Re: Criticisms on Maestro's music by music experts

fring151 Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:12 pm

The funniest and most satisfying thing is that fans of one cannot mock fans of the other using this Razz

fring151 Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:26 pm

Drunkenmunk wrote:"IR criticizes Thala Ajith"

Hahahaha. Just read some of the comments. Howlarious!! Funnier still are those attempting to engage with the abusive commenters. Head-bang-wall.

Btw, yArAvdhu oruthana mattum sollindhArunA, overnight the "edhir katchi" gumbal would have become Raja devotees with several YT videos titled "Genius composer Ilayaraja criticizes *******". PAvam rendu perayum sollitu rendu katchikaarangalOda veruppukkum aathrathukkum Aalaanaar. Laughing

.

fring151 Mon Apr 14, 2014 8:49 pm

Coming back to TMK's book, I respect his views on IR's keertanais and "scale inventions" and respect his assessment of them as "not holding up as composite carnatic works". I also don't mind him questioning IR's grasp of Carnatic music, But I maintain it is uncalled for to ascribe such a superficial understanding of the form to IR and other Carnatic musicians (scales with a bunch of notes that can be manipulated). That is very very patronising and most disappointing.

crimson king Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:15 am

It's pretty harsh, no doubt.

Usha Wed Jul 02, 2014 12:56 pm

Semmangudi about IR....

https://soundcloud.com/vijeeth/legend-shri-semmangudi

counterpoint Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:46 am

fring151 wrote:Coming back to TMK's book, I respect his views on IR's keertanais and "scale inventions" and respect his assessment of them as "not holding up as composite carnatic works". I also don't mind him questioning IR's grasp of Carnatic music, But I maintain it is uncalled for to ascribe such a superficial understanding of the form to IR and other Carnatic musicians (scales with a bunch of notes that can be manipulated). That is very very patronising and most disappointing.

It shows that he didnt think through his own arguments. IR started training formally in Carnatic music, almost 4 years after he became a MD. Its quite possible that some of his early day raga-based compositions might come across as simplistic and as an amateur effort to established carnatic musicians. Chinna kannan azhaikiraan isnt exactlya treatise in Reethigowloai. Its a very simple melody. The first line of the song is merely the aarohanam of the raga. More or less. Merely using a rare scale in the services of a film song doesnt make for a great achievment or effort. Even amateur musicians can do that. So I cannot fault TMK for saying that.But then he should have evaluated IR's carnatic forays against complex compositions of other TFM MDs from the past like say KV Mahadevan. What did TMK think of KVM or G Ramanathan or MSV's efforts? Is he going to judge TFM MDs capabilities with just IR's works? what does he think of a Maadhavi pon mayilaaL, a paattum naane or oru naaL podhuma or ulagin mudhal isai thamizhaiye( an Hindustani-carnatic jugalbandi type experiment by MSV, that was novel and scintillating for its times)? what does he think of the modern day Sharath and his mind-bending scale changes within a single line of the tune?

Also does TMK acknowledge the constraints under which a TFM MD operates? Does he acknowlegde anywhere that a MD has to convey the mood, tune for the situation and wrap up their experiments within 4-5 minutes at best? That their requirements itself is different. That they do not need to demonstrate hardcore classicism in their compositions because that is not necessarily their job. I have not heard IR's kutcheri in Music academy, but if that is what is the bone of contention here, then TMK should atleast acknowledge the fact that IR's lack of complexity/classicism in those compositions might have been the result of IR himself being the singer as well, which means he couldnt have executed complex neravals, especially at the age at which he performed the kutcheri (early 90s? He must have been 50+ and his voice wouldhave lost some fluidity. Not that it was suited for carnatic music singing in the first place. That was a dangerous experiment by IR, IMO, he should have left the singing to somebody else and done just the composing.Maybe that might have changed TMK's perception). Carnatic singing is a skill, a performing art. Let TMK not confuse it with pure composing which is more of an intellectual standalone activity. While singers can also be partial in-situ composers(of course they do their manodharma and come up with variations on the spot which make them some sort of composers themselves ), a composer need not be a great performer.

**V_S** Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:19 pm

V_S wrote:
T.M. Krishna wrote:The second film in this discussion is Sindhu Bhairavi (Tamil, 1985). This hugely successful film used predominantly Karnatik music elements - once again, the story was about a Karnatik musician. The composer, the inimitable Ilayaraja, used a Tyagaraja composition, 'Mari mari ninne', in raga saramati. This was an interesting situation, as Tyagaraja had composed it in raga khambhoji and, more importantly there was an oral version of the song available. So, if Ilayaraja had wanted to, he could have used 'Mari mari ninne' as rendered in Karnatik music. Why he did not do so, I do not know. May be he felt that the meaning of the lyrics and the context of the film demanded another raga and melody? Only he knows and only he can tell.

