Ahmad. I'll presently post the article on an independent thread.)
>
> Also, your sentence above clearly implies that, according to you,
> Faiz is one of the lesser poets of the relevant era. I can't tell
> whether it is a quirk of careless phrasing or your considered
> evaluation of Faiz.
>
> Judging from the literary scene in my own language (Kannada), I
> can see how an assessment of a very good filmi poet, such as yours
> of Sahir, can hold water. The best filmi poetry in Kannada, however
> good, is many leagues behind, as judged by the standards of literary
> poetry.
This is precisely what is the case with Urdu/Hindi filmi poetry. In
English, too, it'd be almost blasphemous even to think of comparing
song lyrics with poems by the likes of, say, TS Eliot, WB Yeats, Ezra
Pound, etc.
In Pakistan, Qateel Shifai, the best lyricist in the country's
history, is a nobody among literary circles.
I, however, had thought that Sahir's case was different.
> And, your evaluation of Faiz--as one of the lesser poets of the
> period is--nothing short of shocking.
>
> So, I would like to hear at length from you on the following:
>
> * What, to the extent one could generalize on such matters, is
> the general assessment of Faiz and Sahir as poets in the Urdu
> literary world? And who, by general consensus, are the great
> Urdu poets of the post-Iqbal era?
>
> * What is your own assessment of Faiz and Sahir as Urdu poets?
> And who, according to you, are the great Urdu poets of the era?
> (Of course, this question is relevant only if your assessment
> is signficantly different from the general literary consenus.)
I would first take on Sahir. You want a detailed reply, so a detailed
reply follows:
I think Sahir was a very talented poet and has been inspirational for
a whole generation. He was extremely popular and I'm sure that at
least in Pakistan, his book TalkhiyaaN must be one of the most sold
poetry collections. (Even I was a huge Sahir fan and bought TalkhiyaaN
four or five times ... and would even try to emulate his style while
composing my own "tuk-bandees"! But that was in mid 80s and I was in
secondary school :)
If you want to evaluate Sahir as an Urdu poet in comparison with other
poets, you must determine what kind of poet he is: a Ghazal poet or a
nazm poet? Now in Ghazal he is massively dwarfed by his Ghazal-go
contemporaries: Firaq, Nasir Kazmi, Munir Niazi, Zafar Iqbal, Faraz,
Shehzad Ahmed, etc. Even the relatively unknown Ghazal poets are way
ahead. I bet Sahir has never written a she'er even close to these:
aa ke patthar to mire sehn meN do chaar gire
jitne us peR ke phal the pas e deevaar gire
*
faseel e jism pe taaza lahoo ke chheenTe haiN
hudood e vaqt se aage nikal gayaa hai ko'yee
*
vahaaN kee raushnioN ne bhee zul Dhaa'ye bahut
maiN us galee meN akelaa thaa aur saa'ye bahut
*
ye aik abr kaa TukRaa kahaaN kahaaN barse
tamaam dasht hee pyaasaa dikhaa'yee detaa hai
And doubt you have even heard the name of the poet, Shikeb Jalali. So
Sahir stands nowhere in Ghazal.
Now come to nazm. The competition is even tougher here. I think nobody
would debate that Faiz was a much better nazm-nigaar than Sahir. Would
anybody?
Sahir has very few good nazms in his repertoire. Rather, not even "a
few", I think: maybe only one, "Taj Mahal". What other poem would you
produce in competition with Faiz's "sub'h e aazaadee", "shaam" (see a
Roman version and my critique of the poem here
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=faiz+shaam+group:alt.language.urdu.poetry&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.language.urdu.poetry&safe=off&selm=5f2899cd.0307311013.5519530%40posting.google.com&rnum=3>),
"tanhaa'ee", "yaad", "aaj bazaar meN paa-ba-jaulaaN chalo", "mauzoo' e
suKhan", "raqeeb se", "nisaar maiN tiree galioN pe", "ham jo taareek
raahoN meN maare ga'ye", "dil e man musaafir e man", and even "mujh se
pehlee see muhabbat" (which is a little too mawkish for me but you'd
be hard pressed to find anything compable in Sahir's deevaan) etc.,
etc., etc? (You can read all these nazms, and many more, at my website
www.eUrdubazaar.com <http://www.eUrdubazaar.com.faiz.htm>).
So see, Sahir does not stand anywhere in comparison to Faiz. *In
comparison*, that is, otherwise, as I said before, he was a very fine
and talented poet.
Then what went wrong with him in the literary world?
I think Bollywood consumed him ... so much so that he could never
concentrate again on real, "literary" poetry. As you know, he
published only one smallish book, in ~1945. That is, before coming to
Bollywood. He never published anything after that. (One thing I gained
from a debate on "Sajjad Hussain: What's Great About Him" thread, is
that in order to be really great, you need to turn out a sizeable
*quantity* of great work: one gem here, one there won't take you much
farther).
Another problem with Sahir is that he does not have - unlike Faiz --
very strong ties with the Tradition. He lags behind in the
intellectual esthetics departments as well and, perhaps more
importantly, he lacks variety: he is almost always an angry-young-man,
yelling against the evils perpetrated by the affluent classes on the
unprivileged masses. I said "yelling" because he often becomes too
loud, too embittered (consider the name of his book!), too pungent to
be able to create great art. Look at Faiz, he says similar things so
softly, so gently, so coolly.
> PS: For now, I am staying clear of Gulzar; his case is, if anything,
> much messier. (No, that's not the second matter on which I'll join
> issue with you, either!)
This is all for today, we can take on Faiz next time. But,
nevertheless, following your suit, I'd also like to quote a passage in
"my" favor. This is by Shams ur Rehman Faruqi, arguably the greatest
Urdu critic of all times and definitely the greatest living (quoting
from memory and translating from Urdu):
We must place Faiz *below* Mira Ji, NM Rashid, Majeed Amjad and Akhtar
ul Iman ... I bet Faiz has never written a poem (even) of the caliber
of Munir Niazi's "zamistaaN meN shaam".
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
PS. Whatever I said above or in the previous post is not necessarily
my own personal, idiosyncratic, opinion. Instead, you can call it the
collective contemporary critical judgment.
Irfan 'Abid'
muhtaram Afzal Sb, aadaab!
This thread was basically about comparision between Sahir and Faiz
(and it was Zaf Sb who was supposed to respond). However, since you
have started a different (but valid) and interesting discussion, let
me add something here. For the sake of not disappointing Ashok Sb, I
will say a word on the original topic of the post in the end. :)
>
> I am sure Zafar Saheb will give his views in due course.
>
> I would just like to pose one question. What exactly do
> we mean by "filmi poetry" ?
>
> I think we should make a distinction between strictly
> literary compositions used in films or specially written
> for films and other types of lyrics which would hardly
> be regarded as "literary" by the discerning public.
>
> Examples of the first type : "Kabhee ai haqeeqat-e-muntazar.."
> Also, Sahir's own "JinheN naaz hai Hind par..." (though it
> has been watered down a bit). I think, in this field, Sahir
> (amongst Indian poets) reigns supreme.
>
> Examples of the second type : Songs like "Ah, chhoR do
> aaNchal zamaana kya kahega", "Maana janaab ne pukaara naheeN",
> "Meree neeNdoN men tum, mere KH(w)aaboN men tum" etc.
> I am leaving aside songs like "Lal lal gaal" and "C, A, T,
> Cat".
>
> It is my submission that composing songs of the Second Type
> is also an art, even though it may not have much "literary"
> merit per se. It is not given to many to come up trumps
> in this particular field. And, in this context, I feel
> Majrooh is arguably the "greatest" (if we can use such an
> expression) amongst Indian poets. He is so versatile.
That is abolutely true. In this very forum, about a year ago, I had
said almost the same thing about Majrooh Sb. The facts that he wrote
songs for more than fifty years, never compromised on the quality, yet
stayed away from repeating himself, speak volumes about his talent and
stature. Not only he excelled in the 'popular' genre (the second type
mentioned by you), he wrote great 'literary' poetry, too, some of
which ended up in films ( e.g. 'ham haiN mataa-e-kuucha-o-baazaar kii
tarah').
Ironically, all of the poets being discussed here (Sahir, Faiz,
Majrooh) were from the so called 'Progressive Movement', and displayed
a certain degree of commonality in the topics and themes they chose to
write (this refers to their 'literary' work). In my opinion, this
makes the comparision even more difficult. Here is an interesting
anecdote, straight from an interview By Majrooh himslef, that would
highlight this problem.
During a visit to Pakistan, Majrooh was being interviewed by a local
scribe. Somehow the discussion came to this sher:
sutuun-e-daar pe rakhte chalo saroN ke chiraaGh
jahaaN talak ye sitam kii siyaah raat chale
Majrooh asked the interviewer if he knew the name of the poet. He
replied, "This sher is very popular here, and is often used on
propaganda material during elections. It is a well known fact that
Faiz wrote it." Majrooh smiled and said, "Sir, this sher is mine!"
> Another fine exponent was JaaN Nissar Akhtar, though his output
> is quite limited. Percentage-wise, JNA has done a superb job.
>
> My comments are limited to poets who were basically Urdu
> poets.
>
>
> Afzal
And now, about Sahir and Faiz. As I said earlier, both Sahir and Faiz
wrote almost same kind of poetry, which makes the comparision between
them difficult. In my opinion, both were at par as far as mastery over
language and expression is concerned. There was a subtle difference in
style though. While Faiz was more rebellious than Sahir, the latter
was more poignant than the former. One reason why Faiz is 'generally'
regarded more highly is because he was more widely published.
Sincerely,
Irfan :Abid:
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
Hi Ritu,
when i saw your name in this thread.. i just had a feeling Shailendra
is going to be mentionned :D
I still don't think I could ever put Shailendra in the same category
as Sahir... but that's just my personal opinion. Mind you, i love a
lot of songs written by him.
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
>> Afzal
Ritu
:).. Actually, these days I am very enamoured by Sahir. Esp. after
having a phase with 'Phir subah hogi'. By and large I tremendously
enjoy all three... Shailendra, Sahir and Majrooh. Different poets in
different moods. However, I am not anywhere near to being a
connoissuer of poetry to be able to have opinions that hold any
weight. So maybe you are right.. Sahir is in a class by himself. But
for now, I do find a tremendous emotional appeal in Shailendra's
poetry. But then Sahir is equally magnetic in his own way!
Cheers
Ritu
>
> Regards,
>
> Amit Malhotra
>
>
> >> Afzal
UVR
>
> :).. Actually, these days I am very enamoured by Sahir. Esp. after
> having a phase with 'Phir subah hogi'. By and large I tremendously
> enjoy all three... Shailendra, Sahir and Majrooh. Different poets in
> different moods. However, I am not anywhere near to being a
> connoissuer of poetry to be able to have opinions that hold any
> weight. So maybe you are right.. Sahir is in a class by himself. But
> for now, I do find a tremendous emotional appeal in Shailendra's
> poetry. But then Sahir is equally magnetic in his own way!
Hey, what about Shakeel? We keep forgetting about him on RMIM.
It's either Sahir for his poetry, or Majrooh for his 'all kinds
of filmi stuff for 50 years' or Shailendra for his 'folk type
palpability', but never a mention of Shakeel in these discussions?
Shakeel was very magnetic too. He had the 'Urdu' of Sahir as
well as the 'folksiness' of Shailendra -- AND a good deal of
talent (IMHO, at least as much as Majrooh's, qualitywise) to
back it up.
No? :)
-UVR.
Surjit Singh
And even his bhajans were as good as or better than those of Sahir.
>
> No? :)
>
> -UVR.
--
Surjit Singh, a diehard movie fan(atic), period.
http://hindi-movies-songs.com/index.html
Vinayak K.Gore
> >
>
> > > Oh ok.. I was just going to ask you about Shailendra. I feel his
> lyrics have a lot of literary value but from whatever I know he did
> not seem to have any contribution to the world of Hindi literature.
> Can someone shed more light on this? I had put this question on SKS
> and Vinayak had pointed out one or two songs he *did* write. But seems
> there is nothing substantial.
This is what Shailendra told his friend Prof.Madhav Moholkar.
"Everyone should choose his medium of expression and should excel in
that.
"Ever since I joined films I haven't been able to write many poems.So
whatever I want to convey I do it through film lyrics.Only I do it so
tactfully that listener gets a feeling that I am expressing the
emotions of a particular character in particular situation.
I am proud that I am lyricist (as against poet).(This had a reference
to noted Marathi films lyricist ga.di.MadguLkar being derogatively
referred to as lyricist and not poet.)
It is not that I go in one room to write lyrics and in order to
compensate for that sin I go to another room to write a 100 line
poem.Those who do such a "double role" will not be successful in
either media.
Also those who consider film lyrics as inferior to poem should not
complain that lyricist get Rs.500 for a lyrics whereas poet only
Rs.5."
Vinayak
>
> Regards
> Ritu
>
>
> >
> >
> > Afzal
Vinayak K.Gore
I do not know whether you are aware of or not,but the issue of merits
of Sahir's poetry (mostly film lyrics, that too within limited scope)
was discussed about two years ago.
Here is the link.
Vinayak
Vijay Kumar
>
> Sahir has very few good nazms in his repertoire. Rather, not even "a
> few", I think: maybe only one, "Taj Mahal".
This is a bit harsh, IMO. Off the top, there are: "parchhayiiaaN", "ai
shariif insaano", "Khoon phir Khoon hai", and the two in Pyasa. I rate
parchhayiiaaN higher than Taj Mahal or anyother for that matter.
Vijay Kumar
Ritu
I don;t know about the rest of RMIM, but Shakeel never seems to reach
my radar. I don't find that timeless quality in him as I do in the
other three. As I had said before I am quite lyrics-deaf. First, if
the tune is not good then, the lyrics never reach my radar anyway.
They really have to stand out to catch my attention (or the tune has
to be such that highlights them or someone points them out to me).By
that yardstick, Sahir takes the cake. I have always found 'Kabhi khud
pe kabhi haalat pe rona aaya' dull musically but I love the song only
for the lyrics.
Over the years I have discovered that whenever a piece really appeals
to me and I check out the lyricst, it is one of the above. On the
other hand whenever I hear a vintage song with really crass lyrics 9
out of 10 times it's Anand Bakshi :). That doesn't say anything about
either artist. But is just an impression of a casual listener.
I have been listening to Naushad's music since the beginning (and
unlike a lot of RMIMers I think it was very mellifluous) but at this
point I can't recall even one line from those songs which is special
(as Anil Biswas says in Rasikeshu 'Tees uthaane waale bol'). I love
'Nagri Nagri dwaare dwaare' but there is not a special line that
stands out (for me) or gives me something to think about. On the other
hand when I hear 'Chundariya katati jaaye re', I miss Shailendra
profusely. Shakeel's lyrics (I am not acquainted with his non-film
work) don't capture my imagination.
