Discussions on ARR

V_S I dont think you need "to feel sorry" about any of your comments, come on.  Like crimson mentioned Big 3 doesnt mean all the 3 in that group have equal accomplishments. I am aware of the differences and have my own preferences and biases. Its just about the megatrends and peer influences

Counterpoint, it just doesn't wash whichever way you choose to dress it up, its sanctimonious/downright disrespectful/great
disservice to Raaja to be even mentioned in the same sentence as AR. The graph below(courtesy a maniac Sunson) which
is very erroneous wrt Raaja's yearly numbers post 90s but still will show you the gulf.




look at the X-axis and let it sunk    number of movies made in each of the decade were more or less same so there can't be any Vaaida
for AR's abysmal numbers other than his inherent incompetency. In cricket parlance would you club Lara with Gayle merely because they ply the same trade?
If you are still insistent, we may club them as The Big half,One, and not even a quarter

^^^  Just want to point out a fallacy in that logic.  An entirely unnecessary disclaimer:  I like IR about 1000 times more than ARR and after the recent Srinivasa Murthy insidious brainwashing incidents I cannot say I am very much of a ARR fan anymore, not unless he personally asks them to shut up and stop foaming at the mouth with utter nonsense. 

With that out of the way, Mozart has 40 symphonies to Beethoven's 9.  But I have never ever heard anybody offer that as a reason why Mozart is BETTER than Beethoven.  All it means is he is more PROLIFIC. Nobody, in the same way, would dispute that IR and MSV are/were way more prolific than ARR.  That by itself does not make them better.  Laxmikant-Pyarelal hold the record for most Hindi films scored, IIRC.  I think only total newbs or LP fanatics, though, would argue that their music was better than Naushad, Roshan or MM.  So no. of albums means nothing.  

Also, even if LP fanatics argue that they were better than Naushad, there's nothing much anybody can do about it.  It's music, it's not physics.  Such statements of opinion can neither be verified nor refuted.  Even if I feel personally that somebody claiming Bappi Da was the best is dead wrong, there's no way I can refute him.  Both mafia and mania crowd (or, in fact, just about any fanboy crowd in the world be it Beatles or Pink Floyd or Metallica) find this hard to digest this because for them, their favourite composer's music is a cult.  

However, influence is something entirely different from quality.  It is a cultural, rather than purely musical, phenomenon.  Whether one likes Angus Young or Eric Clapton has no bearing on whether they were influential, as sure is eggs is eggs they were.  In the same way, trying to deny that Rahman was the most influential force in Tamil film music in the 90s (and in that limited regard occupied the same position that IR and MSV once occupied) just because one doesn't like him is a futile exercise.  Just be thankful it wasn't as bad as Anu Malik/Jatin Lalit/Nadeem Shravan being the big three of Bolly music in the 90s.  All third class tunes, and mostly copied at that.  And we lived through it and lived with it as shopkeepers played their 'evergreen' hits endlessly.  Tape thenju ponna dhan respite, was the situation.

And before somebody brings up the old Chennai v/s rural angle again, let me further add that influence is determined more by whether one's music forces others to adapt or even imitate him/her.  Aasai is Exhibit A of Rahman's influence on the other composers in TFM.  Only a couple of years of ARR's career had already forced Deva to adapt to what he was doing and try, in his own crude way, to emulate that effect.  And it was only a couple or so pages back in this thread that HJ was argued as a replacement for ARR in the noughties.  That further demonstrates the extent of ARR's influence on his colleagues.  Same as how Shankar Ganesh desperately tried to evoke a Raja flavour on Oru Kadhal Devadhai (the Idhaya Thamarai track).