But we can and must ask: what does this transposition of a composition from its parent rage onto another actually do to the kirtana? A great deal, actually. The essence of its being disintegrates. This is not to say that the film version of the kirtana was not beautiful. I am examining what the film version did to the integrity of the kirtana. As I said, the film song destroyed it. To me, the film version was unacceptable.

What was more interesting was the lack of reaction from the Karnatik music community. This lethargy was evidence of both a fear of the popular and, more significantly, a certain lack of confidence in the music itself. I for one wish questions had been raised, not because a particular film's use of a Tyagaraja kirtana would have been brought under the scanner, but because it could have led to a serious questioning of the veracity of changes that are made to compositions - not by film music directors, but by Karnatik musicians themselves. Essentially, Illayaraja was not doing something that Karnatik musicians had not done themselves.

This film also brought up another debate, again based on the same kirtana. In the movie, a member of the singer's audience asks him why he sings only in languages that the Tamil people do not understand. She comes up on stage and, in fact, renders a Tamil song in the same raga, complete with kalpanasvaras. This leads, in the film, to the musician going onto include a number of Tamil compositions in his recitals. That scene brought back the debate of the early twentieth century on the issue of language in music. It was clear also that no one had understood the role of language in art music beyond the confines of lyrical understanding. The fact that those beyond the Karnatik environment were discussing the issue of language in Karnatik music was most fascinating. It was a rare opportunity to understand the general perception of a complex issue. It emerged that even within the world of Karnatik music, language and its lyrical import was a strongly held idea, and this had been communicated to the world outside. As a community, we believed and still believe that when a musician renders a Tyagaraja kirtana, he must emote the word meanings of the compositions. This lack of a larger perspective - a matter I have delved into at length in a separate chapter - persists both within and outside the Karnatik music world and will probably never die.

Ilayaraja did something more. He consciously ventured into another territory; Karnatic music itself. Taking on the role of a vaggeyakara, no less, he invented scales and composed in the kirtana format. This, in my opinion, was an unfortunate venture by the great film musician - unfortunate for him and Karnatic music. Neither the ragas nor the compositions hold up as composite Karnatik music creations. But it would be wrong to critique only Ilayaraja, as he merely reflected the superficial understanding of Karnatik music that the music community itself had by then accepted. A raga was only a scale, which could be manipulated. A composition was a mix of lyrics, tala and raga. This rather immature and simplistic understanding of Karnatik music led to all musicians feeling that it could be easily handled, as Ilayaraja did. Although his compositions have not yet been accepted into Karnatik art music, the phenomenon deserves discussion. It reveals in Ilayaraja a certain understanding of raga that is a creation of Karnatik musicians.

He didn't clearly explain why he thinks the film version lacks the integrity of the kirtana. Unless he explains that it is difficult to accept his view point.

To be continued... His understanding on how people and karnatik musicians understood raga and a scale...naive.

He explains his thought on mari mari ninne in this interview which he left out in the book.
http://www.aravindanarticles.blogspot.com/2015/08/blog-post.html
//எந்த ராகத்தில், மெட்டில் தாளக்கட்டில் அமைக்கப்பட்டதோ அந்தச் சேர்க்கையில்தான் அந்தக் கீர்த்தனையின் ஜீவன் உள்ளது.//
Still I don't agree that composing the same lyrics in a different raagam would kill the soul. Listening to the one composed by Maestro, can anyone say it has lost its soul?

Drunkenmunk Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:07 pm

V_S wrote:
V_S wrote:
T.M. Krishna wrote:The second film in this discussion is Sindhu Bhairavi (Tamil, 1985). This hugely successful film used predominantly Karnatik music elements - once again, the story was about a Karnatik musician. The composer, the inimitable Ilayaraja, used a Tyagaraja composition, 'Mari mari ninne', in raga saramati. This was an interesting situation, as Tyagaraja had composed it in raga khambhoji and, more importantly there was an oral version of the song available. So, if Ilayaraja had wanted to, he could have used 'Mari mari ninne' as rendered in Karnatik music. Why he did not do so, I do not know. May be he felt that the meaning of the lyrics and the context of the film demanded another raga and melody? Only he knows and only he can tell.

