Manadhil oru paattu - Song of the moment - Vol 1

If he had said she was a great singer, then yes you can fume thinking why he didnt mention Shreya, SJanaki or Chitra. But we are talking precise usage of words. Unique, is just unique. Neither positive nor negative. And if he feels Bhava's voice is unique, who are we to say "No Mr Ilayaraja, how can you say Bhava's voice is unique. It is just another run of the mill voice"?

We agreed earlier that liking a voice is a matter of opinion. But classifying it as unique - (i.e) neither this nor that nor THAT all of which are known common types is not a difficult science. Heck, that is precisely what Aakarsh said - it is none of the known "good" types. Which still makes it unique. There can be no argument around this. If we want to use language precisely, there just can't be an argument around this.

If we get emotional, OTOH, and bring in "why did he use her so many times?", who knows? It could be because the voice is unique in some cases, in some cases plain puthra paasam, some cases maybe a mistaken belief that she is really singing well. That's a different discussion.

Also, he hasn't used her to the extent he has used any good singer. Maybe yes he used her more than he used Chinmayi, who, for all practical purposes, is a better singer. But I have my own objections with Chinmayi and to me, it is six of one thing and half a dozen of the other. Why read so much into this?

In any case, I will not countenance the linking of his classifcation of voice as unique to his usage of her voice. Logically, there is no connect. Unique isnt a positive word by itself.

In the same answer he said Janaki has an ordinary voice, while acknowledging she was a wonderful singer inspite of that. That is again precise usage of words that hurt many people including Janaki.

I will not blame IR. It is just tha very few of us are used to precise usage of words.

" but I don't have to agree or refrain from commenting"


As I keep saying, nobody has to refrain from commenting here. But I will contest opinions which I see as flawed, fair enough?

"it's pretty natural for people to feel surprised that he named bhava as a singer with an unique voice alongside legends who earned respect on their own without father's helping hand"
Yes, it is natural for people - who are not used to precise usage of words - to feel surprised because their tendency is to associate "unique" with "great". No logical construct in the world, no syntactical construct in the English language, OTOH, allow this association of words. Bad luck that majority of people cannot see precise usage of words that a mind like IR's can.


 I am blessed that, while musically I comprehend nothing(which people like Aakarsh and you do) that he does, language-wise, Ican comprehend him in a way you people cannot. i say without any garvam, aanavam or arrogance, if you really see what I mean

erm, he was replying to a question asked in kumudham where he was asked to name his favourites or the ones he rated the highest. The answer was addressed to normal people and not grammarians. Therefore the onus lies on the person communicating to make sure an unintended interpretation is not derived. Placing her name in conjunction with mehdi and nat king cole, as well as the rest of the reply praising lata and sj, strongly suggests the interpretation that say akarsh derived.

No, he was asked to name "unique" voices. How many times must I clarify?  It wasn't an answer to which voices you admire. He was asked to name 5 unique voices. He named these 5 and explained that while this may be so, it wasnt about the voice as proven by S Janaki who despite a ordinary, commonplace voice did wonders that others cannot do.

It hurts me to see that when he takes so much pains to use language so precisely, we are so callous in understanding it and on top of it, blaming him? How fair is thaT?

"lacing her name in conjunction with mehdi and nat king cole, as well as the rest of the reply praising lata and sj, strongly suggests the interpretation that say"


This is completely wrong. He did praise SJ's talent but he also said her voice is ordinary in the same paragraph. So there was no unequivocal praise of SJ there, which is precisely what made SJ sad about it. 


In summary, he was asked to name unique voices. He named bhava among it without specifiying whether it was good or bad. He mentioned Mehdi explicitly specifying it was unique AND good;  he also took SJ's example to note that it wasnt unique or good voice but her talent outweighed all those considerations


As clear as crystal. Why is this difficult to understand?

Look, crimson, we are not having a fight here, nor a ego war, I am just trying to point out a wonderful feature of Raja - which you all MUST try to understand instead of callously saying "speak our imprecise language; ia ma common man". Why should he? When he has the gift of being precise with words, why should he compromise on his communication?