^^^ One fallacy with the above argument is IR was both prolific AND great even till about 1995. What ARR did was change the trend and others duly followed his trend. IR's post-93 output sticks out for good or bad mainly because he refused to follow the trend. MSV in the 80s followed IR's trend. And IR did about 150 films from '92-'95. And he was in the same raakshasa mode. Only from 1996 did he tone down his number of films and mellow in terms of quantity and the late 90s I have some vaaikkaa thagaraar with certain albums like Kadhalukku Mariyadhai and take over of synth (but even then there are career defining epics like the Malayalam Guru and we are speaking only about Tamil). But in terms of musical quality and numbers, ARR vs IR even till about 1995 is terribly lopsided imho though ARR was "the in thing" and the hot cake.

I don't disagree with that at all, as I said right at the outset.  I am just saying quoting the number of films they did has no relevance here.  It is necessary to combine both IR's volume AND quality of output to make an argument, not just the former.

And changing the trend is exactly what being influential is about.  Now there may have been other composers since who change the trend modestly for a couple of years or so at best.  But Rahman not only brought in an approach that was entirely different, for better or worse, from IR but also got other composers to buy into it.  Except IR, but again that doesn't really need to be stated, his output is sufficient evidence.

I think both CP and I said quite clearly that the Big Three styling is about influence rather than quality.  So to argue that IR is way ahead in quality, as if either of us stated otherwise, is not highly pertinent here.

crimson king wrote:I don't disagree with that at all, as I said right at the outset.  I am just saying quoting the number of films they did has no relevance here.  It is necessary to combine both IR's volume AND quality of output to make an argument, not just the former.

And changing the trend is exactly what being influential is about.  Now there may have been other composers since who change the trend modestly for a couple of years or so at best.  But Rahman not only brought in an approach that was entirely different, for better or worse, from IR but also got other composers to buy into it.  Except IR, but again that doesn't really need to be stated, his output is sufficient evidence.

I think both CP and I said quite clearly that the Big Three styling is about influence rather than quality.  So to argue that IR is way ahead in quality, as if either of us stated otherwise, is not highly pertinent here.

Ok that makes sense.

My 2 paisA on big-3/4/5 whatever

That ARR set a new trend in TFM is unquestionable. That he had / has countless followers is irrefutable.

My only issue is whether that trend was / is any good to TFM?

Also, IMHO, it was just incorporating some exisitng Indian melodies / sounds / lyrics - that too in a "karadu-muradu" manner - to WESTERN POP -what was/is so great about it?

When people told me in 90's that "hey, TFM now sounds like west", I used to tell them "what's so great about it? I've always been hearing it in English"

identity-yaith tholaiththu vittu varum trend is unhealthy IMHO. It kills culture / art / language etc.

(Look at how even kolaveRi fellows have set new trend now...Dhanush / Simbu kinds are now trend-setters in how TN youths should behave...)

I am a lot more enthusiastic about his sonic experiments than perhaps you may be.  However, there is no doubt to my mind that basically from IR to ARR was a simplification and a dilution. No amount of brainwashing by his cohorts like Murthy is going to convince me.  As DM pointed out too, all this actually happened as IR kept churning out great songs with an assembly line-like efficiency.  And people are today saying, "Oh such and such track is great" when back then they were not so patient, if memory serves me right.  Such mega shifts do happen in music from time to time.  There is ultimately a fatigue factor involved in listening to music of the same composer, no matter how inventive said composer is and a lot of people wanted something completely different.  Which ARR gave to them.  

Now, there would normally be a pullback towards complexity again after sometime as simple gives way to banal. But it is not happening right now because of reasons which I covered a page or two back.  There are secular trends in music which, I am afraid, look inexorable at the moment.  There would have to be drastic changes in the way we live our lives for complex music to once again get a large audience.

I brought the numbers just to showcase how Raaja was going at brake necking pace. imo
proficiency in art is actually a very good metric, Sivaji fans still devour him for doing 3 movies in
as many schedules in a day and still be able to sift through them nonchalantly.

With that out of the way, Mozart has 40 symphonies to Beethoven's 9. But I have never ever heard anybody offer that as a reason why Mozart is BETTER than Beethoven.

but the numbers aren't lopsided as in AR's case? also Richard Wagner had more influence on peep lives than either of the composers put together does that mean we would club Wagner with aforementioned? AR's guru/mentor karadi TR was a success
and also had cultural influence in 80s does that mean we club him with Raaja?