But we can and must ask: what does this transposition of a composition from its parent rage onto another actually do to the kirtana? A great deal, actually. The essence of its being disintegrates. This is not to say that the film version of the kirtana was not beautiful. I am examining what the film version did to the integrity of the kirtana. As I said, the film song destroyed it. To me, the film version was unacceptable.

What was more interesting was the lack of reaction from the Karnatik music community. This lethargy was evidence of both a fear of the popular and, more significantly, a certain lack of confidence in the music itself. I for one wish questions had been raised, not because a particular film's use of a Tyagaraja kirtana would have been brought under the scanner, but because it could have led to a serious questioning of the veracity of changes that are made to compositions - not by film music directors, but by Karnatik musicians themselves. Essentially, Illayaraja was not doing something that Karnatik musicians had not done themselves.

This film also brought up another debate, again based on the same kirtana. In the movie, a member of the singer's audience asks him why he sings only in languages that the Tamil people do not understand. She comes up on stage and, in fact, renders a Tamil song in the same raga, complete with kalpanasvaras. This leads, in the film, to the musician going onto include a number of Tamil compositions in his recitals. That scene brought back the debate of the early twentieth century on the issue of language in music. It was clear also that no one had understood the role of language in art music beyond the confines of lyrical understanding. The fact that those beyond the Karnatik environment were discussing the issue of language in Karnatik music was most fascinating. It was a rare opportunity to understand the general perception of a complex issue. It emerged that even within the world of Karnatik music, language and its lyrical import was a strongly held idea, and this had been communicated to the world outside. As a community, we believed and still believe that when a musician renders a Tyagaraja kirtana, he must emote the word meanings of the compositions. This lack of a larger perspective - a matter I have delved into at length in a separate chapter - persists both within and outside the Karnatik music world and will probably never die.

Ilayaraja did something more. He consciously ventured into another territory; Karnatic music itself. Taking on the role of a vaggeyakara, no less, he invented scales and composed in the kirtana format. This, in my opinion, was an unfortunate venture by the great film musician - unfortunate for him and Karnatic music. Neither the ragas nor the compositions hold up as composite Karnatik music creations. But it would be wrong to critique only Ilayaraja, as he merely reflected the superficial understanding of Karnatik music that the music community itself had by then accepted. A raga was only a scale, which could be manipulated. A composition was a mix of lyrics, tala and raga. This rather immature and simplistic understanding of Karnatik music led to all musicians feeling that it could be easily handled, as Ilayaraja did. Although his compositions have not yet been accepted into Karnatik art music, the phenomenon deserves discussion. It reveals in Ilayaraja a certain understanding of raga that is a creation of Karnatik musicians.

He didn't clearly explain why he thinks the film version lacks the integrity of the kirtana. Unless he explains that it is difficult to accept his view point.

To be continued... His understanding on how people and karnatik musicians understood raga and a scale...naive.

He explains his thought on mari mari ninne in this interview which he left out in the book.
http://www.aravindanarticles.blogspot.com/2015/08/blog-post.html
//எந்த ராகத்தில், மெட்டில் தாளக்கட்டில் அமைக்கப்பட்டதோ அந்தச் சேர்க்கையில்தான் அந்தக் கீர்த்தனையின் ஜீவன் உள்ளது.//
Still I don't agree that composing the same lyrics in a different raagam would kill the soul. Listening to the one composed by Maestro, can anyone say it has lost its soul?

Even I don't agree. His replies were honest and I see his criticism as honest. Credit to him. But like I said, I don't agree too that composing the same lyrics in a different ragam would kill the soul of the song. To the original composer-vAgEyakkArar, yes, that is possible but that is a hypothetical situation, unless the composer lives to see his composition changed and approves or disowns the new tune. So it is TMK's opinion that the soul is destroyed and he agrees as much. But take the case of a Ninnai Charan Adaindhen. Bharathiyaar (because that was the example brought; great question btw) composed the song in Punnaagavaraali, says the book having his poems. Raaja composes the same song in Purya Dhanasri (?). I don't see the soul destroyed. In fact, the soul is retained to an extent that it was Raaja's music that made me see the soul of the song in itself. My take: https://raajasongadaykeepsboredomaway.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/132-search/

So for me the rasika, I approach any lyrics with a clean slate. And on his larger point of the lyrics and tune being one பின்னி பிணைந்த entity, I agree. In fact, I don't know if he'd be surprised, but even Raaja shares the same view, as garnered from Kannadasan: http://www.tubechop.com/watch/6546613