Also another thing I had mentioned before, the quality of
timelessness. When I hear 'Chaudavin ka chaand ho' I think oh! my God
how outdated. When I hear 'Kashti ka khamosh safar hai', I think 'How
charming'. For me atleast, Shakeel represents an ethos with which I
simply cannot connect. I can not *feel* what he tries to say. I find
the spirit in the poetry of the other three still relevent to the
times I live in. I can't imagine anyone in my generation employing a
song like 'Chaudavin ka chand' to woo their object of affection. It
just won't cut ice.
Shakeel to me holds the same spot as the really brilliant Hindi poets
like Bharat Vyas and Pandit Narendra Sharma do (though Bharat Vyas has
a still-very-relevent beauty in 'Kaviraja kavita chodo kuch kaam karo'
from Navrang). They represent an ethos and culture that got left
behind in their times. Though I do have a higher appreciation for the
Hindi poets simply because I have studied Hindi literature in school
and there has been some emphasis on it in my family. Maybe if I had
got the same exposure to Urdu I could have appreciated Shakeel too.
But that classical romanticsm to me is just a relic from the past.
Phew!!!
>
> No? :)
No :)!
Cheers
Ritu
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>Also another thing I had mentioned before, the quality of
>timelessness. When I hear 'Chaudavin ka chaand ho' I think oh! my God
>how outdated. When I hear 'Kashti ka khamosh safar hai', I think 'How
>charming'. For me atleast, Shakeel represents an ethos with which I
>simply cannot connect. I can not *feel* what he tries to say. I find
>the spirit in the poetry of the other three still relevent to the
>times I live in. I can't imagine anyone in my generation employing a
>song like 'Chaudavin ka chand' to woo their object of affection. It
>just won't cut ice.
>
Really???? :-O it won't? What's your generation? In my generation,
it seems to work ;-)
i mean how come lines like this don't work:
jaan-e-bahaar tum kisii shaayar ka khwaab ho!
or
hoNThoN pe kheltii haiN tabassum ki bijliyaaN
sajade tumhaari raah meiN kartii haiN kahkashaaN
duniyaa-e-husn-o-ishq kaa tum "hii" shabaab ho!!
i think these are damn romantic lines.
and how bout songs like:
aaj puraanii raahoN se koi..
beqaraar karke hameiN
milii khaak meiN muhabbat
zaraa nazroN se kah do ji
yaad meiN terii jaag jaag ke ham
suhaani raat Dhal chuki
naseeb meiN jiske jo likhaa hai
Gham-e-aashiqi se kah do (nice words!)
maiN nazar se pee rahaa thaa, to ye dil ne bad-du'aa dii
tere haath zindagii bhar, kabhii jaam tak na pahuNche!!
(lovely!)
ik shahnshaah ne banwaa ke
do sitaaroN ka zamiiN par hai milan
in my opinion, all these at least are really appealing songs... tune
of course comes secondary to me and words come first, but even in
terms of tune they are not bad (Gham-e-asshiqi is only there in terms
of its words).
all this just to say, I am wondering how come Shakeel never reached
your radar :)
Of course, Sahir making it there is obvious. I mean Sahir has written
probably most of the popular hindi songs. Perfect example of this is
my conversation with someone. I asked that person who her favourite
lyricist was and she said, she doesn't know the names of the
lyricists. I said, ok, tell me few of your favourite hindi songs and
let's see whose lyrics appeal to you the most. She said about 10
songs to me, and all, and i mean all 10 of them were written by Sahir!
That's why he called himself the magician :D
Regards
Amit
>
>Cheers
>Ritu
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
Zafar sahib aadaab,
First of all, I just wanted to let you know that I also noticed all
your opinions, your analysis that you presented to us based on the
"collective contemporary critical judgement". And i was actually
following this thread with a lot of interest as Sahir happens to be
one of my personal favourites, not only as a HFM lyricist, but also as
a poet. The first book i ever read of Sahir was in devanagri and
compiled by Prakash Pandit, a renowned name in devanagri compilations.
He praised Sahir like there was no tomorrow. I read the whole book
with a lot of interest especially because the first nazm in the book
was amazing, in my point of view (mataa-e-ghair). Being a huge fan
of Sahir's poetry, I think Ashok made a great point to seek
"clarifications and elaborations" from you regarding what you said. I
myself didn't make that gesture because I knew that if i start talking
about literary analysis, of which i have little knowledge, i'll really
be completely out of my place. However, few of the points you made
here in this post made me think a lot and I think i'm going to just
say a few things and give a few opinions of my own. So here goes.
>In Pakistan, Qateel Shifai, the best lyricist in the country's
>history, is a nobody among literary circles.
>
Really? That's funny, I have read a book on Qateel Shifai : rang
Khushboo roshnii with a preface by Professor Gopi Chand Naarang (don't
ask me who that is, I only read him in this book) and if he is
somebody noteworthy, you would probably know. He praised Qateel a lot
and said that he was the Sahir of Pakistan. And if he was a nobody
among literary circles, then no wonder, the collective litterary
judgement passed on Sahir is also similar.
>I, however, had thought that Sahir's case was different.
>> And, your evaluation of Faiz--as one of the lesser poets of the
>> period is--nothing short of shocking.
>>
>> So, I would like to hear at length from you on the following:
>>
>> * What, to the extent one could generalize on such matters, is
>> the general assessment of Faiz and Sahir as poets in the Urdu
>> literary world? And who, by general consensus, are the great
>> Urdu poets of the post-Iqbal era?
>>
>> * What is your own assessment of Faiz and Sahir as Urdu poets?
>> And who, according to you, are the great Urdu poets of the era?
>> (Of course, this question is relevant only if your assessment
>> is signficantly different from the general literary consenus.)
>
>I would first take on Sahir. You want a detailed reply, so a detailed
>reply follows:
>
>I think Sahir was a very talented poet and has been inspirational for
>a whole generation. He was extremely popular and I'm sure that at
>least in Pakistan, his book TalkhiyaaN must be one of the most sold
>poetry collections. (Even I was a huge Sahir fan and bought TalkhiyaaN
>four or five times ... and would even try to emulate his style while
>composing my own "tuk-bandees"! But that was in mid 80s and I was in
>secondary school :)
>
You see, that was a point I wanted to make. His book was apparently
in everybody's hands even in India. At a private mehfil in Ottawa, I
was told that every youngster of that time knew of Sahir and was in
love with his book talKhiyaaN. you said you "were" a huge Sahir fan
:) i guess then you started reading literary criticism :)
>If you want to evaluate Sahir as an Urdu poet in comparison with other
>poets, you must determine what kind of poet he is: a Ghazal poet or a
>nazm poet? Now in Ghazal he is massively dwarfed by his Ghazal-go
>contemporaries: Firaq, Nasir Kazmi, Munir Niazi, Zafar Iqbal, Faraz,
>Shehzad Ahmed, etc. Even the relatively unknown Ghazal poets are way
>ahead. I bet Sahir has never written a she'er even close to these:
>
Of course we all know that calling Sahir a ghazal poet would be plain
wrong. He has written only a few ghazals and even his ghazals are
more in line with the type of nazms he wrote. They are obviously no
match for the poets you mentioned (at least from the ones I know such
as Firaq, Nasir Kazmi, Faraz, Shehzad Ahmed). But why compare him
with ghazal poets when we all know that he was mainly a nazm poet?
So a comparision with ghazal poets doesn't mean anything in my
opinion.
>
>Now come to nazm. The competition is even tougher here. I think nobody
>would debate that Faiz was a much better nazm-nigaar than Sahir. Would
>anybody?
Now this is where it gets interesting. Knowing that sahir was a nazm
poet, lets compare him with other nazm poets. Perfect person to
compare him with would be Faiz of course. I agree, partially, that
Faiz was a better nazm-nigaar than Sahir but then I don't think Sahir
has written as many nazms as Faiz did. You made a valid point when
you said that bollywood probably consumed him as the only book he
released was pre-bollywood era. But what he did write, was damn good.
Now I also think that it's unfair that you think the only nazm worth
reading in that book of his was Taj Mahal. But why do you think so?
or why does the literary circle thinks that Taj Mahal was the only
decent nazm in his book? ParchhaiyaaN was amazing, so was
mataa-e-ghair, so was kisii ko udaas dekh kar, mere geet, fankaar,
Khaanaa-aabaadii, Ma'azoori, shikast(I wish i had my sahir book with
me right now .. i would have listed all of them!
>
>Sahir has very few good nazms in his repertoire. Rather, not even "a
>few", I think: maybe only one, "Taj Mahal". What other poem would you
>produce in competition with Faiz's "sub'h e aazaadee", "shaam" (see a
>Roman version and my critique of the poem here
><http://groups.google.com/groups?q=faiz+shaam+group:alt.language.urdu.poetry&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.language.urdu.poetry&safe=off&selm=5f2899cd.0307311013.5519530%40posting.google.com&rnum=3>),
>"tanhaa'ee", "yaad", "aaj bazaar meN paa-ba-jaulaaN chalo", "mauzoo' e
>suKhan", "raqeeb se", "nisaar maiN tiree galioN pe", "ham jo taareek
>raahoN meN maare ga'ye", "dil e man musaafir e man", and even "mujh se
>pehlee see muhabbat" (which is a little too mawkish for me but you'd
>be hard pressed to find anything compable in Sahir's deevaan) etc.,
>etc., etc? (You can read all these nazms, and many more, at my website
>www.eUrdubazaar.com <http://www.eUrdubazaar.com.faiz.htm>).
>
>So see, Sahir does not stand anywhere in comparison to Faiz. *In
>comparison*, that is, otherwise, as I said before, he was a very fine
>and talented poet.
>
but you see, the point is that his nazms hit people in a different
way. He was easy to understand and he made an impact with the
emotions that everybody feels. I can't say the same for Faiz (in
terms of whether he was easy to understand or not). That's why Sahir
was immensly popular. The emotions that he used and depicted again
and again in his poems and he depicted them so easily and so smoothly
in a manner that anybody could understand him, what's not great about
that? Of course he was a talented poet, but he was no "less" than
anyother talented poet. He wrote less than them.
>Then what went wrong with him in the literary world?
>
>I think Bollywood consumed him ... so much so that he could never
>concentrate again on real, "literary" poetry. As you know, he
>published only one smallish book, in ~1945. That is, before coming to
>Bollywood. He never published anything after that. (One thing I gained
>from a debate on "Sajjad Hussain: What's Great About Him" thread, is
>that in order to be really great, you need to turn out a sizeable
>*quantity* of great work: one gem here, one there won't take you much
>farther).
>
I agree, and I'm sure that if he had concentrated on "literary" poetry
as you put it, he could have had the quantity of great work. But his
sole publications has to be considered great work due to its immense
popularity. Did the other poets of his era enjoyed the same fame and
popularity that every college student was walking around with books by
these poets in their hands as they did with Sahir's talKhiyaaN?
But why would anybody say that he has only one gem of a nazm in his
book and that too Taj Mahal? Why because he used such difficult urdu
in it? Why not the other poems? cuz they were simple to understand?
Is that what the literary circle looks for? difficult language? :)
>Another problem with Sahir is that he does not have - unlike Faiz --
>very strong ties with the Tradition. He lags behind in the
>intellectual esthetics departments as well and, perhaps more
>importantly, he lacks variety: he is almost always an angry-young-man,
>yelling against the evils perpetrated by the affluent classes on the
>unprivileged masses. I said "yelling" because he often becomes too
>loud, too embittered (consider the name of his book!), too pungent to
>be able to create great art. Look at Faiz, he says similar things so
>softly, so gently, so coolly.
>
but that embitterement is the soul of his work!! to be able to put
that embitterement and give them shape of the poetry that he has given
us, that is great art in my point of view. Of course, Faiz says
similar things, but perhaps he is not saying them with the same
emotions as Sahir is saying them! Sahir is bringing that anger out
and letting people know that he is angry, Faiz is not telling people
that he is angry, Faiz is simply bringing those points out in front of
the masses and telling them, here , this also exists, did you think
about that? Sahir doesn't ask, Sahir tells the masses and lets them
know that this makes him angry. And his anger, his hurt, is so clear
and apparent in his poetry that he touches people even more so
because of that. They can feel it, they can identify it, they don't
have to be part of the literary circle to understand it.
>> PS: For now, I am staying clear of Gulzar; his case is, if anything,
>> much messier. (No, that's not the second matter on which I'll join
>> issue with you, either!)
>
>This is all for today, we can take on Faiz next time. But,
>nevertheless, following your suit, I'd also like to quote a passage in
>"my" favor. This is by Shams ur Rehman Faruqi, arguably the greatest
>Urdu critic of all times and definitely the greatest living (quoting
>from memory and translating from Urdu):
>
>We must place Faiz *below* Mira Ji, NM Rashid, Majeed Amjad and Akhtar
>ul Iman ... I bet Faiz has never written a poem (even) of the caliber
>of Munir Niazi's "zamistaaN meN shaam".
>
Of course to understand and realize this statement by Faruqi, i would
have to read zamistaaN meN shaam :) where can I find it?
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
Animesh Kumar
>>
>>Also another thing I had mentioned before, the quality of
>>timelessness. When I hear 'Chaudavin ka chaand ho' I think oh! my God
>>how outdated. When I hear 'Kashti ka khamosh safar hai', I think 'How
>>charming'. For me atleast, Shakeel represents an ethos with which I
>>simply cannot connect. I can not *feel* what he tries to say. I find
>>the spirit in the poetry of the other three still relevent to the
>>times I live in. I can't imagine anyone in my generation employing a
>>song like 'Chaudavin ka chand' to woo their object of affection. It
>>just won't cut ice.
>>
>
>
> Really???? :-O it won't? What's your generation? In my generation,
> it seems to work ;-)
>
I third UVR and Amit here. I like works of Shakeel a lot and I am sure
many others do. I will add some of my own favorites from Shakeel's treasury,
1. "sharaabii sharaabii ye saawan kaa mausam" .. Ah! What a mellifluous
and poetically ornated song.
2. "na milataa Gam to barabaadii ke afsaane kahaaN jaate" -- he picks up
a wonderful stance to justify grief here.
3. " kahiin ishq kaa taqaazaa kahiin husn ke ishaare" -- wonderful lines
again.
4. "ko_ii aarazuu nahii.n hai ko_ii mudda_aa nahii.n hai" -- a Gair
filmee Gazal with very nice ashaar.