Wizzy wrote:I brought the numbers just to showcase how Raaja was going at brake necking pace. imo
proficiency in art is actually a very good metric, Sivaji fans still devour him for doing 3 movies in
as many schedules in a day and still be able to sift through them nonchalantly.

With that out of the way, Mozart has 40 symphonies to Beethoven's 9.  But I have never ever heard anybody offer that as a reason why Mozart is BETTER than Beethoven.

but the numbers aren't lopsided as in AR's case? also Richard Wagner had more influence on peep lives than either of the composers put together does that mean we would club Wagner with aforementioned? AR's guru/mentor karadi TR was a success
and also had cultural influence in 80s does that mean we club him with Raaja?

In that case, the greatest bands ever must be Motorhead or AC DC.  Not, you know, bands that actually spent the time to come up with something distinct and fresh, like Pink Floyd but made far fewer albums.  KISS's vast collection of stinking turds must then be far, far superior to Jeff Buckley's lone magical masterpiece.  So you cannot generalise it like that.  Proficiency by itself simply cannot tell us anything about the quality of the work.  

And since you asked, yes, Wagner is very much regarded as one of the all time great classical composers.  Only his area of speciality was different. Mozart and Beethoven were about symphonies, Wagner was about opera.  But as to who is the better depends entirely on what kind of classical music fan you talk to. The ones who prefer 19th century Romantic era music would likely plump for Wagner.  There are others also who would qualify for consideration like Stravinsky and Stockhausen and at the baroque end of the spectrum, Bach and Vivaldi.  It all depends on what period of classical music one is interested in.

What kind of influence exactly did Karadi have in terms of his music alone?  Don't try to obfuscate the point.  I was very clearly referring to the influence of the music.  What little influence Karadi's music may have had was completely drowned out by IR so the question does not even arise.  In the 80s IR was clearly the most significant influence on other composers and this holds good for Rahman in the 90s, at least 93 or so onwards anyway, notwithstanding the great music IR was churning out at that time.

In any case, whether or not composers can be clubbed together entirely depends on the question being asked.  Hypothetically speaking, if the question was to simply list the famous music directors of TFM, one would HAVE to list IR, MSV and ARR in the same list, there would simply be no choice.  Same goes for influence.  Now Elvis Priesley as an artist is far, far inferior to The Beatles but when it comes to enumerating the most influential popular artists of the 20th century, he would rightfully find a place in the same list as The Beatles.  As would Michael Jackson.  If it is said clearly that the Big Three only refers to influence and not quality, at least I do not see the problem in clubbing them together for that limited respect.  If you wish to whine about it, you gladly may but don't pretend that everybody who doesn't is deluded or brainwashed.

firstly, when I said proficiency in art I didn't mean those who will fill up the numbers. Sambhar Ganesan
did as many movies in as many schedules as Sivaji but does that mean we keep them in the same pedestal?
all I say is Sivaji/Raaja work didn't see any dip in quality/output inspite of getting squeezed from all sides.
even Raaja likened his music which 'just happens to him' to lyrics of Kannadasan who like him never had to burn midnight
oil.

In that case, the greatest bands ever must be Motorhead or AC DC.  Not, you know, bands that actually spent the time to come up with something distinct and fresh, like Pink Floyd but made far fewer albums.  KISS's vast collection of stinking turds must then be far, far superior to Jeff Buckley's lone magical masterpiece.  So you cannot generalise it like that.  Proficiency by itself simply cannot tell us anything about the quality of the work.

If I tweak that logic around does HJ doing even less albums than AR means he is taking much more time to be distinct and afresh?