I am inclined to conclude he hasn't understood Raaja's philosophy to lyrics and music completely. But however, even Raaja's music is guilty of below par lyrics that don't sit on the tune everytime. There are a sizable number of songs where we have felt the lyrics are below par and do not have the Osai nayam it ought to have. But that is the risk of working in a commercial medium where you are not a vAgeyakkAra and a different lyricist writes for your tunes. A purist like Krishna can think of it as a bastardization of the wholesome vision of a true music composer and he may have a point but every composer-poet pair cannot be an MSV-Kannadasan to gel so well as to raise doubts if the tune was composed for the lyrics or vice-versa (this mostly holds to almost every Raaja-lyricist pair too except IR-Kannadasan and to a lesser extent IR-Vaali in Tamil though there have been a lot of lyricists who've given some excellent lyrics to Raaja and Raaja himself is a fantastic lyricist/poet). Some of his criticisms here are an inevitable fallout of the commercial medium and andha medium'a naan defend seyyala. TMK has a valid point. But on his pointed criticisms on Raaja's understanding of lyrics and using them for music, I disagree and also on his point of soul being killed by a different tune to an already composed lyric.

**V_S** Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:09 pm

DM,
I agree with your thoughts. Great that you brought ninnai charanadainthEn. I have couple of questions.

First of all how did someone "absolutely" know how Thyagarajar would have a sung a keerthanai written by him. Can any singer sing exactly the same how Thyagarajar sang the keerthanais? Even if one does so, how one would believe that? What is the bhaavam he is trying to bring? For me, that's the most important one. Leave alone raagam/tune/thaaLam aspect.

Same holds true for Western Classical music. If someone has a copy of the score written by those Legends, it does not mean, what we hear from every Orchestra that we are hearing how Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven would have wanted their compositions to convey? What we hear is a mere 'satisfactory' level of what they intended in their compositions. That too we are not sure.

If people comment about stamp/signature, for example: 'You have to hear Madurai Mani sing koluvai unnade", where does Thyagarajar come into picture? Do we see Thyagarajar there or Madurai Mani Iyer there?. If only Madurai Mani Iyer is seen, where is the integrity again? If he sings exactly sing the same way like Thyagarajar (with same raagam/mettu/thaaLam), where is Madurai Mani Iyer then? If we see both of them, what is wrong in that?

First, let them talk about it, then we will go to changing raagam, integrity and every other aspect.

**plum** Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:19 pm

Essentially, Illayaraja was not doing something that Karnatik musicians had not done themselves.

Isn't that sort of the point Mr TMK?

I think IR clarified very clearly that while he holds Thiagayyar as divine(since he worships music, he being iR here) he doesnt hold his music as sarcosanct with not a note to be changed.

This whole exercise had nothing to do with Sindhu Bhairavi's situation, which at the end of the day is just a carnatic musician singing a carnatic song in a carnatic concert.

In the context of the movie, the right thing to do is to do what a Carnatic musician would have done (viz) sing it exactly as Thiagaraja (presumably) prescribed.

Why did IR(and indeed by extension, KB) change the tune then? It certainly had nothing to do with the situation depicted in the movie.

It was a statement. By IR. That he doesn't hold sacrosanct what dyed in the wool carnatic musicians hold sacrosanct. That he believes that he is a musical heir of Thiagayyar, and has the right to interpret his musical ancestor's keerthana in his own way.

It was a bold statement. It didnt go unnoticed. Carnatic sanadhanis boiled over but didn't have the support of their own "chennai sabha west mambalam adyar besant nagar types". And that is where having KB by his side helped IR.

Looking back, I feel IR's national award just before SB and for SB was a crafty move by KB. I have had occasion before to point out the presence of KB groupies in the National Award committee for those years. I am sure if IR had attempted this, with say Bharathiraja by tow, he would have been burned in the stakes. But KB by his side changed that equation.

Equally, when KB/MR et al left IR in 1992, what IR lost wasnt musical opportunities but in fact, the advantage of having the enemy within his tent. Once they migrated over, they joined with other sanadhanis to systematically target IR.

Therefore, it is important to realise that IR grandly made his statement with Mari Mari Ninne, and having KB by his side insulated him from the death penalty that would have been his just punishment. You can see TMK talking about how the carnatic groupies didnt protest vehemently enough then,

Coming back to the main point, it is well recorded that IR scoffs upon the typical carnatic PERFORMER's attitude that keerthanais and krithis are meant to be sung exactly as prescribed by Thiagayyar etc. One of the key points IR points out there is that how do you know this is how THiag sung it? It has passed down from oral tradition and who knows how much corruption happened enroute?