5. "ai ishq ye sab duniyaawaale bekaar kii baate.n karate hai.n" -- a
forgotten song, descends from an evergreen movie Mughal e Azam.
6. " zaraa sun hasiinaa e naazaniin meraa dil tujhii pe nisaar hai" -- a
song from kaun apna kaun paraya tuned by Ravi.
7. " nagarii nagarii dwaare dwaare dhuu.Ndhuu.N" -- a great birahan song
from Mother India
8. " tum se izhaar e haal kar baiThe" (especially the lines, "ye
adaaye.n ye shoKiyaa.N taubaa! bas Kudaa hii Kudaa hai us dil kaa, jo
tumhaaraa Kayaal kar baithe!" -- another less popular gem from "mere
mehboob".
9. " meraa jiivan saathii bichha.D gayaa" -- from Babul.
10. " aaj sajan mohe a.ng lagaa lo janam saphal ho jaaye" -- a very very
nice birahan song from "sahib, bibi aur ghulam".
I feel his great songs list in quite long,
best regards
Animesh
--
PS: reply to animesh AT eecs.berkeley.edu
Saving Thyself from Spam
Ritu
> >
> >Also another thing I had mentioned before, the quality of
> >timelessness. When I hear 'Chaudavin ka chaand ho' I think oh! my God
> >how outdated. When I hear 'Kashti ka khamosh safar hai', I think 'How
> >charming'. For me atleast, Shakeel represents an ethos with which I
> >simply cannot connect. I can not *feel* what he tries to say. I find
> >the spirit in the poetry of the other three still relevent to the
> >times I live in. I can't imagine anyone in my generation employing a
> >song like 'Chaudavin ka chand' to woo their object of affection. It
> >just won't cut ice.
> >
>
> Really???? :-O it won't? What's your generation? In my generation,
> it seems to work ;-)
Then you must be one generation after mine :). In my generation,
everyone endlessly goes gaga over Gulzar and RD Burman. No one else is
remotely popular. Not even Sahir.
>
> i mean how come lines like this don't work:
>
> jaan-e-bahaar tum kisii shaayar ka khwaab ho!
> or
> hoNThoN pe kheltii haiN tabassum ki bijliyaaN
> sajade tumhaari raah meiN kartii haiN kahkashaaN
> duniyaa-e-husn-o-ishq kaa tum "hii" shabaab ho!!
As I said, one can appreciate from far but not identify with the
emotion at a more immediate level. Such overwhelming praise somehow
does not gel with the casualness of our times. But then.. that's just
the way I feel, it could be to do with the time and place I grew up
in.
>
> i think these are damn romantic lines.
>
> and how bout songs like:
>
> aaj puraanii raahoN se koi..
omigosh.. insufferable... this is a song I never possessed in my
collection and don't think ever will. Dilip Kumar and Manoj kumar
together is more than my weak heart can take :)
> beqaraar karke hameiN
This is a nice and romantic song. But I suspect the romance has more
to do with Hemant Kumar's voice than anything else. But the lyrics do
support the mood.
> milii khaak meiN muhabbat
OK.. nothing outstanding about the lyrics IMO
> zaraa nazroN se kah do ji
Again.. .Hemantda ki jai ho!
> yaad meiN terii jaag jaag ke ham
Eesh.. let me out again
> suhaani raat Dhal chuki
This is a nice one.. again great tune by Naushad but the lyrics also
add to the mood.
> naseeb meiN jiske jo likhaa hai
Not on my list :(
> Gham-e-aashiqi se kah do (nice words!)
> maiN nazar se pee rahaa thaa, to ye dil ne bad-du'aa dii
> tere haath zindagii bhar, kabhii jaam tak na pahuNche!!
> (lovely!)
There was a total OTH here :(..
> ik shahnshaah ne banwaa ke
I am sure you would agree Sahir's diametrically opposite piece on this
monument has a lot more punch.
> do sitaaroN ka zamiiN par hai milan
lukewarm
>
> in my opinion, all these at least are really appealing songs... tune
> of course comes secondary to me and words come first, but even in
> terms of tune they are not bad (Gham-e-asshiqi is only there in terms
> of its words).
>
> all this just to say, I am wondering how come Shakeel never reached
> your radar :)
I guess our radars are tuned at different frequencies! :) Ofcourse
there is an overlap on the Sahir end. I think one reason why Shakeel
never reached my radar was because my tryst with old music started
with my tryst with Dev Anand films. I have always identified more with
that kind of cinema and music. Dev Anand, Guru Dutt, the IPTA
contingent etc, the more progressive and urban kind of themes from the
50s. Thus I have more exposure to the lyricsts who wrote for them.
Though on second thoughts I never cared much for Raj Kapoor but did
notice the lyrics in his songs....maybe that's the brilliance of
Shailendra?
>
> Of course, Sahir making it there is obvious. I mean Sahir has written
> probably most of the popular hindi songs.
Really? I thought Shailendra had that distinction.. since Raj Kapoor
and SJ were so popular during those times. Infact Sahir's combination
with SD Burman during those days doesn't seem to have been as
chartbusting as SJ's music. I guess the old-timers can substantiate
that one.
Perfect example of this is
> my conversation with someone. I asked that person who her favourite
> lyricist was and she said, she doesn't know the names of the
> lyricists. I said, ok, tell me few of your favourite hindi songs and
> let's see whose lyrics appeal to you the most. She said about 10
> songs to me, and all, and i mean all 10 of them were written by Sahir!
> That's why he called himself the magician :D
>
She needs to join RMIM.. such people are total misfits in the outside
world :)
Cheers
Ritu
Jay Kulsh
You wrote -
"Of course, Sahir making it there is obvious. I mean Sahir has
written probably most of the popular hindi songs."
Control your enthusiasm for Sahir! He was one of the great lyricists
of Hindi cinema but definitely below Shailendra.
Shailendra wrote for 3 great music directors (beside many other MDs) -
Shankar-Jaikishan, SD Burman and Salil Chowdhary. In the opinion of
SDB, Shailendra was above all others, and SDB had worked with Sahir on
many films.
Sahir only worked consitently for Roshan and Ravi, after S D Burman
and O P Nayyar dumped him.
At the time of Sahir and Shailendra, three great heros of Hindi movies
were Raj Kapoor, Dilip Kumar and Dev Anand. Shailendra routinely wrote
songs for two of them while Sahir rarely wrote for any of them. So to
say that Sahir wrote most of the popular Hindi songs is a ridiculous
exaggeration. (Movies like "Naya Daur" are more exceptions than rule.)
My respect for Shailendra is even more since he produced that great
film - "Teesri Kasam", showing his literary sensibilities.
Unfortunately it also contributed to his untimely death.
Ajay Kulshreshtha
Amit Malhotra <amit @ bollyvista . com> wrote in message news:<l7oed0t2h81dvn7p0...@4ax.com>...
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>Amit,
>
>You wrote -
>"Of course, Sahir making it there is obvious. I mean Sahir has
>written probably most of the popular hindi songs."
>
>Control your enthusiasm for Sahir! He was one of the great lyricists
>of Hindi cinema but definitely below Shailendra.
>
my enthusiasm for Sahir has nothing to do with the fact that I really
do believe that most of the famous hindi songs are written by him :)
I even gave a simple example in my post regarding my conversation with
someone who doesn't even know the lyricist names.
>Shailendra wrote for 3 great music directors (beside many other MDs) -
>Shankar-Jaikishan, SD Burman and Salil Chowdhary. In the opinion of
>SDB, Shailendra was above all others, and SDB had worked with Sahir on
>many films.
>
So what are you saying is that he wrote MORE Songs than Sahir did,
that is not the same thing as saying he wrote most of the popular
hindi songs, or is it?
Of course, i'm biased in my likings for Sahir and I have nothing
against Shailendra as I think he should be counted as one of the best
lyricist in our industry as well, but just because he had more songs
than Sahir did does not mean my enthusiasm for Sahir is misplaced. I
am not saying this with an intention to put down Shailendra, but the
poetic quality in Sahir's songs seems to be superior than Shailendra's
numbers.
>Sahir only worked consitently for Roshan and Ravi, after S D Burman
>and O P Nayyar dumped him.
>
>At the time of Sahir and Shailendra, three great heros of Hindi movies
>were Raj Kapoor, Dilip Kumar and Dev Anand. Shailendra routinely wrote
>songs for two of them while Sahir rarely wrote for any of them. So to
>say that Sahir wrote most of the popular Hindi songs is a ridiculous
>exaggeration. (Movies like "Naya Daur" are more exceptions than rule.)
>
>My respect for Shailendra is even more since he produced that great
>film - "Teesri Kasam", showing his literary sensibilities.
>Unfortunately it also contributed to his untimely death.
>
And i don't think i said anywhere that Shailendra wasn't good, so
please don't take it as an attack on Shailendra's lyric writing
abilities. I personaly prefer Sahir, hence the statement.
Regards
Amit Malhotra
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>Amit Malhotra <amit @ bollyvista . com> wrote in message news:<l7oed0t2h81dvn7p0...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> >Also another thing I had mentioned before, the quality of
>> >timelessness. When I hear 'Chaudavin ka chaand ho' I think oh! my God
>> >how outdated. When I hear 'Kashti ka khamosh safar hai', I think 'How
>> >charming'. For me atleast, Shakeel represents an ethos with which I
>> >simply cannot connect. I can not *feel* what he tries to say. I find
>> >the spirit in the poetry of the other three still relevent to the
>> >times I live in. I can't imagine anyone in my generation employing a
>> >song like 'Chaudavin ka chand' to woo their object of affection. It
>> >just won't cut ice.
>> >
>>
>> Really???? :-O it won't? What's your generation? In my generation,
>> it seems to work ;-)
>
>Then you must be one generation after mine :). In my generation,
>everyone endlessly goes gaga over Gulzar and RD Burman. No one else is
>remotely popular. Not even Sahir.
>
For some reason, Gulzar doesn't make sense to me anymore!
>>
>> i mean how come lines like this don't work:
>>
>> jaan-e-bahaar tum kisii shaayar ka khwaab ho!
>> or
>> hoNThoN pe kheltii haiN tabassum ki bijliyaaN
>> sajade tumhaari raah meiN kartii haiN kahkashaaN
>> duniyaa-e-husn-o-ishq kaa tum "hii" shabaab ho!!
>
>As I said, one can appreciate from far but not identify with the
>emotion at a more immediate level. Such overwhelming praise somehow
>does not gel with the casualness of our times. But then.. that's just
>the way I feel, it could be to do with the time and place I grew up
>in.
>
hmmm.. then what you need is some time alone with some romantic
poetry :) casualness of our times is really not something I personaly
like, at least not when it comes to praising someone and using words
such as the ones Shakeel wrote above. and why not use them?
appreciating things with all your heart is something that always goes
noticed.
>>
>> i think these are damn romantic lines.
>>
>> and how bout songs like:
>>
>> aaj puraanii raahoN se koi..
>
>omigosh.. insufferable... this is a song I never possessed in my
>collection and don't think ever will. Dilip Kumar and Manoj kumar
>together is more than my weak heart can take :)
>
now what do you have against these two actors? :P I guess i won't go
in that conversation. oh but what a song though....
>> beqaraar karke hameiN
>
>This is a nice and romantic song. But I suspect the romance has more
>to do with Hemant Kumar's voice than anything else. But the lyrics do
>support the mood.
>
there you go, so this did reach your radar
>> milii khaak meiN muhabbat
>OK.. nothing outstanding about the lyrics IMO
>
yeah, but the tune is nice. lyrics did support the mood here as well.
>> zaraa nazroN se kah do ji
>Again.. .Hemantda ki jai ho!
>
again, something reached your radar.
>> yaad meiN terii jaag jaag ke ham
>Eesh.. let me out again
>
oh well!
>> suhaani raat Dhal chuki
>This is a nice one.. again great tune by Naushad but the lyrics also
>add to the mood.
>
so it seems that lyrics are always adding to the mood. Well good! I
guess that's what they were supposed to do.
>> naseeb meiN jiske jo likhaa hai
>Not on my list :(
>
>> Gham-e-aashiqi se kah do (nice words!)
>> maiN nazar se pee rahaa thaa, to ye dil ne bad-du'aa dii
>> tere haath zindagii bhar, kabhii jaam tak na pahuNche!!
>> (lovely!)
>There was a total OTH here :(..
>
umm.. what does OTH stand for ? Over the Horizon? :-s
>> ik shahnshaah ne banwaa ke
>I am sure you would agree Sahir's diametrically opposite piece on this
>monument has a lot more punch.
>
oh absolutely, it had an amazing punch and was far better than this
song by Shakeel. No arguments there.
>>
>> in my opinion, all these at least are really appealing songs... tune
>> of course comes secondary to me and words come first, but even in
>> terms of tune they are not bad (Gham-e-asshiqi is only there in terms
>> of its words).
>>
>> all this just to say, I am wondering how come Shakeel never reached
>> your radar :)
>
>I guess our radars are tuned at different frequencies! :) Ofcourse
>there is an overlap on the Sahir end. I think one reason why Shakeel
>never reached my radar was because my tryst with old music started
>with my tryst with Dev Anand films. I have always identified more with
>that kind of cinema and music. Dev Anand, Guru Dutt, the IPTA
>contingent etc, the more progressive and urban kind of themes from the
>50s. Thus I have more exposure to the lyricsts who wrote for them.
>Though on second thoughts I never cared much for Raj Kapoor but did
>notice the lyrics in his songs....maybe that's the brilliance of
>Shailendra?
>
>>
>> Of course, Sahir making it there is obvious. I mean Sahir has written
>> probably most of the popular hindi songs.
>
>Really? I thought Shailendra had that distinction.. since Raj Kapoor
>and SJ were so popular during those times. Infact Sahir's combination
>with SD Burman during those days doesn't seem to have been as
>chartbusting as SJ's music. I guess the old-timers can substantiate
>that one.
>
I already got jumped on by somebody because of this statement. The
thing to notice here is that I did put a "probably" there. Ashok must
have noticed that :) but the reason why i said that was based on
conversations similar to the one I have described below. In my
experience, I have noticed that a lot of people love songs written by
Sahir and rank them higher than other songs, without knowing who wrote
those songs. But as I'm getting fired about this by not one but two
of you RMIMers :P , i'll take it back. I know Sahir may not have
written as many songs as Shailendra did and of course, more songs
means more might have been popular for Shailendra, but I can always
vouch for the quality of the songs Sahir wrote, most of his songs
ended up being popular. Hence in terms of percentage, I *think*
Sahir may have had a better success rate.
