dear sureshvv , i think you got me totally wrong in your post # 97, when you said " Sometimes Professors in Physics have to be reminded of Newton's laws" I was referring the other way. It does not bring credit to the person who makes impolite comments on other person irrespective of what the other person is ' let alone a person of stature. "Yes master" attitude will not bring the facts out. on the other hand , one will be giving wrong signal to a person who is thriving hard to prove a point or two !

Let me hasten to make it clear that my posts are about issues. And I have endeavoured to focus on the issues and clarified every one of them, as best as possible.

The issue in this instance is that anyone who claims erudition enough to 'prove bhangas and doshas' of mahAnubhAvas and misses such a fundamental fact like speeds and tala counts and repeatedly lists it as a mistake of the composer, leaves himself/herself wide open for credentials to be questioned. This is nothing against any individual.

Composers of the stature of Trinity or OVK are oceans of nectar and beauty. They cannot be measured with or by teaspoons in a lifetime - I include myself in the spoon category. We can approach them with humility and get to savour their works and enrich ourselves...

Sirs, when i read post 90 of a great vidwan trying to remind me the basics when i pointed out the doshas of OVK 's composition, if someone says: "These are the very beauty of our great system " i do not know how to react to say the least ! I am again trying to clarify this for the last time , in the interest of our heritage and music, not to convince someone having obstinate ideas. I am not going to react any further for i am convinced it is futile to explain over and again for the same points . Instead I will try to give the analyses of more OVK's composition , certainly not to defame or insult a musician ( like i was insulted repeatedly for trying to bring out the truth) as often as possible . I furnish the following details again for any fair people to decide as they deem fit and appropriate.

* On odd avartha topic few references are given in post 90 and obviously seconded without a thought in post 91 citing two more kruthis. They are " Mahaganapathim, Vathapi, Saraswathi Manohari etc.,. The three avarthas so practiced is the contribution of musicians after the trinities for which composers are not responsible !. The proper methodology of singing these odd avrthas should be done by singing in madhyama kala once, then the same sahithya should be sung in keeulkaala next. ie, exactly similar to the sarale varase : once in 1st kaala, twice in second kaala and 4 times in 3 rd kaala. The solution so given by sri Purandaradasa in bala pata should be known to musical prodigy , i am sure. { in mahaganapathim , what i mean as correct method is : " Vasista vaama devadi vanditha should first be sung in madhyama kala and same in Keelkala and again in Madhyama kala so that odd avarthas do not occur.) It is the responsibility of the singers and one who scripts sahithya with notation , to ensure this . Whether any significant work has been done to avoid these odd avarthas in OVK's compositions by the prodigy who cites saralevarse for wrong reasons ?

* Since the truth is always bitter, if anyone points out these odd avarthana mistakes committed by famous vidwans, the person indicating these will always be ridiculed for what some people do will become a law by itself even if it is wrong as per paddhathi. The post proudly says that Saraswathi Manohari kruthi was learnt from a legend. Very good. But no one noticed , including child prodigy, the error in method of singing the portion " Saraseehuraakshi in 1st kaala and Murahara Sodari in madhyama kaala thus creating odd avartha , which is a blunder. Agreed that same has been printed in several books , preached and practiced in similar ways including true legends. The actual and correct method of tackling this is : the entire portion from sarasihurakhi to murahara sodari , should either be sung in madhyama kaala ot do the thrikaala of the same as in sarale varse ( for which i thank the poster for reminding me ). The reward i get for mentioning this truth is the polite remarks as in post 90 like
" reading a few books and quoting selectively does not add up to erudition. It is not even knowledge. It is just random pieces of improperly digested information " I wonder who is in need of the same !.

* Thanks for the free advice and teaching liberally. Sorry sirs. i may not accept the same for my ancestors in Chintalapally Parampara, having over 800 years of documented history , is just not a couple of generations . My ancestors learnt from accepted great personalities like " Valajpet VRB, Pallavi Sheshayya, Mysore Sadashiva Rao, Karur Ramaswamappa, Ponniah Pilley, Palghat Anantha rama bhagavatar, Panju Iyyer etc, Many of my earlier ancestors like Sangeetha Raya Thimmanna, even received award from AdilShaw of Bahamani kingdom got award in 1610, OVK was not even born ! My immediate heads of two generations , My great grand father Chintala palli Venkata Rao and my Grand father Chitala palli Ramachandra Rao donned 'aasthana vidwan in several royal courts including Mysore , with whom this writer had the reasonably lengthier period of learning the several traditional finer aspects of music including on how to tackle odd avarthas. I am willing to demonstrate this to anyone on any forum