*Death penalty navunE Yakub Memon mAdhiri solREnnu literalaa edhuthukka mattinga..irundhaalum evanavadhu vandhu adhaiyum solvaan so disclaimer pottudaren

Raaga_Suresh Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:04 pm

TMK is one of the biggest fakes around but disguises himself very well and sounds very intellectual. On one hand he asks why Carnatic music is so stifling and why we should not break rules and all that. On the other hand he says Carnatic guys did not protest enough when Raja broke rules !!! Similarly he says why should Carnatic always be about bakthi but he ends up singing mostly bakthi songs. So the basic idea of his is clear: I am the best classical guy and I am the best modernist. I will follow rules and show off as if I am breaking rules. If others break rules I will jump up and down. Everyone must focus on me.

You may think that I am saying this out of hatred. Just think about these facts:

- Did Raja, after the SindhuBhairavi experiment go on to transpose other carnatic krithis
"No"
- Did any other MD, taking Raja's example, do something similar
"No"
- Did any carnatic musician take up Raja's example and change ragas of krithis?
"No"
- Did they start singing Raja's version of 'mari mari ninne' in Carnatic concerts?
"No"
- Did Raja's retuning of Tyagaraja krithi have an adverse impact on Carnatic music as such?
"No"

Overall what was the impact of Raja's outside of the films context: None, zilch, zero, cypher etc etc.

So the question to be asked is, why rake something which had no impact on Carnatic music, which was not repeated again and which most people have forgotten? The answer is, "You need some juicy controversy to sell the book".

Other than selling the book, TMK by criticising someone like Raja has ensured his profile is now higher. "Wow. That guy is criticising Raja. So he must be a very good carnatic musician". He achieved his objective. The honest fact is he is a mediocre musician when compared to the masters and he is nowhere a musicologist like Vedavalli or SRJ. As I said in the beginning, he gives an impression that he knows more than he does and that he is a greater musician than he is. True music lovers know his level.

I wont be surprised if some other person in latter days talks about Raja in his / her book. All that it shows is that Raja's name sells even now.

ravinat Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:17 pm

Raaga_Suresh wrote:TMK is one of the biggest fakes around but disguises himself very well and sounds very intellectual. On one hand he asks why Carnatic music is so stifling and why we should break rules and all that. On the other hand he says Carnatic guys did not protest enough when Raja breaks rules !!! Similarly he says why should Carnatic always be about bakthi but he ends up singing mostly bakthi songs. So the basic idea of his is clear: I am the best classical guy and I am the best modernist. I will follow rules and show off as if I am breaking rules. If others break rules I will jump up and down. Everyone must focus on me.

You may think that I am saying this out of hatred. Just think about these facts:

- Did Raja, after the SindhuBhairavi experiment go on to transpose other carnatic krithis
"No"
- Did any other MD, taking Raja's example, do something similar
"No"
- Did any carnatic musician take up Raja's example and change ragas of krithis?
"No"
- Did they start singing Raja's version of 'mari mari ninne' in Carnatic concerts?
"No"
- Did Raja's returning of Tyagaraja krithi have an adverse impact on Carnatic music as such?
"No"

Overall what was the impact of Raja's outside of the films context: None, zilch, zero, cypher etc etc.

So the question to asked is, why rake something which had no impact on Carnatic music, which was not repeated again and which most people have forgotten? The answer is, "You need some juicy controversy to sell the book".

Other than selling the book, TMK by criticising someone like Raja has ensured his profile is now higher. "Wow. That guy is criticising Raja. So he must be a very good carnatic musician". He achieved his objective. The honest fact is he is a mediocre musician when compared to the masters and he is nowhere a musicologist like Vedavalli or SRJ. As I said in the beginning, he gives an impression that he knows more than he does and that he is a greater musician than he is. True music lovers know his level.

I wont be surprised if some other person in latter days talks about Raja in his / her book. All that it shows is that Raja's name sells even now.

That's hitting the nail on its head perfectly - very well articulated Suresh.

In TN, you have to drag personalities such as Raja to be noticed - old trick, I guess!

jaiganesh Sat Aug 15, 2015 11:05 pm

TMK is one of the pseudo marxist musical revolutionary who symbolizes the upper class elites of Mylapore.
Having spent a lifetime around them - can smell this one right out of the bat. Better left alone to create
pseudo storms in teaspoons...

Sponsored content