> Perfect example of this is
>> my conversation with someone. I asked that person who her favourite
>> lyricist was and she said, she doesn't know the names of the
>> lyricists. I said, ok, tell me few of your favourite hindi songs and
>> let's see whose lyrics appeal to you the most. She said about 10
>> songs to me, and all, and i mean all 10 of them were written by Sahir!
>> That's why he called himself the magician :D
>>
>
>She needs to join RMIM.. such people are total misfits in the outside
>world :)
>
lol .. i'm not sure she will be into the technicalities RMIM gets
into.
Regards
Amit Malhotra
>Cheers
>Ritu
Vinayak K.Gore
> my radar. I don't find that timeless quality in him as I do in the
> other three.
Ritu
Shakeel is the only lyricist apart from Shailendra who has written
very small number of junk songs (i.e.comparing only those who have
written sizable no. of songs).
You claim that you are Naushad fan.Listen to the lyrics of to ALL
songs of Amar.You will know how Shakeel is great in expressing
emotions, esp.in" tamanna luut ga_ii phir bhii tere dam se mohabbat
hai", "jaanevaale se mulaakaat naa hone paa_ii" and "khamosh hai
khevanhaar mera naiyaa merii duubii jaatii hai" as sad songs, and
"tere sad ke balam na kare koi gam" as romantic song and "insaaf kaa
mandir hai" in devotional category.
I also like songs such as "afsaanaa likh rahii huu.n", "koi saagar dil
ko bahalaataa nahi.n".I consider "umariyaa kaTatii jaaye re" at least
as good as any folklore/philosophical song by Shailendra.
I think large part of Naushad's popularity is due to Shakeel.
I like Shakeel-Ghulam Mohammad songs more than Shakeel-Naushad songs.
Malik :zidagii kii qasam ho chuke unke ham (Talat),man dhiire dhiire
gaa_e re (Talat - Suraiya)
Dil e Nadan - "jo khushii se choT khaa_e vo jigar kahaa.n se laauu.n",
"zindagii dene vaale sun", "yeh raat suhaani raat nahi.n ai chand
sitaro.n so jaavo" (all Talat), khaamosh zindagii ko ek afsaana mil
gayaa" ( Jagjit Kaur), mohabbat kii dhun bekaraaro.n se puuchho
(Talat- Sudha- Jagjit)and the really great Sudha Malhotra gazal
"kahii.N bhii apanaa nahii.N Thikaanaa"
Amber - "dil deke sanam tumhe pachhtaaye ham", "TuuTegi naa pyaar kii
dor chhahe lagaale duniya jor" (both Lata)
Kundan - "shikaayat kya karuu.N ke do yaraf gam ka fasaanaa hai",
"jahaan vaale hame kyu.N paidaa tuune" both by Lata and "yeh baharo.n
ke din yeh suhaanaa sama"(Rafi Lata)
Ajeeb Ladki- "ek bevafaa ko dil kaa saharaa samaz liyaa dushman ko hum
ne jaan se pyaraa samaz liya" (Talat - Lata)
I can go on and on about Shakeel - Ghulam Mohammad combination, such
as Shayar, Pardes, Nazneen etc.
Shakeel - SDB - you must be aware of songs in Kaise Kahun (man mohan
man me.n ho tumhii by Suman- Rafi - Batish is an example of what
Professor saheb said about Shakeel)and Benazir (by the way why tunes
of Rafi songs in Benazir sound like that of Roshan rather than SDB?)
Shakeel- Roshan - I am sure you have heard "raat kii mehfil suunii
suunii" by Lata.It is yet another example of Shakeel's ability to
express emotions.
Again I can go on and on about Shakeel - Khemchand Prakash (Jaan
Pehchan), Shakeel- Sardar Malik (Chor Bazar - hui yeh ham se naadaani
terii mehfil me.n aa baiThe - Lata)
>
It is impossible (at least for me) to like the above songs and not
like Shakeel.
Vinayak
UVR
>
> For some reason, Gulzar doesn't make sense to me anymore!
>
You can't be serious. When he writes like a "normal" lyricist,
he can actually be quite tolerable. "haath chhooTe.n bhi to
rishte nahii.n chooTaa karte" from Pinjar is a good example.
Even "Khumaar-e-Gham hai, mahaktii fizaa me.n jeete hai.n"
from Leela.
What I can't stand is the way he dumps tripe like "geeli hansi"
on the audience.
-UVR.
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>Amit Malhotra wrote:
>>
>> For some reason, Gulzar doesn't make sense to me anymore!
>>
>
>You can't be serious. When he writes like a "normal" lyricist,
>he can actually be quite tolerable. "haath chhooTe.n bhi to
>rishte nahii.n chooTaa karte" from Pinjar is a good example.
>Even "Khumaar-e-Gham hai, mahaktii fizaa me.n jeete hai.n"
>from Leela.
>
you are right, i actually liked that song from Pinjar, it was a really
nice number and sounds nicer in the soft voice of Jagjit. But his
metaphors are getting really worse, you gave a perfect example: "geeli
haNsii".
ok, now that you brought up a song with the word "fiza" in it. Please
tell me, what exactly is Fiza (isn't it a metal, silver i believe)
and why is not "fazaa" instead of "fiza". From what i understand, the
correct word is "fazaa", why do all the singers keep on singing
"Fiza"? Could you shed some light on that for me please.
Amit
UVR
> when the correct word is "fazaa", why do all the singers keep
> singing "Fiza"? Could you shed some light on that for me please.
I suppose this falls into the category of Ghalat-ul-aam, i.e.,
a common mistake everyone makes (even, sometimes, those aware
of what's right). E.g., saying 'zuroor' for 'zaroor' or 'marz'
for 'maraz', or, insisting that 'croon' can only refer to
melodious singing, you see. :-P
Were I you, I'd just be happy that _I_ know what's right --
fazaa, or fizaa.
-UVR.
PS: To make this relevant to RMIM, a quick quiz: name two
songs, one with the singer *clearly* saying 'marz' and the
other with 'maraz' (equally clear).
Both the songs I am talking about are from the 50s.
paabagil
I was afraid I had annoyed you too much to respond :)
> First of all, I just wanted to let you know that I also noticed all
> your opinions, your analysis that you presented to us based on the
> "collective contemporary critical judgement". And i was actually
> following this thread with a lot of interest as Sahir happens to be
> one of my personal favourites, not only as a HFM lyricist, but also as
> a poet. The first book i ever read of Sahir was in devanagri and
> compiled by Prakash Pandit, a renowned name in devanagri compilations.
> He praised Sahir like there was no tomorrow. I read the whole book
> with a lot of interest especially because the first nazm in the book
> was amazing, in my point of view (mataa-e-ghair). Being a huge fan
> of Sahir's poetry, I think Ashok made a great point to seek
> "clarifications and elaborations" from you regarding what you said. I
> myself didn't make that gesture because I knew that if i start talking
> about literary analysis, of which i have little knowledge, i'll really
> be completely out of my place. However, few of the points you made
> here in this post made me think a lot and I think i'm going to just
> say a few things and give a few opinions of my own. So here goes.
>
> >In Pakistan, Qateel Shifai, the best lyricist in the country's
> >history, is a nobody among literary circles.
> >
>
> Really? That's funny, I have read a book on Qateel Shifai : rang
> Khushboo roshnii with a preface by Professor Gopi Chand Naarang (don't
> ask me who that is, I only read him in this book) and if he is
> somebody noteworthy, you would probably know.
Yes, he is *very* noteworthy. But tell you what, these prefaces,
reviews and flaps, etc., are notoriously good for nothing. You write a
book, you go to a critic whom you know well and solicit a preface or a
flap. Now how on earth the critic would write anything else but to
praise you and your work? And if he did (as it happens once in a
while: Ghalib did once!), you won't publish the piece in your book!
Would you? So these kind of reviews, prefaces and flaps are just a
public-relations stunt.
The point is that how many critical articles and books Narang saahib
has written on QS? If he really thinks QS was great, why doesn't he go
ahead and write a book on him (as he has done on Fazli, Mir, Iqbal,
Mir Anis, Initzar Hussain, Amir Khusrau, and others)?
> He praised Qateel a lot
> and said that he was the Sahir of Pakistan. And if he was a nobody
> among literary circles, then no wonder, the collective litterary
> judgement passed on Sahir is also similar.
I think Narang sahib was very careful with choice of words here.
Qateel = Sahir of Pakistan. Agreed. But Sahir = ? :)
> You see, that was a point I wanted to make. His book was apparently
> in everybody's hands even in India. At a private mehfil in Ottawa, I
> was told that every youngster of that time knew of Sahir and was in
> love with his book talKhiyaaN. you said you "were" a huge Sahir fan
> :) i guess then you started reading literary criticism :)
No, not at that time, it happened much latter. :) The point was that
Sahir was/is very popular with the youngsters (to whom he
appealed/appeals the most), but he loses his sheen when you read more
- and better - poetry.
> >Now come to nazm. The competition is even tougher here. I think nobody
> >would debate that Faiz was a much better nazm-nigaar than Sahir. Would
> >anybody?
>
> Now this is where it gets interesting. Knowing that sahir was a nazm
> poet, lets compare him with other nazm poets. Perfect person to
> compare him with would be Faiz of course. I agree, partially, that
> Faiz was a better nazm-nigaar than Sahir but then I don't think Sahir
> has written as many nazms as Faiz did. You made a valid point when
> you said that bollywood probably consumed him as the only book he
> released was pre-bollywood era. But what he did write, was damn good.
>
> Now I also think that it's unfair that you think the only nazm worth
> reading in that book of his was Taj Mahal. But why do you think so?
> or why does the literary circle thinks that Taj Mahal was the only
> decent nazm in his book? ParchhaiyaaN was amazing, so was
> mataa-e-ghair, so was kisii ko udaas dekh kar, mere geet, fankaar,
> Khaanaa-aabaadii, Ma'azoori, shikast(I wish i had my sahir book with
> me right now .. i would have listed all of them!
I do have "my" Sahir book with me, but I also have Faiz's "NHV", so I
maintain that Faiz is way ahead. I listed only one poem of Sahir.
Okay, make it two, or three, or four. But the argument remains the
same: Faiz has many dozens of significantly better poems. I would
request you to just go through the poems I enlisted in my previous
post at www.eurdubazaar.com/faiz.htm -- if not the entire NHV -- and
then judge for your self. Also, please don't forget to read my review
of his poem "Shaam" at ALUP.
> but you see, the point is that his nazms hit people in a different
> way. He was easy to understand and he made an impact with the
> emotions that everybody feels. I can't say the same for Faiz (in
> terms of whether he was easy to understand or not). That's why Sahir
> was immensly popular. The emotions that he used and depicted again
> and again in his poems and he depicted them so easily and so smoothly
> in a manner that anybody could understand him, what's not great about
> that? Of course he was a talented poet, but he was no "less" than
> anyother talented poet. He wrote less than them.
> >Then what went wrong with him in the literary world?
> >
> >I think Bollywood consumed him ... so much so that he could never
> >concentrate again on real, "literary" poetry. As you know, he
> >published only one smallish book, in ~1945. That is, before coming to
> >Bollywood. He never published anything after that. (One thing I gained
> >from a debate on "Sajjad Hussain: What's Great About Him" thread, is
> >that in order to be really great, you need to turn out a sizeable
> >*quantity* of great work: one gem here, one there won't take you much
> >farther).
> >
>
> I agree, and I'm sure that if he had concentrated on "literary" poetry
> as you put it, he could have had the quantity of great work.
Who knows what would have happened if Sahir concentrated on literary
poetry? Maybe he would have become the greatest poet of all times, but
the reality check is that he *didn't* … so he *isn't* :)
The popularity issue: Popularity, I'm afraid, you're confusing with
greatness. You are a veteran RMIMer, so you must be aware of the
debates that have raged here about popularity vs. greatness. Also,
consider this:
James Joyce's "Ulysses" is generally deemed the greatest novel of the
20th century. Now tell me how many people have read it? Maybe a few
thousand, no more. On the other hand, I presume if you stacked all
copies of the Harry Potter series one atop the other, they'd shoot out
of the Milky Way :)
Similarly, the print orders of Virginia Wolf's novels never exceeded
3000 - even though she herself owned a printing press! But another
contemporary woman novelist's outputs were never less than a million
copies: Agatha Christie!
Shams ur Rehman Faruqi, who also writes poetry, once said in a public
meeting (of course, half-jokingly) that if my poetry collection sells
more than ten thousand copies, I'll commit suicide!
Zia Jalandhary (one of the current nazm biggie -- I posted his poem
"baRaa shehr" at ALUP recently and whom RMIMers might know through his
Ghazal "rang baateN kareN aur baatoN se Khushboo aa'ye", sung by
Mehnaz) said a year ago that if he gets only a "single" genuine
reader, he'd be content.
Maxim: popularity won't take us much far.
> But his sole publications has to be considered great work due to its immense
> popularity. Did the other poets of his era enjoyed the same fame and
> popularity that every college student was walking around with books by
> these poets in their hands as they did with Sahir's talKhiyaaN?
> But why would anybody say that he has only one gem of a nazm in his
> book and that too Taj Mahal? Why because he used such difficult urdu
> in it? Why not the other poems? cuz they were simple to understand?
> Is that what the literary circle looks for? difficult language? :)
Well, in a way, yes: you must adopt a complex language and diction to
impress the literary circles. Tell you what, have you ever thought
what's the difference between Ghalib and, say, an ordinary HFM
lyricist? There are other things too, but one of the most important
differences is the *complexity* of Ghalib that allows the text to
assume plurality of meaning.
I don't want to delve deep into critical theory ... I'd very briefly
set forth that this plurality of meaning is extremely important.
Generally, the more meanings you can extract from a verse (or a
painting, or a story, etc.), the better it is. Actually, one of the
things Art does is to make the world meaningful to us. So the more
meanings, the better the Art cuz it makes the world more meanigful.
And in order to achieve that goal, you *must* adopt a complicated
style. Remember Ghalib: goyam mushkil o gar na goyam, mushkil?
> >Another problem with Sahir is that he does not have - unlike Faiz --
> >very strong ties with the Tradition. He lags behind in the
> >intellectual esthetics departments as well and, perhaps more
> >importantly, he lacks variety: he is almost always an angry-young-man,
> >yelling against the evils perpetrated by the affluent classes on the
> >unprivileged masses. I said "yelling" because he often becomes too
> >loud, too embittered (consider the name of his book!), too pungent to
> >be able to create great art. Look at Faiz, he says similar things so
> >softly, so gently, so coolly.