What kind of influence exactly did Karadi have in terms of his music alone?  Don't try to obfuscate the point.  I was very clearly referring to the influence of the music.  What little influence Karadi's music may have had was completely drowned out by IR so the question does not even arise.  In the 80s IR was clearly the most significant influence on other composers and this holds good for Rahman in the 90s, at least 93 or so onwards anyway, notwithstanding the great music IR was churning out at that time.

If ever there was a composer who enjoyed some momentary success in the 80s it was AR's mentor Karadi,he was successful in catering to lonely Toms who needed mel isai with even soft lyrics. most probably he should have pioneered this
technique of letting the musicians/players to digress and then recording it. Lyrics were mostly in foreground
and his influence can be seen in Manoj/SAR/CB and their ilks.His popularity/cult status
started shrinking when he started catering mostly to lowest common denominations in the society.

In any case, whether or not composers can be clubbed together entirely depends on the question being asked.  Hypothetically speaking, if the question was to simply list the famous music directors of TFM, one would HAVE to list IR, MSV and ARR in the same list, there would simply be no choice.

now you are talking, in same way you can club actor Vijay Joseph being as popular as Sivaji but was he
influential? In AR's case he got mimicked by HJ which any true artist will absolutely abhor, worst thing that could possibly
happen to them is being mimicked and that mimics carving a niche whilst doing so.

If you include three composers in a bracket, it does not automatically imply that they are all equally popular or equally influential or equally great.  All it means if they may all be popular/influential/great (as applicable) in varying degrees but more so than mostly everyone else in their field.  Perhaps because you resent ARR-praise so much, even this simple point eludes you.  You are over complicating it, big three simply means the three biggest composers of TFM.  Whether perhaps C Subbaraman should also be included in that category would however be an interesting question. Or...why should it be just MSV and not MSV-TKR when in my opinion and that of many others the best scores came from the combination and not MSV-solo.  But pretending that Rahman does not belong there is what is delusional.

"If I tweak that logic around does HJ doing even less albums than AR means he is taking much more time to be distinct and afresh?"


Er, no, you don't get to tweak that.  The point was to show that the time taken per se has no bearing on the quality of the composition.  It simply depends on the talent of the composer, period.  Somebody may churn them out like from an assembly line and still make great songs (of course Raja) and somebody may take their own sweet time and still serve up boring music like Ismail Darbar.  So how many or how few albums somebody makes has no bearing on the discussion unless you talk about how good or bad said albums are.  


A far more valid statement would be that by both working fast and delivering great music, IR has created a catalogue with the kind of depth that Rahman completely lacks.  But you have to combine the two things in that case, just quoting the number of films IR did in the 90s does not address the issue.

"If ever there was a composer who enjoyed some momentary success in the 80s it was AR's mentor Karadi,he was successful in catering to lonely Toms who needed mel isai with even soft lyrics. most probably he should have pioneered this
technique of letting the musicians/players to digress and then recording it. Lyrics were mostly in foreground
and his influence can be seen in Manoj/SAR/CB and their ilks.His popularity/cult status
started shrinking when he started catering mostly to lowest common denominations in the society."


As you said, momentary.  And we are talking about lasting, permanent influence here and not momentary flashes in the pan.  There may have been some superficial similarities in the approach of Karadi and Rahman but that does not mean his influence on TFM is even remotely comparable.

All it means if they may all be popular/influential/great (as applicable) in varying degrees but more so than mostly everyone else in their field.

Whether perhaps C Subbaraman should also be included in that category would however be an interesting question. Or...why should it be just MSV and not MSV-TKR

exactly, my beef is that varying degree so I brought in TR just to weepooh the logic that you can band in as many composers
you could by contracting/tapering the band on whichever spectrum of composers you could fit in.

again,have no issues on clubbing them on popularity like you may club Dhoni being as popular as Sach but
was he a great/been as influential as Sach? you can say Dhoni was popular maram vetti bat and influenced
ilks of Saurabh Tiwaries to be a maram vettis but does that equate him to Sach's profound influence?
any Sach fan would be greatly annoyed if he is clubbed with Dhoni in any such way.