I am not interested in a fight either. If I may, I just find your paranoia a bit disconcerting. I am not arguing that akarsh or other's interpretation is THE correct one. I am arguing that it is not as outlandish as you suggest, therefore not necessarily founded in prejudice or vendetta, which you are pretty quick to presume. I know what the dictionary meaning of unique is but I also know that the common usage of English is more flexible and that affects how we understand and interpret words. Unique, for instance, is often used as a euphemism for bad.

I never said Aakarsh's words were out of vendetta or prejudice. Why are you misinterpreting again and again?

I am saying It IS outlandish if you know how Ilayaraja uses his words. Precisely, as intended by the language. You are repeatedly saying "But we commoners don't have that gift, we use more fluidly". That's not his problem. That is precisely what I am saying - you guys are doing a disservice to him by a) wrongly interpreting his statements and therefore, giving it a slant that he never intended b) refusing to understand him

Thats why I asked why should he come to you? Wh dont you try to go to him and his level of understanding and usage?

I dont think the usage of word "paranoia" there is correct either, Sorry to be a pedant.

"Unique, for instance, is often used as a euphemism for bad."


Really? if yes, people who intend to use it to mean bad must really be ashamed of themselves. For, it just does not exist.

plum wrote:"Unique, for instance, is often used as a euphemism for bad."


Really? if yes, people who intend to use it to mean bad must really be ashamed of themselves. For, it just does not exist.

Here, in the current society I'm living in, politeness / mutual respect is being pushed upon.

Accordingly, often people are scared to say things like "it is ugly, it is bad, it is horrible" etc.

Instead, they "politely" say "it is, kind o', different"

That way, different happens to be an euphemism to ugly/bad/horrible etc...(I haven't seen people using "unique" for that purpose, however)

plum wrote:I dont think the usage of word "paranoia" there is correct either, Sorry to be a pedant.

Well, choose one of your discretion.  I am also a bit of a "mu-phat" to use the Hindi expres​sion(takes one to know one) so let me put it bluntly to you: if you are prepared to extend every benefit of doubt to the maestro for his statements, granting a little bit of the same to people commenting on his statements should not be very difficult.  You did not accuse Akarsh directly of having vendetta but you did make a reference early on to maniacs pouncing on his puthrupaasam.  And that's what I am trying to address here: every statement does not arise out of propaganda.  IR may have been precise but the message has largely been lost in translation and there is no point in blaming people for not reading it the way YOU feel it was intended.  We don't know what exactly he intended because he has not commented further on it.  

As for your remark that people using the word unique as a euphemism should feel ashamed, er, Shakespeare wrote the words "Brutus is an honourable man", go figure (very strictly speaking, the correct article there would be "a").  English IS a very flexible language (which is also one of its strengths) and people do take a lot of liberties in its usage, deal with it. This is why people who absolutely do not want to be misunderstood, like lawyers, have to use lots of words and long sentences to 'caveat' everything.  It is in the nature of the very language. Insisting on binary interpretations of the language is not very practical though perhaps semantically appropriate.

So, there is no usage of "unique" to mean bad, right? So, what did I say different?

As for indirectly calling Aakarsh a detractor, there is no such danger. I am accusing Aakarsh but only of lack of understanding of precise usage of words.

I have also taken pains to point out that the way Raja framed it, there is no scope for misinterpretation. I am sorry, you cant escape with pointing the fluidity of usage that ordinary people bring to language. You have to step up to IR's level, he cannot come down to yours, be it music or language. Music, we all know that, so we dont dare question. Language, we all feel we arent dunces with language so yes, we try not to give him the pedestal he deserves for extra-ordinarily precise use of language. 

I broke the concerned answer down to specifics line  by line still you try to claim room for wrong interpretation. The way you said there is room for wrong interpretaion, I showed you there isnt such a room - because, you said "fact that he bracketed Bhava with other good guys means he meant it positively or could mean that" but I pointed out to you that " while he bracketed 5 of them, only for Bhava he refrained from calling it GOOD in addition to UNIQUE. For others, he added GOOD in addition to UNIQUE".

He cant make this clearer than this. I am sorry, Aakarsh and you are great musical guys with wonderful knowledge of music but you were not able to understand precise use of language here which IR gave no scope for mis interpretation. Fault lies with you, no way you can blame him or me for taking up his cudgels.

crimson king wrote:

plum wrote:I dont think the usage of word "paranoia" there is correct either, Sorry to be a pedant.