> >
>
> but that embitterement is the soul of his work!! to be able to put
> that embitterement and give them shape of the poetry that he has given
> us, that is great art in my point of view. Of course, Faiz says
> similar things, but perhaps he is not saying them with the same
> emotions as Sahir is saying them! Sahir is bringing that anger out
> and letting people know that he is angry, Faiz is not telling people
> that he is angry, Faiz is simply bringing those points out in front of
> the masses and telling them, here , this also exists, did you think
> about that? Sahir doesn't ask, Sahir tells the masses and lets them
> know that this makes him angry. And his anger, his hurt, is so clear
> and apparent in his poetry that he touches people even more so
> because of that. They can feel it, they can identify it, they don't
> have to be part of the literary circle to understand it.
Here the purpose and nature of literature come into question. Why do
people create literary texts? To vent their anger, to teach a lesson
to the oppressors? No, literature, great literature, is above all
these things. As I said before, you can't write good literature by
sticking so furiously to an agenda - no matter how noble it is. You
must rein in your emotions, you must curb your instincts. TS Eliot,
one of the foremost English poets and critics, famously wrote:
"The progress of an artist is a continual self-sacrifice, a continual
extinction of personality."
So a true artist often *conceals* his personality in his creations,
not the one who *reveals* it; and that too, that flagrantly! :)
> Of course to understand and realize this statement by Faruqi, i would
> have to read zamistaaN meN shaam :) where can I find it?
I'll post this poem on ALUP in a day or two.
Thank you for going through my posts with patience and commenting.
aadaab arz hai,
Zafar
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>Amit Malhotra <amit @ bollyvista . com> wrote in message news:
>
>Dear Amit saahib:
>
>I was afraid I had annoyed you too much to respond :)
>
Zafar sahib aadaab,
Thank you for your reply. I didn't respond because I was annoyed, but
rather I responded because I wanted to hear your point of views on
what I had in my mind. Your post was meaningful and explanatory and I
thank you for taking the time to do that. Me being a simpleton will
always like Sahir's poetry because I understand it better and identify
with his emotions that he vents in them so clearly and cleanly. I
will wait for your posts on ALUP on the poem zamistaaN meiN shaam
Warm Regards
Amit Malhotra
Ket...@att.net
>Amit Malhotra <amit @ bollyvista . com> wrote in message news:
>The popularity issue: Popularity, I'm afraid, you're confusing with
>greatness. You are a veteran RMIMer, so you must be aware of the
>debates that have raged here about popularity vs. greatness. Also,
>consider this:
>
<Popularity examples deleted>
>Maxim: popularity won't take us much far.
I hope you aren't stating that if someone is popular he cannot be great or that
great people are never popular. Writers, poets, musicians, or people in other
fields, CAN be popular AND great. Bradman is someone who was popular and his
greatness is never in question, by anyone who knows anything about cricket.
>> But his sole publications has to be considered great work due to its immense
>> popularity. Did the other poets of his era enjoyed the same fame and
>> popularity that every college student was walking around with books by
>> these poets in their hands as they did with Sahir's talKhiyaaN?
>> But why would anybody say that he has only one gem of a nazm in his
>> book and that too Taj Mahal? Why because he used such difficult urdu
>> in it? Why not the other poems? cuz they were simple to understand?
>> Is that what the literary circle looks for? difficult language? :)
>
>Well, in a way, yes: you must adopt a complex language and diction to
>impress the literary circles. Tell you what, have you ever thought
>what's the difference between Ghalib and, say, an ordinary HFM
>lyricist? There are other things too, but one of the most important
>differences is the *complexity* of Ghalib that allows the text to
>assume plurality of meaning.
>
>I don't want to delve deep into critical theory ... I'd very briefly
>set forth that this plurality of meaning is extremely important.
>Generally, the more meanings you can extract from a verse (or a
>painting, or a story, etc.), the better it is. Actually, one of the
>things Art does is to make the world meaningful to us. So the more
>meanings, the better the Art cuz it makes the world more meanigful.
>And in order to achieve that goal, you *must* adopt a complicated
>style. Remember Ghalib: goyam mushkil o gar na goyam, mushkil?
Your statement could be interepreted as "one needs to understand complex stuff
to recognize greatness". Also, your theory above does not match your earlier
theory on greatness/popularity. If complex works of art were what it took to
achieve greatness OR popularity, Salil is (atleast) one exception. His music was
complex, and yet he was never considered as great or as popular as the SJ's or
the CR's or the OPNs of this world.
Ketan
>Zafar
Sami Mohammed
> >Now coming to 'filmi' poetry: I think Sahir is at least an order of
> >magnitude better poet than any other "regular" lyricist of HFM,
> >considering the quantity of the quality work he has produced. But when
> >taken outside the tinsel town, Sahir flounders in comparison with even
> >the lesser poets of his times, like, as I said above, Faiz.
>
> I find what you say above highly disturbing, given the mental image I
> have of Sahir's stature in the world of Urdu literature. Now, I know
I had a very similar experience recently while discussing Sahir's work
with an uncle of mine who has a sound knowledge of Urdu literature and
poetry. While admitting that Sahir was way ahead of ALL the filmi
lyricists, he said that his non-filmi work was "nothing" compared to
that of other Urdu poets, including Majrooh. Having absolutely no
knowledge of Sahir's (or Majrooh's) non-filmi output, I couldn't argue
with my uncle. However, a couple of things have me puzzled:
1. Why isn't a brilliant lyricist like Sahir not considered a great
poet in the Urdu literary circles. Perhaps, the competition was too
great. Another reason could be that he wasn't a "traditional" poet,
and hence didn't appeal to the purists. His low GHazal output may have
cost him a few points as well.
2. Why hasn't Majrooh, who is considered to be a very good Urdu poet,
ever shown flashes of brilliance in his filmi lyrics? Yes, Majrooh did
hit some highs occasionally. But they were very few, and considering
the volume of his work, almost negligible. And by "highs," I mean
songs comparable to Sahir's output in Gumraah, Pyaasa, Chitralekha,
Phir Subah Hogi, etc.
> . Majrooh was unhappy about the contrast between how he himself
> was regarded in Urdu literary circles and how Sahir was (this is
> based on what Majrooh said when he got the Ghalib Award in 1980)
My uncle's response to this was that Sahir was more popular among the
general public but not highly regarded in the literary circles.
> PS: For now, I am staying clear of Gulzar; his case is, if anything,
> much messier.
Just when I thought that the Gullu fans had drowned in the chullu
filled with their own tears after peeling countless onions, a new cult
(mafia may be a more appropriate RMIM term these days) seems to be
emerging :-) – that of Shailendra fans claiming that he deserves a
mention in the same sentence as Sahir. C'mon guys, let's not get
carried away. Shailendra was an also-ran who ran faster than usual
occasionally, but never fast enough to be considered a great. I'd rate
Rajendra Krishan higher. Pure RK doesn't seem to have any fans on this
group or any other place for that matter.
Sami Mohammed (A Naushad fan)…………… and a Sahir FANdamentalist!
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>adhareshwar@gNO_SPAMmail.com (Ashok) wrote in message news:<2jemkqF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>> >Now coming to 'filmi' poetry: I think Sahir is at least an order of
>> >magnitude better poet than any other "regular" lyricist of HFM,
>> >considering the quantity of the quality work he has produced. But when
>> >taken outside the tinsel town, Sahir flounders in comparison with even
>> >the lesser poets of his times, like, as I said above, Faiz.
>>
>> I find what you say above highly disturbing, given the mental image I
>> have of Sahir's stature in the world of Urdu literature. Now, I know
>
>I had a very similar experience recently while discussing Sahir's work
>with an uncle of mine who has a sound knowledge of Urdu literature and
>poetry. While admitting that Sahir was way ahead of ALL the filmi
>lyricists, he said that his non-filmi work was "nothing" compared to
>that of other Urdu poets, including Majrooh. Having absolutely no
>knowledge of Sahir's (or Majrooh's) non-filmi output, I couldn't argue
>with my uncle. However, a couple of things have me puzzled:
>
>1. Why isn't a brilliant lyricist like Sahir not considered a great
>poet in the Urdu literary circles. Perhaps, the competition was too
>great. Another reason could be that he wasn't a "traditional" poet,
>and hence didn't appeal to the purists. His low GHazal output may have
>cost him a few points as well.
>
>Sami Mohammed (A Naushad fan)…………… and a Sahir FANdamentalist!
Wow.. it has been a while I have seen that signature on this group :D
Good to see your comments Sami! your point 1 was an excellent point
and could constitute a contributing factor in Sahir's unpopularity in
literary circles. I find that Sahir's non-filmi output is not
deserving the praise it deserves. And i think my point about the
complexity of language (to which Zafar sahib replied already) is
really something to consider here. Just because Sahir decided to use
much simpler words, keep his feelings and emotions clear and "clean"
in his work doesn't mean that he was any less of a poet than any of
his contemporaries. His mastery of both urdu and hindi is evident in
his filmi as well as non-filmi works, but he chose to be an "easy to
understand" poet. And why not? He could reach wider masses this way.
Once again, glad to see your comments, i have read a lot of your posts
in the RMIM archives, (Gulzar vs Sahir, etc.).
Regards
Amit Malhotra
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
correction:
not "getting" the praise it deserves.
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>Amit Malhotra wrote:
>> when the correct word is "fazaa", why do all the singers keep
>> singing "Fiza"? Could you shed some light on that for me please.
>
>
>-UVR.
>
>PS: To make this relevant to RMIM, a quick quiz: name two
>songs, one with the singer *clearly* saying 'marz' and the
>other with 'maraz' (equally clear).
>
>Both the songs I am talking about are from the 50s.
so what is the answer? :)
using giitayaan's body search.. i found two three songs with "marz" in
them and one song with "marza" (1945). but of course, i'd rather hear
ur answer :D
Amit
UVR
Obviously, the 1945 song is NOT the one I was referring to.
The fact is, you won't find the 50s "maraz" song through
a giitaayan body search. Period.
Tell you what. If you can guess which of those three was the
'marz' song I was going for, I'll tell you the 'maraz' song.
That is, unless someone gets the answer sooner than that.
Deal?
-UVR.
Ashok
>
>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:45:16 -0700, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Amit Malhotra wrote:
>>> when the correct word is "fazaa", why do all the singers keep
>>> singing "Fiza"? Could you shed some light on that for me please.
>>I suppose this falls into the category of Ghalat-ul-aam, i.e.,
>>a common mistake everyone makes (even, sometimes, those aware
>>of what's right). E.g., saying 'zuroor' for 'zaroor' or 'marz'
>>for 'maraz', or, insisting that 'croon' can only refer to
>>melodious singing, you see. :-P
>
>Were I you, I'd just be happy that _I_ know what's right --
>fazaa, or fizaa.
How about educating those of us, who are NOT you about
what is right in all these cases?
Is it the case that the following is the right assignment?
Right Wrong
fazaa fizaa
Khazaa Khizaa
zaroor zuroo
maraz marz
I am just going by your construction; I don't know the
answer.
And if dictionaries carry both sets without specifying
the correct one of the pair, would you still insist that
one is wrong and the other is right?
>>
>>
>>-UVR.
>>
>>PS: To make this relevant to RMIM, a quick quiz: name two
>>songs, one with the singer *clearly* saying 'marz' and the
>>other with 'maraz' (equally clear).
>>
>>Both the songs I am talking about are from the 50s.
>
>so what is the answer? :)
>
>using giitayaan's body search.. i found two three songs with "marz" in
>them and one song with "marza" (1945). but of course, i'd rather hear
>ur answer :D
>
>
>Amit
OK, some procedeural hints first:
* Think of an alternative way of writing marz
* Why do you assume that the song is transcribed correctly,
i.e., faithfully to how it is sung?!
Further hints for the songs:
* Think of a disease, for which the symptom itself is remedy
* Is there a point in asking the sick person what the remedy
for his illness is?
Ashok
Abhay Jain
"Sami Mohammed" <sm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f82039e2.0406...@posting.google.com...
> Just when I thought that the Gullu fans had drowned in the chullu
> filled with their own tears after peeling countless onions, a new cult
> (mafia may be a more appropriate RMIM term these days) seems to be
> mention in the same sentence as Sahir. C'mon guys, let's not get
> carried away. Shailendra was an also-ran who ran faster than usual
> occasionally, but never fast enough to be considered a great. I'd rate
> Rajendra Krishan higher. Pure RK doesn't seem to have any fans on this
> group or any other place for that matter.
I agree that Rajinder Krishan does not receive his due credit.
His great work is mostly with Madan Mohan and C. Ramchandra
although he has worked with so many great MDs. To me he is
one of the five great lyricists of Hindi films. (Alphabetically)
Majrooh, Rajinder Krishan, Sahir, Shailendra, Shakeel.
Abhay Jain
>
> Sami Mohammed (A Naushad fan)..... and a Sahir FANdamentalist!
Mohib
of poet-lyricists,I have a query,though not totally relevant to the
topic at hand.
Why Sudarshan Faakir (who wrote lyrics in very few movies namely
DooriyaN,Aaj) is not known among poets?
Jagjit Singh has sung many of his ghazals like.....
aadami aadami ko kya degaa
aaj ke daur mein ai dost ye manzar kyuN hai??
agar ham kahein aur wo muskuraa dein
charagh-o-aaftaab gum badii haseen raat thii (look at the 'radeef'
man!!)
dhal gaya aaftaab ai saaqii
dil ke deevar-o-dar pe kya dekha
gham badhe aate hain qatil ki nigaahoN ki tarah
ham to yun apni zindagee se mile
kuch to duniyaa ki inaayaat ne dil tod dia
shayed main zindagii ki sahar le ke aa gaya
and many more.
Interestingly enough even Begum Akhtar also sang some of his ghazals.
I am not saying why is he not WELL known.I just want to know why is he
not even 'known' among poets.
Or is it that my knowledge is too limited??
TIA
regards
Mohib
Afzal A. Khan
(Sorry. Response Not Related To Your Queries)
I thought his name was Sudarshan FaaKHir ? Am I right ?
If so, why most (if not all) people write his name as
'Faakir' ?
Afzal
Vinayak K.Gore
> Just when I thought that the Gullu fans had drowned in the chullu
> filled with their own tears after peeling countless onions, a new cult
> (mafia may be a more appropriate RMIM term these days) seems to be
> mention in the same sentence as Sahir. C'mon guys, let's not get
> carried away. Shailendra was an also-ran who ran faster than usual
> occasionally, but never fast enough to be considered a great. I'd rate
> Rajendra Krishan higher. Pure RK doesn't seem to have any fans on this
> group or any other place for that matter.
Calling Shailendra "also ran" without any basis and his fans "mafia"is
not the best way to defend Sahir.As a Naushad fan and one who
considers "Sahir-Roshan combo as #2" you can do several things.