A far more valid statement would be that by both working fast and delivering great music

if I quote Sach numbers isn't that given his runs were of some discerning quality?:-)
I posted Raaja numbers like how I would if some annoying Barry Richards/Graham pollack fans were trying extrapolate
his quality/influence/greatness to Sach inspite of abysmal number of games they have played. Sach is completely of different
pedigree to them. whilst Sach had Lara, Raaja just didn't have a composer of his pedigree before/after him but that doesn't mean we saddle him with likes of Dhoni(AR) on varying degree of caliber/greatness/influence. if that is the case
we can pitch in Kohls(TR) similarly by varying the degree of criterion.

As you said, momentary.  And we are talking about lasting, permanent influence here and not momentary flashes in the pan.  There may have been some superficial similarities in the approach of Karadi and Rahman but that does not mean his influence on TFM is even remotely comparable.

boss if AR had said he was greatly influenced by Karadi who are we judge his influence?

"any Sach fan would be greatly annoyed if he is clubbed with Dhoni in any such way."


Oh, Sach fans would be annoyed if he was clubbed with Bradman, Sobers, Laver, Muhammad Ali, Dhyanchand, Jehangir Khan, Steffi Graf, Maradona, Ayrton Senna, etc etc etc.  It is very, very easy to irk a Sach fan so I don't think drawing an analogy that way would be helpful.  On another note, Sach fans conveniently forget stats when there is a mention of Jacques Kallis.  They just keep shifting goalposts to suit a pre-conceived inference that they are not going to let go anyway.


"so I brought in TR just to weepooh the logic that you can band in as many composers
you could by contracting/tapering the band on whichever spectrum of composers you could fit in."



Well, as to what kind of spectrum you can have, you should really ask those who coined the Big Three thing.  I didn't, the MSV-IR-ARR hyphenation has been there for some time.  You can make it super elastic to include the likes of Ani pani and Karadi or you can shrink it to include only IR as he stands alone in musical achievements.  My point is merely because three composers are clubbed in some context, you cannot automatically draw the inference that it is thereby implied that they are equal.   And even if you want to, if I say clearly that at least I do not use the term that way, you really ought to leave it at that.  



"if I quote Sach numbers isn't that given his runs were of some discerning quality?:-)"



No, runs against weak opposition on home soil (say Zimbabwe) do not have the same value as runs against a tough opponent on their home ground (Australia). That is why it is important to discern to bring out that discerning quality which you speak of.  I certainly don't think the amount of runs by themselves make a case for Sachin's greatness.  It is also that, among other things, he has scored a Test century in just about every Test playing country.  It is also his average against Australia, the no.1 side of his side.  That is why you find that opposition bowlers don't discern the same gap between Sachin and Lara that Sachin fans love to.  Because they are not looking at bald numbers.  They played against them, know their strengths and weaknesses and evaluate their technique and mental strength rather than just runs.  



"whilst Sach had Lara, Raaja just didn't have a composer of his pedigree before/after him but that doesn't mean we saddle him with likes of Dhoni(AR) on varying degree of caliber/greatness/influence. if that is the case 
we can pitch in Kohls(TR) similarly by varying the degree of criterion."


Again, my answer is, yes, we can, depending on the context.  You cannot include the likes of Kohli/TR in a Big Three like level but if you expand it that much, then he would find a mention somewhere.  As in, Top 10 v/s Top 100.


"if AR had said he was greatly influenced by Karadi who are we judge his influence?"


Just because Chuck Berry, among others, influenced the Beatles doesn't mean we can draw an equivalence between the influence of Chuck Berry on music in general and that of Beatles on music.  All the influence of Beatles on music is not a subset of Chuck Berry's influence.  They were influenced by him but brought their own ideas to the table.  Same goes with the Karadi-ARR comparison.  Just because Karadi influenced ARR doesn't mean all of ARR's influence is only equal to or less than Karadi's.