Well, choose one of your discretion.  I am also a bit of a "mu-phat" to use the Hindi expres​sion(takes one to know one) so let me put it bluntly to you: if you are prepared to extend every benefit of doubt to the maestro for his statements, granting a little bit of the same to people commenting on his statements should not be very difficult.  You did not accuse Akarsh directly of having vendetta but you did make a reference early on to maniacs pouncing on his puthrupaasam.  And that's what I am trying to address here: every statement does not arise out of propaganda.  IR may have been precise but the message has largely been lost in translation and there is no point in blaming people for not reading it the way YOU feel it was intended.  We don't know what exactly he intended because he has not commented further on it.  

As for your remark that people using the word unique as a euphemism should feel ashamed, er, Shakespeare wrote the words "Brutus is an honourable man", go figure (very strictly speaking, the correct article there would be "a").  English IS a very flexible language (which is also one of its strengths) and people do take a lot of liberties in its usage, deal with it. This is why people who absolutely do not want to be misunderstood, like lawyers, have to use lots of words and long sentences to 'caveat' everything.  It is in the nature of the very language. Insisting on binary interpretations of the language is not very practical though perhaps semantically appropriate.

"Brutus is a honourable man" - see that in context. It is used as irony. And by using that phrase as a bookend to a list of Brutus's misdemeanours, Shakespeare frames Mark Antony as inciting the crowd with an element called IRONY. Without an intention to use IRONY, that using honorable where he meant dishonoranle is not possible. IRONY was no where near IR's sincere answer - and no way anyone can think that irony is associated with that answer therefore this defence does not wash

Context does not explain away the fact that it is, strictly speaking, incorrect.  And plenty of English prose and poetry, including even non fiction, is full of such liberties.  People take liberties in their everyday usage too.  I may concede that IR did not utilise such liberties in stating his opinion (and by the way I do not recall him singling out Bhava as 'unique only' and Nat in 'unique and good' category, they were lumped together but please feel free to correct me there).  But by the same standards of precision, that does not justify your rant at puthrapasam propaganda.  I have only tried to demonstrate the scope for misinterpretation built into the language.  If people misread that and accuse him of playing favourites with Bhava, it does not imply a vicious propaganda of the sort you have dreamed up here.  Dude, something's gotta give.  You can't hold onto pedantic precision on the one hand and wild flights of imagination on the other.  Is it not possible to simply say that IR's remarks were misinterpreted without indulging in a diatribe attacking the rest of the world, I mean, seriously?

After this, I must hesitate to state what I REALLY think about Bhava's vocals on his tracks    as I would not like to be accused of being the enemy.

#CLT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqXL-52IEqc

Certainly a unique song.  

Placing her name in conjunction with mehdi and nat king cole, as well as the rest of the reply praising lata and sj, strongly suggests the interpretation that say akarsh derived.

IIRC he had even listed 'Banumathi Ramakrishna' so he was clearly talking about 'unique' voices and not his favs

crimson king wrote:Context does not explain away the fact that it is, strictly speaking, incorrect.  And plenty of English prose and poetry, including even non fiction, is full of such liberties.  People take liberties in their everyday usage too.  I may concede that IR did not utilise such liberties in stating his opinion (and by the way I do not recall him singling out Bhava as 'unique only' and Nat in 'unique and good' category, they were lumped together but please feel free to correct me there).  But by the same standards of precision, that does not justify your rant at puthrapasam propaganda.  I have only tried to demonstrate the scope for misinterpretation built into the language.  If people misread that and accuse him of playing favourites with Bhava, it does not imply a vicious propaganda of the sort you have dreamed up here.  Dude, something's gotta give.  You can't hold onto pedantic precision on the one hand and wild flights of imagination on the other.  Is it not possible to simply say that IR's remarks were misinterpreted without indulging in a diatribe attacking the rest of the world, I mean, seriously?

It is possible. I wasn't attacking you or Kamal Aakarsh. It is true that there are people misinterpreting him as a hobby or even as a cyncial way of manipulating opinion against him. The genesis of this forum lies in that, dont you forget.

YOu shouldnt take this personally - I am not accusing you or Kamal Aakarsh of puthrapasam rant. That bit was on the detractors. Your fault is that you didnt understand his precise usage of words. I stand by that. Yes, he didnt call Bhava's voice UNIQUE AND GOOD. Only Unique. I am sorry, I am not giving up on this because I know what I am talking about.