1.Answer legitimate critism against Sahir by Zafar or me (see message
25). Amit Malhotra has done this on both occasions.
2.Explain where Naushad-Shakeel and Ghulam Mohammad - Shakeel combos
stand vis a vis Sahir-Roshan.
3.Are Shakeel fans on RMIM not mafias?
4.What do you think of Roshan's association with lyricists other than
Sahir?
There are ~50 such associations and IMO ALL these associations are at
least as good as your #2 if not better.
5.Can you enlighten me on why Rajendra Krishna is better than Prem
Dhavan or Raja Mehendi Ali Khan?
Vinayak
> Sami Mohammed (A Naushad fan)????? and a Sahir FANdamentalist!
Afzal A. Khan
It is suggested that we should start a new thread on this
Sahir - Shakeel - Rajinder Krishan - Shailendra discussion.
Afzal
Vinay
news:<2jemkqF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>
> > >Now coming to 'filmi' poetry: I think Sahir is at least an order of
> > >magnitude better poet than any other "regular" lyricist of HFM,
> > >considering the quantity of the quality work he has produced. But when
> > >taken outside the tinsel town, Sahir flounders in comparison with even
> > >the lesser poets of his times, like, as I said above, Faiz.
> >
> > I find what you say above highly disturbing, given the mental image I
> > have of Sahir's stature in the world of Urdu literature. Now, I know
>
> I had a very similar experience recently while discussing Sahir's work
> with an uncle of mine who has a sound knowledge of Urdu literature and
> poetry. While admitting that Sahir was way ahead of ALL the filmi
> lyricists, he said that his non-filmi work was "nothing" compared to
> that of other Urdu poets, including Majrooh. Having absolutely no
> knowledge of Sahir's (or Majrooh's) non-filmi output, I couldn't argue
> with my uncle. However, a couple of things have me puzzled:
>
> 1. Why isn't a brilliant lyricist like Sahir not considered a great
> poet in the Urdu literary circles. Perhaps, the competition was too
> great. Another reason could be that he wasn't a "traditional" poet,
> and hence didn't appeal to the purists. His low GHazal output may have
> cost him a few points as well.
>
In my opinion, it is a non-question. The simple fact that outside of HFM
Sahir wrote much less than what Faiz wrote sufficiently justifies his
position (or lack of it) in those circles. The question, IMO, actually
should be exactly the opposite -- "why was Sahir so popular as a poet in the
general Urdu poetry world even with a comparatively miniscule body of work
outside films?" And that says a lot about the quality of
whatever little work he did as a poet.
Comparison of film lyrics with those verses that are written with no
particular situation *assigned* to the poet, is grossly unfair and the
results will always be far from real. For example, a song like 'sansaar se
bhaage phirate ho' will figure very low in literature (if you try hard
enough, you may find it somewhere around Atal Bihari's poems). In itself, it
has little literary value (with clichéd excuses like 'ye bhog bhi ek tapasya
hai' and 'apmaan rachetaa ka hogaa, rachanaa ko agar Thukaraaoge'). But then
see it as
what it was - a film lyrics. It suddenly becomes a hard-hitting song with
great punch and brings out an anguished character so wonderfully.
Writing for films is almost always going to be a handicap in comparison to
writing abstractly. Sahir's brilliance lies in the fact that even with this
handicap he achieved the heights of those who were considered great in
literature (like Faiz for instance), and often enough. To take the analogy
to the cricket ground, it is like asking a batsman to perform in a one-dayer
as handsomely and "classically" as one would do in a test match. Sahir, for
the most part, was a one-day player who played occasional test matches. And
he showed his brilliance in both forms. But yes, he played fewer test
matches and that will go against his ranking as a great batsman overall in
the world of poetry.
> 2. Why hasn't Majrooh, who is considered to be a very good Urdu poet,
> ever shown flashes of brilliance in his filmi lyrics? Yes, Majrooh did
> hit some highs occasionally. But they were very few, and considering
> the volume of his work, almost negligible. And by "highs," I mean
> songs comparable to Sahir's output in Gumraah, Pyaasa, Chitralekha,
> Phir Subah Hogi, etc.
>
I think it was rather a matter of style. Majrooh chose to be less
in-the-face or direct. I think one reason why Sahir's rather verbose anger
and sarcasm is given higher weightage to Majrooh's "decency" and romanticism
is that the former was unorthodox and relatively unprecedented in HFM. It
sounded fresh. Its rebellious nature helped too, I guess. Otherwise I think
Majrooh has more variety and of course a longer consistent innings than
Sahir to boast.
> > . Majrooh was unhappy about the contrast between how he himself
> > was regarded in Urdu literary circles and how Sahir was (this is
> > based on what Majrooh said when he got the Ghalib Award in 1980)
>
> My uncle's response to this was that Sahir was more popular among the
> general public but not highly regarded in the literary circles.
>
> > PS: For now, I am staying clear of Gulzar; his case is, if anything,
> > much messier.
>
> Just when I thought that the Gullu fans had drowned in the chullu
> filled with their own tears after peeling countless onions, a new cult
> (mafia may be a more appropriate RMIM term these days) seems to be
> emerging :-) - that of Shailendra fans claiming that he deserves a
> mention in the same sentence as Sahir. C'mon guys, let's not get
> carried away. Shailendra was an also-ran who ran faster than usual
> occasionally, but never fast enough to be considered a great. I'd rate
> Rajendra Krishan higher. Pure RK doesn't seem to have any fans on this
> group or any other place for that matter.
It's strange that you put the "also-ran" title on Shailendra to bring
Rajinder Krishan up, who in my opinion can be called the perfectly valid
candidate for the title.
Shailendra, IMO, was in a different league. At least he does not seem like
one in this "running" business. Quite simply, while he was clearly no match
to Sahir, Kaifi (how come everyone keeps forgetting him. He has enough in
numbers too, people!), Majrooh or even lesser-caliber poets in genres that
were prominently of Urdu origin (such as Gazals and Qawwaaliis), he was
miles ahead of all those when it came to folk-based songs or those close to
Hindi poetry tradition. And whereas the normal routine fare of HFM is
concerned, he had his "kaa.Nto.n se khee.nch ke ye aa.Nchal"s. One great
thing about Shailendra was that he had no pretensions of being a poet and
was rather content with his body of film lyrics. The greatness of his verse
is so transparently woven in his lyrics that unless you try to search for
it, you will easily miss it. I think that's also one reason which made him
readily accessible to everyone and made him immensely popular - arguably the
most "popular and critically acclaimed" lyricist in Hindi films (no, I don't
think Sahir can match him in popularity). In many ways, his contribution is
like that of Majrooh's. Not very conspicuously great, but great nonetheless.
He was as prolific as Majrooh and also as Majrooh, wrote several
run-of-the-mill songs in the process too. Sahir wins in the (great/poor and
even good/poor) ratio department. Direct comparison of Shailendra and Sahir
is not really possible because the core body of their respective works were
in very different styles. There were few who could draw a range of images
with such two simple lines as "dulhan banake gorii kha.Dii hai / *koii nahii
apanaa* kaisii gha.Dii hai."
All said, I think it is not possible to pass judgments of greatness or
degree of it to these lyricists. At least not unless one goes thru each of
their lyrics and then find a system to assign some points to them, which is
never going to be agreed upon by all. So the most we can have is our
favorites. And the two are not necessarily the same thing - the greatness
depends on factual information while the favorites are based on personal
preference. I may think that Shailendra was a great lyricist and at the same
time I can find Sahir as my favorite.
And yes, let's not talk about Gulzar. Because I don't think we have enough
sensitivity for that at RMIM :). By the way, apart from Kaifi another of my
favorite that I often find absent from most of the favorites-lists is Prem
Dhawan. inki baateN phir kabhii.
Oh of course, all above are IMHO.
Vinay
UVR
Vinay wrote:
>
> And yes, let's not talk about Gulzar. Because I don't think we have enough
> sensitivity for that at RMIM :)
Okay, first explain what "geelii ha.Nsii" is. Then explain
what is meant by "ha.Nsii pii lenaa". Finally, tell me why
Gulzar seems to think that 'dhuaa.N' (smoke) and 'bhaap'
(steam/vapor) are one and the same thing (baat kare *dhuaa.N*
nikale?)
All this from the same song.
See, to me, creativity is one thing, and trying to insult the
listeners' intelligence is quite another. I admire Gulzar's
creativity and his artistry: as a lyricist, film maker, ...
*NOT* his bizarre (and, IMO, meaningless) metaphors.
-Ravindra.
UVR
>>On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:45:16 -0700, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Amit Malhotra wrote:
>>>
>>>>when the correct word is "fazaa", why do all the singers keep
>>>>singing "Fiza"? Could you shed some light on that for me please.
>
>>>I suppose this falls into the category of Ghalat-ul-aam, i.e.,
>>>a common mistake everyone makes (even, sometimes, those aware
>>>of what's right). E.g., saying 'zuroor' for 'zaroor' or 'marz'
>>>for 'maraz', or, insisting that 'croon' can only refer to
>>>melodious singing, you see. :-P
>>
>>Were I you, I'd just be happy that _I_ know what's right --
>>fazaa, or fizaa.
>
>
> How about educating those of us, who are NOT you about
> what is right in all these cases?
>
> Is it the case that the following is the right assignment?
>
> Right Wrong
>
> fazaa fizaa
> Khazaa Khizaa
> zaroor zuroo
> maraz marz
>
> I am just going by your construction; I don't know the
> answer.
Not knowing what "Khazaa" or "Khizaa" is, I can't speak
to that particular pair of words. As for the rest, your
list is correct. The pronunciations listed under the
'wrong' column are not the right-and-proper pronunciations
of the corresponding words.
> And if dictionaries carry both sets without specifying
> the correct one of the pair, would you still insist that
> one is wrong and the other is right?
I might, depending on which dictionaries they are :-P
But seriously, I think any dictionary worth its name will
clearly specify which of these pronunciations is the 'faseeh'
(= propah) one and which the (oft-encountered) colloquial,
corrupt or vulgar pronunciation. In general, poets and
literateurs (or those who read their works with any degree
of literary interest) are expected to employ the word in
its faseeh form, and shun the Ghair-faseeh form.
-UVR.
PS: I liked the way you answered the quiz for the 'maraz'
song. Nicely done! Can you guess the 'marz' song I was
going for (I think that'll be child's play for you)?
Raju
rest of poets...the emotional depths of his poetry is just simply
amazing...and at the same time he expresses it so beautifully and with
simple language that even common men can undertsand and relate to
it...may be that is the reason for his mass following....I do read the
poetry of several other poets but most of it is so complex that only "
urdu poets" will be able to understand it and not the common public...
Regarding the point that Sahir did not write to the main Hero's like
Raj Kapoor etc....only thing I can say about it is that it is their
misfortune...Though I might be hurting the feelings of a few people,
frankly speaking I find many of the songs of even highly rated heros
of that time like Raj kapoor as 'Comedy'...Sahir's songs were
defeltely far ahead of those times...thats why they are cherished even
now.....I think the only hero who really fits well with Sahir's poetry
is Guru Dutt, who himself made movies which are far ahead of his
time...
Just listing a few of the Gems from Sahir's list of songs
1) Kabhi kabhi
2) Ye duniya agar mil bhi jaye tho kya hai
3) Jinhe naaz hai hind par wo kaha hai
4) jaane wo kaise log the jinke
5) Thang aa chuke hai kashm-e-kashe zindagi se hum
6) Chalo ek baar phir se ajnabhi ban jaaye hum dono
7) Jab bhi jee chahe nayi duniya basaa lethe hai log
8) Mai zindagi ka saath nibhatha chalaagaya
9) Kabhi khud pe kabhi haalaath pe rona aaya
10) Rang aur noor ki baarath kise pesh karun
11) Milti hai zindagi me mohabbath kabhi kabhi
The list is never ending....
-Raju
Amit Malhotra <amit @ bollyvista . com> wrote in message news:<gabfd0dua450f5kfp...@4ax.com>...
Animesh Kumar
Do you really mean the list is never ending? I thought he wrote a finite
number of poems ...
>
> -Raju
>
--
PS: reply to animesh AT eecs.berkeley.edu
Saving Thyself from Spam
V S Rawat
Some day you will fall in love and then you will start
realizing the significance of what you are terming "bizarre
(and, IMO, meaningless) metaphors".
Hope the day comes soon and you become "bhairuu" as we call
that here. (actually "bheruu" in lingua- indorii)
------------
There was something that goes
behatar hai dil ke saath rahe paasbaan-e-aql
lekin kabhii kabhii ise tanahaa bhii chho.D de
your "paasbaan-e-aql" has become too much suffocating for
your heart.
-Rawat
V S Rawat
for the above song, I feel that music does not do justice to
the poetry. It comes somewhat flat. the voice also does not
convey emotion in a touching manner. it seems sort of a
nagging or complaining song.
in any case, blame is not on sahir.
There is something in this song which makes me put it in the
category of "betaab dil kii tamanna yahii hai", "jaane kyo.n
log mohabbat kiyaa karate hai.n", "wo bhuulii daastaa.n".
And these are miles ahead of the above song.
> 8) Mai zindagi ka saath nibhatha chalaagaya 9) Kabhi khud
> pe kabhi haalaath pe rona aaya 10) Rang aur noor ki
> baarath kise pesh karun 11) Milti hai zindagi me
> mohabbath kabhi kabhi The list is never ending....
exactly.
>
> -Raju
>
-Rawat
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
<vsrawat_...@hclinfinet.com> wrote:
>UVR wrote:
> > [Removed ALUP from this RMIM-centric response]
> >
> > Vinay wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And yes, let's not talk about Gulzar. Because I don't
> >> think we have enough sensitivity for that at RMIM :)
> >
> >
> > Okay, first explain what "geelii ha.Nsii" is. Then
> > explain what is meant by "ha.Nsii pii lenaa". Finally,
> > tell me why Gulzar seems to think that 'dhuaa.N' (smoke)
> > and 'bhaap' (steam/vapor) are one and the same thing
> > (baat kare *dhuaa.N* nikale?)
> >
> > All this from the same song.
> >
> > See, to me, creativity is one thing, and trying to insult
> > the listeners' intelligence is quite another. I admire
> > Gulzar's creativity and his artistry: as a lyricist, film
> > maker, ... *NOT* his bizarre (and, IMO, meaningless)
> > metaphors.
>
>Some day you will fall in love and then you will start
>realizing the significance of what you are terming "bizarre
>(and, IMO, meaningless) metaphors".
