A comment response

aandthirtyeights left this comment on the previous post.. Now as much as I am hard-pressed for time with crazy work schedules, I felt my head will shatter into a million pieces like the vetala-carrying Vikramaditya.

Our music is not, and I repeat, not static. Dikshitar kritis are not sung (even by the PETD) the way he composed them. If the PETD believes so, they are requested to just consult the SSP, and vow that they sing every song, exactly as it is in the book, including the gamaka symbols. TM Krishna sang Balagopala in that format, and I'm sorry - that is not the Bhairavi we sing these days. Raga aesthetics have changed, and will continue to change. The PETD is merely freezing these aesthetics in some arbitrary date that it finds convenient and believes to be 'traditional'.


No one claims music needs to be static nor do we take offence at disagreements. However I think we need to examine the underlying facts before taking claims at face value:

- Undue reliance and interpretation based purely on notation (and ignoring oral traditions) is unreliable given that notation schemes are rudimentary at best despite all the gamaka symbols that were employed in the SSP. Anyone with an inkling of common sense of musical aesthetics will know how 'flat' compositions will sound when sung ‘exactly’ as per notations. Which is why I believe that oral traditions and musicians who preserve these traditions (A sample set: Brinda&Mukta, Rama Ravi, S.Rajam, DKP, B.Rajam Iyer, Kalpakam Swaminathan, Prof.SR Janakiraman, R.Vedavalli, Smt.Vidya Shankar and their shishya paramparas to name a few) are much more valuable.

- So, Yes while no one can be sure of how Dikshitar 'composed' really we can reasonably understand these dynamics if we place a higher judgement on 'oral traditions' as opposed to notational deconstruction. These traditions are hardly 200-250 yrs old unlike the Veda pathas of namboodiris etc .

- Example : Smt.Kalpakam Swaminathan or S.Rajam or DKP learnt composition X from Ambi Dikshitar, Anantakrishna Iyer or Vedanta Bhagavatar in the 1930's, Dhanammal and Tiruppamburam Swaminatha Pillai learnt from Panju Iyer in the pre-1930s era.

- All of theirs exhibit a common structural fidelity, commonness in the raga aesthetics ( minor changes are there amongst schools which is different). Whereas when you compare them to other musicians who-shall-not-be-named-here who are guilty of the CDKs listed they vary significantly and in some cases it involves a complete loss of melodic quality and composer-characteristics and it is these changes that are being alluded to in the previous post.

- Based on the above assumption, we can safely assume that the former Musicians sang it like as it is today ( more or less) this in the period 1930's. Now say Vedanta Bhagavatar has met and also learnt from Subbarama Dikshitar himself and Ambi Dikshitar obviously must have learnt from Subbarama Dikshitar himself.

- Third you have compositions of say the Tanjore quartet handed over to their Shishya paramparas and these auxilliary sources to give you clues about MD's compositional style.

- Now based on the above if someone says singing per notation will sound ‘completely’ different from the Bhairavi of today as you mention there are only four logical explanations:

Case 1 : Ambi Dikshitar and the people following him effected the changes in Bhairavi. In which case one has to agree that Ambi Dikshitar was clearly a bigger genius than Dikshitar as he introduced all those brilliant gamakas. However his own compositions do not reflect such quality.So this premise does not seem plausible.

Case 2: SD in his SSP did not record things the way it was during his time but somehow did some time travelling and notated them as he thought it was two centuries ago. But he somehow taught these differently to Ambi Dikshitar and others. The ttraditionalist and loyalist he was who takes shots at naveenargal this premise is not plausible.

Case 3: SD actually made the changes but for some reason recorded them differently in the book.
Same reason as above.


Case 4: The notation system that SD came up with was skeletal at best. Indian music notation was in rudimentary form in 1904 and it was only an aid to supplement oral teaching

IMO, the only fair explanation is Case 4.

So yes if you think expectations of some stylistic consistency and composer-specific aesthetics are ‘freezing’ I have no further comments. I am all for change, however the change needs to be of the kind that enhances musical aesthetics not change that makes compositions sound like shorn sheep. And when I mean change I mean changes made to suit the contemporary 'Kutcheri' format not the minor shifts in Arunacalanatham between school A and school B.

A PETD manifesto

On behalf of the People for Ethical Treatment of Dikshitar Krtis (PETD), we hereby urge law-makers to make CDK a punishable offence under Article 476. CDK or Cruelty to Dikshitar KRtis is anything including but not limited to the following:

1.Deshadi meets Dikshitar

This and the tatti eduppu kinds begin songs with 'Kari' , a pause and a forceful tap on the thigh and then 'KaLabha mukham' almost like the hungy man in the pandi yelling for potato curry.


2.The Anandanatanaprakasha jati mutilators

This is the kind that is of the opinion that Dikshitar crossed the boundaries of music by venturing into jatis in AnandanatanaprakAsam(Kedaram) and unilaterally decide to cut off the jatis. Specimens of this kind are typically found in instrumental schools.

3.The Not-so-asampurna schools

It is for them that Shakespeare said "A rose is a rose is a rose" and Godel wrote the completeness theorem for them. After all, "a raga is a raga is a raga and everything asampurna is inherently sampurna". Of course we need all 7 notes and we need them both the ascent and descent. For this the kind, Mudduvenkatamakhi is indistinguishable from Govinda. Their Ramamanohari morphs into Ramapriya and Chakravaham is nothing but Vegavahini.

4.Straight? Vakra? Who cares? .

This may seem like a minor offence but the widespread prevalence of it makes us wonder otherwise. Some people consider all Samas and Sarangas to be the same and ignore the vakra prayogas.

5.All talas are created equally & can be used interchangeably

And then there are those consider tala to be a convenience. It is typically the chApu chaps who indulge in this. Why even bother with the eka tAlas when there's mishra cApu and KhaNda cApu?

6.The 'all-swara' Anandabhairavists and 'any-dhaivata ritigaulaists'

And those that sing their antara gAndharas and kAkali nishAdas in profusion in their Anandabhairavi. They are generally marked by vague notions of license, open-mindedness and arguments of "says who" and lakshana is nothing but lakshya of the next generation

7.The Patnam Muthuswami Iyer school

This school believes that a gauri or a hastivadanaya is way too soporific for their average kutcheri audience. So they invoke the name of their favorite composer namely Patnam Subrahmanya Iyer and imagine how Dikshitar KRtis would sound if it were composed by him. As a result, we have shrI rajagopala closely resembling etu NamminA.

8.Specialization in the spurious

This may be treated as a 'minor' offence due to the vagueness of the classificatory law. However we still classify this as an offence. The main distinguishing characteristic of this school is that when there is a grander, authentic composition and another composition which is smaller, of doubtful authenticity, they will always have a repertoire which prefers the latter. It runs somewhat along these lines:
1.Sing shrI krishnam bhaja but not shrI subrahmanyo mAm
2.Sing govardhana girIsham but not nIrajAkshi kAmAkshi
3.Sing Shri rangapura vihara but not saundararAjam
4.Sing MarakatavallIm but not KAshi vishvEshvara..
5.Sing sEnApate but not sundararAjam

FootNote:
Once again a mostly-truthful yet tongue-in-cheek post. If at all someone is offended by this post, they really should'nt be reading this blog.