Yes, I will indulge in diatribe against people who make it their habit to misinterpret him. It is very unfortunate you are talking on their behalf - you know not how vile they are. Again, the unfortunate bit is you juxtaposing my diatribe against them and imagining that I was indirectly attacking Aakarsh. That is clearly not the case - and perhaps, I wasnt precise with my words there so I will put up my hands and say that yes, I gave scope for misinterpretation ON THAT POINT ALONE. But my original claim stands - IR didnt give you any scope, any misinterpretation is YOUR AND KAAMAL AAKARSH"S FAULT, and you two's alone

crimson king wrote:Context does not explain away the fact that it is, strictly speaking, incorrect.  And plenty of English prose and poetry, including even non fiction, is full of such liberties.  People take liberties in their everyday usage too.  I may concede that IR did not utilise such liberties in stating his opinion (and by the way I do not recall him singling out Bhava as 'unique only' and Nat in 'unique and good' category, they were lumped together but please feel free to correct me there).  But by the same standards of precision, that does not justify your rant at puthrapasam propaganda.  I have only tried to demonstrate the scope for misinterpretation built into the language.  If people misread that and accuse him of playing favourites with Bhava, it does not imply a vicious propaganda of the sort you have dreamed up here.  Dude, something's gotta give.  You can't hold onto pedantic precision on the one hand and wild flights of imagination on the other.  Is it not possible to simply say that IR's remarks were misinterpreted without indulging in a diatribe attacking the rest of the world, I mean, seriously?

Context is everything. It is called irony, It works like that by definition. How can you compare the two, I just cannot fathom for the life of me. It is a wrong example.

Wizzy wrote:

Placing her name in conjunction with mehdi and nat king cole, as well as the rest of the reply praising lata and sj, strongly suggests the interpretation that say akarsh derived.

IIRC he had even listed 'Banumathi Ramakrishna' so he was clearly talking about 'unique' voices and not his favs

Absolutely. idhai thAn thalapAdA sollindurukEn. People cooly defend their misinterpretation while accusing me of paranoia when I try to point out objectivelt that it was their mistake. That's just not fair or rational, Crimson!

Because what you are doing now is simply bashing a strawman. There may well be people who spread propaganda about it but you don't want to take it to a generalised extreme. What is it that goes on in various threads in the forum: dissecting every word written in a less than flattering light about IR for a propaganda angle. How, if I may, is this any different from the people who dissect his words for character flaws? Do two wrongs make a right? I am not taking up cudgels on 'their' behalf. This 'they' is a vague and nebulous entity that frankly doesn't deserve so much space on a forum meant to celebrate his music. But hey ho, it's a free world so please do carry on. Let me just say this though: the only reason I heard you out patiently is that as another fan I am sympathetic to your angst and understand your position. Please don't expect neutrals, much less the gumbal, to show that much patience. Try reading your rants as if they were intended for some other famous personality instead of IR and maybe you might understand why I said paranoia. Don't worry too much about his legacy. To paraphrase the 'great' MMS, history will judge him well. No more from me on this topic.

Yes, guilty as charged. We do have an agenda against certain people who historically have spread propaganda. Unfortunately, it is part of our legacy, of who we are. We have lived through it - the chief ranters, that is me and app, more so than others. If you are unhappy with it, bad luck, I understand how annoying it must be for you but I  don't think we are going to change much.

From time to time, we will be reasonable and I will point to app that BR doesn't have an agenda but when it comes to Vairamuthu, I will die hating that man, even if he gives up everything and becomes  a Mother Teresa in future. 
idhellAm oru puRam irukka, my angst against mis-interpretation of IR's words is ingrained now and you won't see a let-up on that either.

At the least, if people acknowledge that they could be wrong, maybe I will ignore it. But if you confidently, assertively state your interprettion, I will definitely point out where you re wrong, if you are wrong

Ok, so now I think I understand the context of the question and IR's answer. If he was indeed asked to simply name five "unique" voices and listed Bhava among them, it is perfectly fine. That is not tantamount to comparing her on any terms to the other 4 voices. IR can have his opinions - we may agree or even vehemently disagree with some/all of them. But hounding someone for merely having a disagreeable opinion is unwarranted, least of all someone as accomplished as IR.