* At another instance , the same poster says Subbarama Dixitar was unaware of Annamacharya ! This proves that SSP has not been read properly. Because SDixitar has clearly refers "Pedda and Chinna Thirumalacharya and Thalapakkam Composers. Persons who spends more time on latching on somebody's grammatical errors like limpets should at least question the person instead of nodding for everything. OVK was not a Bhaskara raya's pupil at all. when this was proved irrefutably why no one questions the person who stated the otherwise ?

* Regarding dwithiyaakshara Prasa, It is the wonderful innovation and invention of South Indian literature . Valmikhi, Kalidasa, Dandi, Bhasa et al, belong to North India and hence followed NI culture which concentrate more on AnthyaPrasa , Anuprasa etc., BUT almost all our South Indian poets like " Kamba ( Tamil), Nannaya (Telugu) , Pampa and Kumaravyasa (Kannada ) , Eluthachchan ( Malayalam) etc, who were inspired by these great works of NI poets and either created their own poetry or translated, have compulsorily followed dwithiyaakshara prasa in their works. Also 'Kurul and Vennba' in Tamil, Haridasa Sahithya in Kannada, Badrachala Ramadasa and even Trinities in Telugu and Sanskrit have followed this as Sacrosanct . Our time greats like upto Dr BalamuraliKrishna have not violated this rule either , If OVK 's compositions contains these errors, it is there for every one to see where OVK 's order is . Can he be compared with trinities ?. What can one say about people who give examples of North Indian poets as examples for south Indian niceties ? They must study south indian literature right from basics thoroughly or ratherThey should read post 90 and follow what they preach others. Neither the Praasa, nor meaning should be at fault along with appropriate chandas to be a good vaggeyakaaras like trinities. I finally reiterate that OVK's parts of the kruthis do contain some errors , which are found in abundance with modern composers . Therefore these errors keep reflecting the fact that OVK is NOT a pretrinity composer nor possessed the standards of trinity. Hence forth all my reply ( if at all i decide to react ) will only pertain to the topic in the interest of our heritage not as reply to some impertinent or rude questions.

If so, how is it a dOSha of only OVK?!!



This argument is absolutely with no authority. It is contrary to all practices of our great system. The proof of the flaw of this statement is obvious - not even the trinities' disciples have followed this, going by the well known fact that their versions have been handed down faithfully till date. Can the poster show a single disciple who has rendered in the way the poster prescribes above? Can the poster show a single treatise which says Madhyamakalas should be rendered thus?



Indeed, yes! And it was not given for songs with Madhyamakalas! It was for varishais. Songs with odd avartanas are just that. And I repeat, they are not dOShas - whether it is MD, OVK or Tyagaraja.



The poster has omitted the examples of Shree Manini and Evarichira of Tyagaraja with 3 avartanas, which are not in Madhyamakala!!!.



I have addressed OVK's brilliant command of not only South Indian but also North Indian prAsa rules in the other thread. I refer the poster to kindly go over those.



We have to be consistent and take our pick. Examples have been given to prove that both OVK and Trinity have done this. Either
(a) everyone is breaking rules now and then (b) everyone has shown they know the rules but have chosen expanded the system.

Readers can make their own conclusions...

Dear sirs, with post # 102 , sri Ravikiran is back with what is needed. More of subject and politeness. But sri Shastry appears to vent out all that he has unjustly taken, with so many details, it will take quite a bit of time for a commoner or simple music lovers to know and come in terms of the complicity involved. I feel sri Shastry could have been more diplomatic and polite in narration. In the next post Sri Ravikiran 's analyses to furious and harsh comments on OVK hurled, is to the point and polite. This is the hall mark of all learned ones and liked by all. Now that it is squared and a tie, in next T20 arguements can we expect more precise and healthy debate ?. My conclusion is USA has erred in not appointing these two analysts. They would have easily traced Osama much earlier with all the details with comparisions with their skill and knowledge alone !

Sampath ji



Till I last checked, I was not aware that you had been freshly appointed as the moderator of this forum !!! If you are scared, learn to face them, dear Sir!!