>
>Hope the day comes soon and you become "bhairuu" as we call
>that here. (actually "bheruu" in lingua- indorii)
>
umm.. what does "falling in love" has to do with the metaphors that
UVR termed bizarre? They are bizarre!! i mean, can you explain what
these two lines mean:
maddham maddham terii geeli haNsii
sunke hamne saarii pii lii haNsii
what IS he trying to say here?
and please, while you are at it, do explain to me what "love" has to
do with understanding what is written above.
gracias senor!
Amit Malhotra
Vinay
I would be the first one to admit that his metaphors have lost sheen
in recent times, especially because they are increasingly sounding
forced and obvious and created-for-the-sake-of-it. To make matters
worse, there have been a lot of repetitions. But I never understand
why one should start with the worse works/songs of a lyricist, if one
truly wants to enjoy and appreciate them. Yes, he wrote rubbish too.
But tell me one lyricist (who has done considerable amount of work),
who is totally free of poor or uninspiring moments in their work,
Sahir included. Why not just forget those poor performances and talk
about/enjoy the better ones. Especially since that better work in
Gulzar's case, IMO, is voluminious enough to last for a long time. I
believe that one should be judged by the amount of good work one has
done; everyone has their share of poor ones. My defense for Gulzar is
same.
Coming to 'geelee ha.Nsee'. Frankly I have no idea what it means. And
it is one example that I will surely not want to provide of his
extraordinary capability of creating metaphors out of God-knows-where.
But at the same time, I find this is one of the problems with his
poetry too - it is just too difficult to explain. Difficult because
even if I am able to give you an explanation, by then the charm will
be gone. Pablo Neruda's character, in Italian film 'Il Postino', says,
"When you explain poetry, it becomes banal. Better than any
explanation is the experience of feelings that poetry can reveal to a
nature open enough to understand it." I don't think there could be
words that are truer about most of Gulzar's work. Of course, these are
as true for many others too.
So the way I feel (as opposed to think :)) when Gulzar says 'din
khaalii-khaalii bartan hai' or, 'geelaa saa chaa.Nd khil gayaa' or,
'tasviire.n bache.ngii aa.Nkho.n me.n aur baate.n sab bah jaa_e.Ngii'
and hundreds of such other things, I cannot really tell you much in my
words the effect of what he is saying; mainly because the doing that
will make the very effect lost. But to me that is as close as words
could get to explain a situation/scenario.
I don't know how much of explanation you can find in the above
rambling, but at least I hope that I did better than providing you
with just a 'sookhaa answer' :).
Vinay
> -Ravindra.
Abhay Jain
Gulzar is really catering to the lyrical IQ of the
modern day music listeners, which has gone to dogs.
Abhay Jain
>
> -Ravindra.
Surma Bhopali
>
> Okay, first explain what "geelii ha.Nsii" is. Then explain
> what is meant by "ha.Nsii pii lenaa". Finally, tell me why
> Gulzar seems to think that 'dhuaa.N' (smoke) and 'bhaap'
> (steam/vapor) are one and the same thing (baat kare *dhuaa.N*
> nikale?)
>
"hot", "wet", "cool", "dry" are used often in metaphoric expressions,
aren't they? By "pii lii" IMO he means "to consume(enjoy)" and I don't
see anything bizarre there either. Finally, he compared the lips to a
snow-filled valley and hence the "bhaap-dhuaa.n" comparison.
> All this from the same song.
>
> See, to me, creativity is one thing, and trying to insult the
> listeners' intelligence is quite another. I admire Gulzar's
> creativity and his artistry: as a lyricist, film maker, ...
> *NOT* his bizarre (and, IMO, meaningless) metaphors.
>
Not meaningless IMO.
I like Gulzar's constructs. How sweet is this:
"niilii nadii ke pare giilaa saa chaa.Nd khil gayaa"
Ritu
>
> Vinay wrote:
> >
> > And yes, let's not talk about Gulzar. Because I don't think we have enough
> > sensitivity for that at RMIM :)
>
> Okay, first explain what "geelii ha.Nsii" is. Then explain
> what is meant by "ha.Nsii pii lenaa". Finally, tell me why
> Gulzar seems to think that 'dhuaa.N' (smoke) and 'bhaap'
> (steam/vapor) are one and the same thing (baat kare *dhuaa.N*
> nikale?)
Could 'Geeli hansi' have the connotation of 'fluid, freeflowing
laughter'? I think that's what he means there. But the second line is
as you say.. Bizzare. Again the 'dhuan' could be an exaggertion of the
'bhaanp'.. though again I don't know how it is relevent.
I am a recent Gulzar fan. I never had much of a taste for his weird
metaphors earlier (And I still maintain a lot of them are weird). It
was my roommate who was(is) a great Gulzar fan and in the two years we
spent together in the hostel we had a pact... I would refrain from
playing Suraiya and she would refrain from playing Jagjit Singh and
Gulzar when we were in the room together!
But after I left college I somehow started listening to those songs
for out of a sense of nostalgia for the college days. And the more I
discover Gulzar, the more I understand or rather percieve the deep
sensitivity behind his works. He sometimes has a very poetic and
individualistic way of saying things. He brings attention to the small
beautiful things that one sort of passes by at times e.g
'leheraaye paani mein jaise dhoop chhaon re'
or
chulbula yeh paani raah apni chhod kar
lete lete aaina chamka raha hai phool par
or
Saundhe se aakash pe neele bajre behte hain
I find all these lines very evocative. No one else says it this way.
They give you a gentle reminder to not forget smell the roses as you
pass by.
But somewhere down the line, I find Gulzar very uninstictive. Meaning,
his words don't reach me by themselves. I have to reach out to them.
Once I make the effort the results are very satisfying.. but from a
musical point of view, his lyrics don't support the tune. It's the
tune that supports his lyrics.
Regards,
Ritu
Ritu
> >As I said, one can appreciate from far but not identify with the
> >emotion at a more immediate level. Such overwhelming praise somehow
> >does not gel with the casualness of our times. But then.. that's just
> >the way I feel, it could be to do with the time and place I grew up
> >in.
> >
>
> hmmm.. then what you need is some time alone with some romantic
> poetry :) casualness of our times is really not something I personaly
> like, at least not when it comes to praising someone and using words
> such as the ones Shakeel wrote above. and why not use them?
> appreciating things with all your heart is something that always goes
> noticed.
>
I wouldn't use such classical poetry (or enjoy the usage of them)
because there is a very one-sided kind of romance to a song like
'Chaudavin ka chaand ho'. It's very superficial. To me it lacks
feeling. I find much more romance in a song like 'Phaili hui hain
sapno ki baahen'. Where the romance speaks of ethereal togetherness
rather than merely praising the physical beauty of the object of
affection. Lines like 'Oodi ghata ke saaye tale chhup jaayen' also
bring the romance of nature making it a more complete experiance. The
same with a song like 'Chup hai dharti chup hain chaand sitaare'.
'bikhra bikhra sa hai noor ka daaman' paints a beautiful landscape in
the mind's eye.
Even when it came to praising the beauty of a woman in the classical
urdu mould, a song like 'Jo baat tujh mein hai' has so much more
romance and depth in the thought behind it.
I don't connect to the classical mould poetry because I find the
scenario very unreal. I can't understand how one can fall in love with
a woman by just getting a glimpse of her hand or feet. I mean I *can*
understand where they are coming from.. (lack of interaction between
men and women made people overtly excited about any contact with the
opposite sex blah blah)..but I can't relate to it. Whereas a romantic
situation like 'Kashti ka khamosh safar' is not alien to our ethos
even today. And I somehow find much more romance in things left unsaid
than I do in sweeping proclamations.
> >>
> >> i think these are damn romantic lines.
> >>
> >> and how bout songs like:
> >>
> >> aaj puraanii raahoN se koi..
> >
> >omigosh.. insufferable... this is a song I never possessed in my
> >collection and don't think ever will. Dilip Kumar and Manoj kumar
> >together is more than my weak heart can take :)
> >
>
> now what do you have against these two actors? :P I guess i won't go
> in that conversation. oh but what a song though....
Actually.. it's the tune that is totally dead. But even the lyrics are
fine nothing outstanding.
>
> >> beqaraar karke hameiN
> >
> >This is a nice and romantic song. But I suspect the romance has more
> >to do with Hemant Kumar's voice than anything else. But the lyrics do
> >support the mood.
> >
>
> there you go, so this did reach your radar
Yeah.. but it's Hemant Kumar's voice and tune more than the lyrics.
The lyrics are adequate.
> of you RMIMers :P , i'll take it back. I know Sahir may not have
> written as many songs as Shailendra did and of course, more songs
> means more might have been popular for Shailendra, but I can always
> vouch for the quality of the songs Sahir wrote, most of his songs
> ended up being popular. Hence in terms of percentage, I *think*
> Sahir may have had a better success rate.
Possibly. I have not really followed either Shailendra or Sahir as
closely. But since Shailendra was so prolific it is possible he had a
fair share of junk.
Cheers
Ritu
Afzal A. Khan
UVR wrote:
>
> [Removed ALUP from this RMIM-centric response]
>
> Vinay wrote:
> >
> > And yes, let's not talk about Gulzar. Because I don't think we have enough
> > sensitivity for that at RMIM :)
>
> Okay, first explain what "geelii ha.Nsii" is. Then explain
> what is meant by "ha.Nsii pii lenaa". Finally, tell me why
> Gulzar seems to think that 'dhuaa.N' (smoke) and 'bhaap'
> (steam/vapor) are one and the same thing (baat kare *dhuaa.N*
> nikale?)
>
> All this from the same song.
> -Ravindra.
Your post made me wonder about these metaphors. So,
possible explanations could be :
"Geelee haNsee" = Laughter or smile that is accompanied by
drooling.
"HaNsee pee lena = HaNsee par qaaboo rakhna. HaNsee ko
rok lena.
You see, some other (far more eminent) poet/lyricist has
written : "Kuchh na kaheNge, lab see leNge, aaNsoo pee leNge".
I suppose the same metaphor could hold true for "haNsee" too.
"DhuaaN/Bhaap" = Still trying to work that out !
Afzal
Robin
riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,', wait till you hear his
'Udaas Paani'.
It is a remarkably good album. And very different - the poetry and
occasional esoterica of Gulzar woven into pieces of soft jazz, by a
talented young artist whose name I cannot remember.
My bottom-line takeaway from Vinaybhai's post is what I have always
adopted for my own self - look for the best in the artist, not his
worst. (and that's not rationalization for being a huge fan of Anand
Bakshi, btw!)
Regards..Robin
v...@hotmail.com (Vinay) wrote in message news:<f4f0fd2d.04062...@posting.google.com>...
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
I don't think anybody can deny the fact that Gulzar has given us some
of the most beautiful songs in HFM. Even his non-filmi albums had
beautiful poems. Take for example a poem from his album (I believe
sunset point and udaas paani had it): "nazm uljhii huii hai seene
meiN". I was stuck on it for days, if not weeks, Bhupinder rendered
it beautifully and Gulzar's words were just wicked! When I first said
that "Gulzar doesn't make sense to me anymore", I actually meant what
I said. I think there has been a huge decline in the quality of his
lyrics recently. He has become more and more "enigmatic" and his
metaphors are becoming weirder and weirder. There is no denying that
his songs in HFM are enough to last for a long time, but why does he
bother writing anymore if he is, as UVR puts it, going to insult the
listeners intelligence. Songs of Sathiya were nothing great to rave
about in terms of lyrics however Dil Se still had some nice lines here
and there. The one with Jagjit Singh had some decent ones, but
nothing great yet again. Maybe he should stop writing now if he is
going to keep on churning out crap that doesn't make sense and let us
remember his work with beautiful songs in ours minds that he wrote in
the past and not tarnish with lyrics such as the ones he writes now.
>Coming to 'geelee ha.Nsee'. Frankly I have no idea what it means. And
>it is one example that I will surely not want to provide of his
>extraordinary capability of creating metaphors out of God-knows-where.
>But at the same time, I find this is one of the problems with his
>poetry too - it is just too difficult to explain. Difficult because
>even if I am able to give you an explanation, by then the charm will
>be gone. Pablo Neruda's character, in Italian film 'Il Postino', says,
>"When you explain poetry, it becomes banal. Better than any
>explanation is the experience of feelings that poetry can reveal to a
>nature open enough to understand it." I don't think there could be
>words that are truer about most of Gulzar's work. Of course, these are
>as true for many others too.
>
>So the way I feel (as opposed to think :)) when Gulzar says 'din
>khaalii-khaalii bartan hai' or, 'geelaa saa chaa.Nd khil gayaa' or,
>'tasviire.n bache.ngii aa.Nkho.n me.n aur baate.n sab bah jaa_e.Ngii'
>and hundreds of such other things, I cannot really tell you much in my
>words the effect of what he is saying; mainly because the doing that
>will make the very effect lost. But to me that is as close as words
>could get to explain a situation/scenario.
>
you see, the ones you mentionned can still pass as metaphors. They
are somewhat perplexing, but our minds can fathom them and understand
them if we give our poetic senses a bit of a push, but when it comes
to the ones in Saathiya, at that point, try explaining them at least,
and you won't be able to. And if one can't even explain it to
oneself, then what's the point of those words? I have no clue what
Gulzar had in his mind when he wrote the lyrics of Saathiya but
whatever it was, they have no effect whatsoever, and I'll love to
"GET" that effect if someone could explain what he meant.
I got nothing against Gulzar, but I just think that he is becoming
really un-understandable. I would rather have that old Gulzar writing
beautiful songs again in our industry. Not so long ago, I was
thinking that Javed Akhtar and Gulzar are the only decent lyricist
left in our industry, but some of Gulzar's recent albums are making me
rethink that statement all together.
Regards,
Amit Malhotra
V S Rawat
>
> UVR wrote:
>
>>[Removed ALUP from this RMIM-centric response]
>>
>>Vinay wrote:
>>
>>>And yes, let's not talk about Gulzar. Because I don't think we have enough
>>>sensitivity for that at RMIM :)
>>
>>Okay, first explain what "geelii ha.Nsii" is. Then explain
>>what is meant by "ha.Nsii pii lenaa". Finally, tell me why
>>Gulzar seems to think that 'dhuaa.N' (smoke) and 'bhaap'
>>(steam/vapor) are one and the same thing (baat kare *dhuaa.N*
>>nikale?)
>>
>>All this from the same song.
>
>
>>-Ravindra.
>
>
>
>
> Your post made me wonder about these metaphors. So,
> possible explanations could be :
>
> "Geelee haNsee" = Laughter or smile that is accompanied by
> drooling.
no, drooling seems too obvious, at least for Gulzar.
one connotation of geelii could be that person was weeping
or was feeling emotional.
like it is said "usakii aawaaz bhar aa_ii".
so, if she was feeling emotional, or was sobbing or weeping,
and then something makes her smile or laugh, the laugh
"ha.Nsii" can still retain the element of "wetness" giilaapan.