In short, Rahman is one of the most influential Tamil film composers and even if he is not as influential as IR it still wouldn't invalidate the first statement.  That is basically the crux.  Phrasing it that way may not expressly club him with MSV and IR and perhaps pacify you to that extent but frankly, the implication remains the same.

ARR has been influential on TFM. & TeFM/ What kind of influence it has been?

MSV was also influential - influence by him produced Sankar-Ganesh, Chandrabose, Sivaji Raja, MSV Raja, one aspect of AR Rahman...well, not very illustrious you'd say a list, but wait, i havent completed, the list goes as high up as...IR! Undeniably great influence on TFM by MSV, then

IR's influence - well what does it produce? Let's list out - Balabharathy, MSV Raja, Karthik Raja, Gangai Amaran, Maragadhamani a.k.a MM Keeravani, Mani Sharma, Devi Sri Prasad, RP Patnaiik, Chakri, MM Srilekha....
Rahman's influence? Anirudh, Harris, Joshua(?), Anup Reubens, Micky Meyers who else?

I'll leave you guys to debate which list of influenced composers is more illustrious?

There is a big outlier in List 1 of course so maybe we can remove that and discuss.


Also, discuss the influence in terms of musical styles, ideas brought in and their greatness.

Well, going by that, MSV's would rank as the most illustrious.  But I would posit that that is just his good fortune and likewise only IR's thalai yezuthu that he ended up influencing Rahman, KR, Deva, Vidyasagar and all.  As he himself said after the Nothing But Wind performance, "Ingeyerndhu yengeyo pairkaname." Or something to that effect.

Oh, Sach fans would be annoyed if he was clubbed with..

meant on being tagged with those below his par.

MSV-IR-ARR hyphenation has been there for some time

if it is merely on popularity have no issues, have issues if tagged on any other metrics.
forget AR have issues even with MSV being tagged with Raaja.

No, runs against weak opposition on home soil (say Zimbabwe)..

we are digressing, I meant the quality of play that gets tagged with him and where in I don't deadhorse about
his quality each time I talk about his numbers.
again his state of play remains the same regardless of the opposition, in
similar vein Raaja working with lesser talents doesn't tamper with his quality of output.

Rahman is one of the most influential Tamil film composers

in what way?? like Dhoni is one of the most influential cricketer in Indian cricket?

Honestly, I don't get it. No one has attempted to introduce  variables like quality into the discussion.  The big 3 categorisation is perfectly justified if the parameters are simply fame, success or influence. To persistently attempt to repudiate this only betrays a pathological bias against ARR and an unwillingness to come to terms with facts. 

"meant on being tagged with those below his par." 


And who decides who all exactly are below his par?  For you, it may be more reasonable, an upstart like Kohli who still needs the weight of achievements over a long time to make his case. But for others, even a comparison to Ponting may be annoying but which is, objectively speaking, quite reasonable.  For still others, as I said, even a comparison to Ali would be unreasonable.  Actually, unless the players/artists mentioned are expressly ranked, I don't see the problem at all in simply enumerating them side-by-side. It is your preconceived inference that that automatically means they are equal; nobody ever says so and nobody implies that.  If we listed great tennis players of the graphite era, obviously Agassi and Sampras would have to be mentioned but it doesn't automatically mean they are equal.  


"his state of play remains the same regardless of the opposition, in
similar vein Raaja working with lesser talents doesn't tamper with his quality of output."


Again, that is just an assumption. It is obviously easier for a batsman to face a weak side than one with three or even four strong bowlers; that is why the latter would be ranked higher by experts.  Say if Sachin just got all those thousands of runs playing against minnows where India, under Srini mama, boycotted the big teams.  Would his achievements still have the same worth?  No.  Just as how Margaret Court holds the record for most singles grand slams in women's tennis but is rarely included in the discussion on greats because half of her 24 slams were won in the Australian Open in an era when the greats rarely played in that tournament.  That is why mere runs alone won't suffice.  And that is also why I would much rather talk about qualitative parameters like technique and guts under pressure than bald numbers.    I knew even before reading your response that you would seek to draw a parallel between quality of opposition and quality of collaborators of Raja and I would disagree there because there are limits to how much one can compare cricket and music.  


"like Dhoni is one of the most influential cricketer in Indian cricket?"



And he's not?  You don't think the captain who has won both the WC and the WT20 as well as one of India's best wicketkeeper-batsmen behind maybe Kirmani, More and Mongia will go down as one of the most influential in Indian cricket?  So maybe this is a nice demonstration of the same phenomenon, where your personal bias interferes with giving a particular performer his due even in a field where there is no direct comparison with your favourite.  When it is said that Rahman is one of the most influential, it is not implied that he is as influential or more so t

,(F

Here is my view on this debate:

If we classify this differently I don't think we will debate this much.

First category I would say is trendsetters: In Hindi, this lineage would include C Ramachandra, O P Nayyar, R D Burman and Rahman. In Tamil this would include Vishwanathan - Ramamurthy, Raja and Rahman. Here we are not worried about the quality of music. We are worried about the way film music changed after these people came in. We are also not worried if they borrowed liberally from the West or somewhere else. All these people set new trends and changed the direction of film music in their language, for better or worse.

Second category would be successful music directors: They may not (or may) have been trendsetters but you can classify them as successful MDs during their times. In Hindi you have Naushad, Shankar Jaikishen, S D Burman, R D Burman, Rahman, Laxmikanth Pyarelal etc. In Tamil we have V-R, MSV, Raja and Rahman. In Telugu we have Rajeshwar Rao, Peniyala, Chakravarthy, KVM, Raja etc.

Third category would be those who gave original and who were top class musically: This would include people like Anil Biswas, Madan Mohan, Roshan, Salil Choudary, Jaidev, Sajjad Hussain, S D Burman  in Hindi, Rajeshwar Rao, Pendyala, KVM Ramesh Naidu in Telugu, V-R, MSV, KVM and Raja in Tamil

I would not include Rahman in the third category. His tuning is not very original. He is very derivative. So putting him alongside people like Madanmohan, Roshan,Anilda, Salilda is a blasphemy as far as I am concerned. In my opinion Rahman definitely falls into the trendsetter and a successful MD category. You cannot include him into great music category. Raja and MSV would fall in all three categories as would SD Burman. Raja ofcourse is top class in each category.

And who decides who all exactly are below his par?

ada raama we are running in circles,all yam saying is compare a test bat with test bat not with t-20 bat, I consider
Rahman a t-20 bat given the genres/no. of movies he plied his trades on. yes we can tag a t20/test bat on popularity.

I knew even before reading your response that you would seek to draw a parallel between quality of opposition and quality of collaborators of Raja and I would disagree there because there are limits to how much one can compare cricket and music.

the reason I brought Sach in is this

But you have to combine the two things in that case, just quoting the number of films IR did in the 90s does not address the issue.

you had said just  Raaja numbers alone doesn't stand for quality, I replied If I talk about Sach numbers there is discernible quality(we can argue
efficacy till the cows return but there is some quality) to his runs compared to say any limited overs bat, rather nitpicking on Sach wish you got the point
that I wanted to make about Raaja.

And he's not?  You don't think the captain who has won both the WC and the WT20 as well as one of India's best wicketkeeper-batsmen behind maybe Kirmani, More and Mongia will go down as one of the most influential in Indian cricket?

presto, this was I needed when I asked about Dhoni's influence all you could muster his WC/wt20 wins and one of the best wkt keep/bat(given our cupboard is very bare) none about his test runs or captaincy or his basic wkt keeping skills. similarly
if ever I ask the same to a maniac all I would get will be pecuniary things like awards/Itunes sales/his music crisscrossing the world and nothing on his craft.


@Raaga_Suresh, I wouldn't add AR in trendsetters list, all his trendsetting can be roughly tagged under Music Production.
strictly on musical ideas what are the trend setting things he brought in that Raaja didn't have already in his palette?