> "HaNsee pee lena = HaNsee par qaaboo rakhna. HaNsee ko
> rok lena.
>
> You see, some other (far more eminent) poet/lyricist has
> written : "Kuchh na kaheNge, lab see leNge, aaNsoo pee leNge".
> I suppose the same metaphor could hold true for "haNsee" too.
no that does not seem to what is meant by him.
we eat and drink from mouth.
look it in the way that mouth is an organ and when it gets
some inputs we describe that as khaanaa/ piinaa.
now superimpose it on other organs.
if nose get the input of "scent", can we say that
naak ne khushbuu khaa lii yaa pii lii
if eyes get the input of "sight", can we say that
aa.Nkh ne nazaaraa khaa liiyaa yaa pii liiyaa
if ears get the input of "sound", can we say that
"kaano.n ne usakii ha.Nsii kii aawaaz ko khaa liyaa yaa pii
liyaa".
> "DhuaaN/Bhaap" = Still trying to work that out !
I thought it was simpler.
often, one would feel that dhuaa.N and bhaap are similar,
same color, same properties.
thus, he has simply used dhuaa.N for bhaap, because bhaap is
more a scientific concept and does not have much implication
in day to day life.
-Rawat
UVR
> Amit Malhotra wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:45:16 -0700, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> name two songs, one with the singer *clearly* saying 'marz' and
>>> the other with 'maraz' (equally clear).
>>>
>>> Both the songs I am talking about are from the 50s.
>>
>> so what is the answer? :)
>> using giitayaan's body search.. i found two three songs with "marz" in
>> them and one song with "marza" (1945). but of course, i'd rather hear
>> ur answer :D
>
> Tell you what. If you can guess which of those three was the
> 'marz' song I was going for, I'll tell you the 'maraz' song.
> That is, unless someone gets the answer sooner than that.
>
> Deal?
>
> -UVR.
Okay, looks like there's no deal. Here are my answers:
marz
----
Mukesh: aise *marz* kii, aise dard kii, dil kaa dard hii hai dawaa
Lata: ai dil na mujhase chhupaa, sach bataa, kyaa huaa
Badal - S-J - Shailendra
maraz
-----
Talat:
dawaa se faay{}daa hogaa, ki hogaa zahr-e-qaatil se
*maraz* kii kyaa dawaa hai, ye koii biimaar kyaa jaane
muhabbat hii na jo samajhe wo zaalim pyaar kyaa jaane
Parchhain - CR - Noor Lucknowi
The latter song does appear in the C-ISB, but as "marz"(!)
and it uses the 'old' ITRANS spelling of it: maz.r (in re
which, I am now expecting some comment from Afzal saahib).
-UVR.
Shahrukh
> laughter'? I think that's what he means there. But the second line is
> as you say.. Bizzare. Again the 'dhuan' could be an exaggertion of the
> 'bhaanp'.. though again I don't know how it is relevent.
>
> his words don't reach me by themselves. I have to reach out to them.
> Once I make the effort the results are very satisfying..
Regards,
> Ritu
Hey Ritu
Sure. It takes some 'reaching out' when one has lines like
Geela man shaayad bistar ke paas pada ho ...
And what could be this wetness?
His metaphors too ...
Lab hiley to jaise phool khilte hain kahi ...
And finally ... goli maar bheje mein too is to Gulzar's credit right?
And one wonders why Shailendra is compared to Sahir and with literary
yardsticks.
Shailendra wrote for FILM or CINEMA. And did that in some style which
has been out of reach for most lyricists.
For me, like so many Indian film buffs, Sahir rarely reached a 'mass'
level so to speak. Shailendra wrote simple words, beautiful strong
lines and yet so rich in meaning - they not just reached out but
actually captivated the hearts and minds of millions of Indian
cinegoers and music lovers.
Cheers
Shahrukh
Afzal A. Khan
V S Rawat wrote:
>
> we eat and drink from mouth.
>
> look it in the way that mouth is an organ and when it gets
> some inputs we describe that as khaanaa/ piinaa.
>
> now superimpose it on other organs.
>
> if nose get the input of "scent", can we say that
> naak ne khushbuu khaa lii yaa pii lii
>
> if eyes get the input of "sight", can we say that
> aa.Nkh ne nazaaraa khaa liiyaa yaa pii liiyaa
>
> if ears get the input of "sound", can we say that
> "kaano.n ne usakii ha.Nsii kii aawaaz ko khaa liyaa yaa pii
> liyaa".
>
> -Rawat
Don't be surprised if Gulzar comes up with exactly these
metaphors. And if he does, there may be accusations
against him about passing on someone else's ideas as his
own !
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
{ I would hate to disappoint you ! }
So, there are old iTrans spellings and new iTrans
spellings ! How about a "newer" set of spellings that
would take care of the issue that I had raised first
about two years back ? Lookin at it from a purely
technical angle, that doesn't seem possible, though.
And the latest update about ASAD ?
Afzal
UVR
>
>
> { I would hate to disappoint you ! }
But of course!
> So, there are old iTrans spellings and new iTrans
> spellings ! How about a "newer" set of spellings that
> would take care of the issue that I had raised first
> about two years back ? Lookin at it from a purely
> technical angle, that doesn't seem possible, though.
I hate to disappoint you :-P
It *is* possible. It's just a matter of someone finding the
time to implement the desired changes, and of the changes
being accepted by the rest of the user community.
Much as it would astonish some on this newsgroup, it is true
that some of us have "real" lives too! :-P
> And the latest update about ASAD ?
Thanks for asking. I'm guessing you're inquiring about Urdu
text appearing on the page. It's (still) in progress. I'll
post an update on RMIM when it is ready.
-UVR.
Ashok
robinb...@yahoo.com says...
>
>Just a quick two-bit from me... If one thinks Gulzar is sometimes 'a
>riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,', wait till you hear his
>'Udaas Paani'.
>
>It is a remarkably good album. And very different - the poetry and
>occasional esoterica of Gulzar woven into pieces of soft jazz, by a
>talented young artist whose name I cannot remember.
>
Abhishek Ray.
Why don't you write in detail about the album? It'd be nice to
have good coverage of the non-film music scene. Looks like the
non-film music scene is more interesting than the film music one.
guri had started the process of writing about non-film artists
a while ago.
Ashok
V S Rawat
Your began with "It takes some 'reaching out' when one has
lines like..." suggesting that listener should reach out.
and you ended with saying that it is a lyricist who reaches
out or does not reach out.
so finally, what are you saying?
-Rawat
Balaji Murthy
> UVR wrote:
>
>> Amit Malhotra wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:45:16 -0700, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> name two songs, one with the singer *clearly* saying 'marz' and
>>>> the other with 'maraz' (equally clear).
>>>>
>>>> Both the songs I am talking about are from the 50s.
>
>
> marz
> ----
> Mukesh: aise *marz* kii, aise dard kii, dil kaa dard hii hai dawaa
> Lata: ai dil na mujhase chhupaa, sach bataa, kyaa huaa
>
> Badal - S-J - Shailendra
>
> maraz
> -----
> Talat:
> dawaa se faay{}daa hogaa, ki hogaa zahr-e-qaatil se
> *maraz* kii kyaa dawaa hai, ye koii biimaar kyaa jaane
> muhabbat hii na jo samajhe wo zaalim pyaar kyaa jaane
>
> Parchhain - CR - Noor Lucknowi
>
> The latter song does appear in the C-ISB, but as "marz"(!)
> and it uses the 'old' ITRANS spelling of it: maz.r (in re
> which, I am now expecting some comment from Afzal saahib).
Interesting!! The latter was the first song to come to my mind for
'marz'. I guess I need to listen to the song again now!!!
- Balaji
@bollyvista.com Amit Malhotra
>UVR wrote:
>
>> Amit Malhotra wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 06:45:16 -0700, UVR <u...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> name two songs, one with the singer *clearly* saying 'marz' and
>>>> the other with 'maraz' (equally clear).
>>>>
>>>> Both the songs I am talking about are from the 50s.
>>>
>>> so what is the answer? :)
>>> using giitayaan's body search.. i found two three songs with "marz" in
>>> them and one song with "marza" (1945). but of course, i'd rather hear
>>> ur answer :D
>>
>> Tell you what. If you can guess which of those three was the
>> 'marz' song I was going for, I'll tell you the 'maraz' song.
>> That is, unless someone gets the answer sooner than that.
>>
>> Deal?
>>
>> -UVR.
>
>Okay, looks like there's no deal. Here are my answers:
>
sorry bro, I couldn't have guessed what songs you had in your mind
hence i didn't try at all. :)
Regards
Amit
Ket...@att.net
Vinay,
Reading through your answer, reminded me of your attacks in the past on Anand
Bakshi. Sure he was no Sahir, or Shailendra or Majrooh, etc... but in some ways
his "tukbandiyas" are no better/worse than Gulzar's metaphors. How is it that
you have a ready defence for Gulzar but not for him? Atleast I can understand
Anand Bakshi. No one has to explain them to me. Shouldn't you/we be looking at
the best of Anand Bakshi too?
Just a thought
Ketan
Vinay
>
> Vinay,
>
> Reading through your answer, reminded me of your attacks in the past on
Anand
> Bakshi. Sure he was no Sahir, or Shailendra or Majrooh, etc... but in some
ways
> his "tukbandiyas" are no better/worse than Gulzar's metaphors. How is it
that
> you have a ready defence for Gulzar but not for him? Atleast I can
understand
> Anand Bakshi. No one has to explain them to me. Shouldn't you/we be
looking at
> the best of Anand Bakshi too?
>
First I repeat what I wrote, "I believe that one should be judged by the
amount of *good work* one has done; everyone has their share of poor ones."
And that's how I have been trying to look at Anand Bakshi ever since.
The problem is that in Anand Bakshi's case my "good songs" meter does not go
beyond even the teens. And even at his best, of whatever I have listened, he
is far from the best of some others that I like, Gulzar included. At the
same time, it is also true that I have not listened to his whole output
(neither do I plan to do in an orgnized manner) and so my opinion is based
on whatever I have heard. Theoritically this makes my opinion about him
flimsy, because it may be the very best 100 songs of him that I might not
have listened to yet. But I am ready to change my opinion anytime.
For a start, if you can give me a list of 20 best songs of his as per your
opinion, I can check if I have anything unheard in that.
I don't think that his tukabandis (or even highly inspired moments for that
matter) are even a match to Gulzar's metaphors. We are anyway talking about
two different things here. "tuk"s and "metaphors" are entirely different
things. Also, I find your argument that at least no one has to explain Anand
Bakshi's songs to you of not much weight. To me, no one has to do that for
Gulzar as well.
Vinay
> Just a thought
>
>
> Ketan
>
Sami Mohammed
> Calling Shailendra "also ran" without any basis and his fans "mafia"is
> not the best way to defend Sahir.
My objective was not to defend Sahir but point out that Shailendra was
not in the same class as him. Shailendra's work does not stand out
like Sahir's. He has no masterpieces to his credit. None of his films
can be cited as an example of extraordinary lyrics in filmdom. Hence
the tag, "also ran." Yes, he was a prolific lyricist with many popular
songs to his credit. But if we use this as a yardstick for greatness,
we're treading on dangerous waters as a certain aBakshi may also sneak
in. Neeraj's foray into filmistan was limited. Yet, his work in Nai
Umar ki Nai Fasal was a few notches above that of the "also rans."
Shailendra, IMHO, never rose to such heights.
> As a Naushad fan and one who
> considers "Sahir-Roshan combo as #2" you can do several things.
I consider the Sahir/Roshan combo to be #1 not 2.
> 1.Answer legitimate critism against Sahir by Zafar or me (see message
Zafar has himself said that Sahir was the greatest HFM lyricist, and
his criticism was against Sahir's non-filmi output. My dauR is till
filmi lyrics only. I have no clue about Sahir's work outside Bollywood
to either defend or attack him. A convenient excuse, but a true one
nevertheless.
Regarding your criticism of Sahir, I didn't find any on this thread. I
did browse quickly thro' your comments in the other thread that you
have cited. Yes, Sahir seems to have borrowed thoughts from Faiz in
the Didi song, and it does dilute his contribution. But there are
other lines in the song such as the mukhRa itself, that exemplify
Sahir's genius.
> 2.Explain where Naushad-Shakeel and Ghulam Mohammad - Shakeel combos
> stand vis a vis Sahir-Roshan.
In my book, they stand below the Sahir/Roshan combo. And I prefer
Naushad/Shakeel over GM/Shakeel. BTW, the songs of my fav. GM film,
Shama, were penned by another fav. lyricist of mine, Kaifi Azmi. Films
like Shama, Shola aur Shabnam, Anupama (Kuch dil ne kaha), KaaGHaz ke
Phool, etc. separate Kaifi from the also rans.
> 3.Are Shakeel fans on RMIM not mafias?
Yes they are. And so are Sahir fans and Naushad fans. The term mafia
was used in a lighter vein. Please don't feel offended. And yes,
there's a mKaps mafia too, but it might just be a one-man army! :-)
> 4.What do you think of Roshan's association with lyricists other than
> Sahir?
> There are ~50 such associations and IMO ALL these associations are at
> least as good as your #2 if not better.
Roshan's non-Sahir output is certainly great, and I'm a BIG fan of
Roshan Sahab. But as an overall package (music + lyrics), I feel that
the Roshan/Sahir combo was the best.
> 5.Can you enlighten me on why Rajendra Krishna is better than Prem
> Dhavan or Raja Mehendi Ali Khan?
Maybe some other time when I actually claim that RK was better than
Prem Dhawan or Raja Mehdi (not Mehendi) Ali Khan.
Sami Mohammed (A Naushad fan)
> Vinayak
UVR
> UVR wrote:
>
>> Mukesh: aise *marz* kii, aise dard kii, dil kaa dard hii hai dawaa
>> Lata: ai dil na mujhase chhupaa, sach bataa, kyaa huaa
>>
>> Badal - S-J - Shailendra
>>
>> dawaa se faay{}daa hogaa, ki hogaa zahr-e-qaatil se
>> *maraz* kii kyaa dawaa hai, ye koii biimaar kyaa jaane
>> muhabbat hii na jo samajhe wo zaalim pyaar kyaa jaane
>>
>> Parchhain - CR - Noor Lucknowi
>
>
> 'marz'. I guess I need to listen to the song again now!!!
And you call yourself a Talat fan!
-UVR.