I would like to remind the same to you too. This discusssion is not about Mr Shastry's achievements, knowledge or vidvat nor about his lineage. It is about OVK. So lets focus on all the counter-points given by Shri Ravikiran that clearly answers and clarifies all the questions raised by Mr Shastry, including post no 104.

[edit] deleted comments.

Mr Shastry,



In post 91, I had mentioned ‘amba neelayatakshi’ too that has 3 avartanams and does not have a madhyama kalam. So would be offering a weird solution for this too?!!



I am not even a prodigy but even I know that we repeat Sarali varishai only if it finishes in half avartanam. Shastry has again conclusively proved further ignorance about Sarali varishai !!!



Any book of Dikshitar and other composers will underline sections in Madhyamakala which means that they should be sung only in double speed !!!!
Rendering a madhyakala section in slow speed as Shastry says is equivalent to murdering the composer’s work. This means that Shastry cannot read notation !!



Do you mean to say that says all the legends who have been rendering this way and all the books published are wrong !!!??



Is there any stated rule in any book that stops a South Indian composer from using North Indian prAsa rules?



This clearly shows that you have not followed post # 90 of Shri Ravikiran where 'Maha ganapatim' has been quoted as an example where the dwiteeyakshara prasa has been broken in the pallavi itself.

Yet another ghost-post from Shastry !

Thanks.

People: Why don't we let Sri. Ravikiran and Sri. Sasthri debate this in the manner they choose? These two are adults who can take care of themselves without defense from others. There have been rough patches but otherwise it has been quite informative. All these side commentaries with the personal putdowns and ridicule are getting to be annoying. Yes, one side would say they are reacting to the other side's ridicule. There is no end to it. Just stop that please. Of course, everyone can pitch in about points raised in the debate, ask further questions, provide a summary etc. but do that without bringing down the debaters.

Now back to the debate.

@hamsaa: You make great points and these may stand out even better if you omit the mild ribbing which seems to distract Shastry ji from making his points clearly without anger.

deciding the period of a composer from some "doshas " is full of pitfalls. Hundreds of Rasikas who are watching this thread have an arduous job.I wish to put them on guards by citing an example of false syllogism which i read somewhere.I would put it this way:
" there are prasa doshas in OVKs compositions
similar doshas are found in modern composers
So O V K is a modern composer."
compare this with the following:
Socrates is mortal
any cat is mortal
So Socrates is a cat.
Shri Ravikiran has given many examples showing such doshas exist in Thyagaraja , MD , etc...
So these composers are also modern and POST TRINITY.!!

Shri Ravikiran has given many examples showing such doshas exist in Thyagaraja , MD , etc...
can we say" kritis attributed to Thiagaraja,MD .". in lieu of what is quoted above?

Of course!

VK - Amen to that I would probably put the word 'annoying' in bold!

There does not seem to be any doubt about the authenticity of the krtis under discussion like Evarichira, Mahaganapatim, Amba neelayatakshi and others

As far as I can see from the above posts, Shri Ravikiran’s contention seems to be that these are not even doshas, but developments which have made our system one of the most popular in the world.

I feel that over reliance on books, however authentic, will imprison Carnatic Music to the confines of libraries.

Sirs again more noise is heard which are beyond topic. A comment like this will not bring to anybody when hamsa says "I am not even a prodigy but even I know that we repeat Sarali varishai only if it finishes in half avartanam. Shastry has again conclusively proved further ignorance about Sarali varishai !!! '' Obviously it is the beyond the capacity of hamsa to understand what sri Ravikiran or Sri Shasthry are saying on " odd avarthas " . A comment like that only proves one point.: The age old saying " yathaa raaja thathaa prajaa "

Sirs please read in my above post "A comment like this will not bring CREDIT to anybody" instead of "A comment like this will not bring to anybody"

Sirs I totally agree with post no #115 - doyoucare , what he says. It is high time we should leave the two learned ones alone for obviously they have their lot of their good time and put in a very very hard work to achieve such degree of knowledge. Sri OVK was unheard by many except by vidhwans of the caliber, before sri RK conducted workshops and demonstrations of his kruthis in aradhanas etc., Similarly what Sri Shasthry or sri MSA saying or their input is too good. Let us not give cold splash to anyone so as to drive one to disgust about the whole topic, who's main switch is MUSIC !!

"Sri OVK was unheard by many except by vidhwans of the caliber, before sri RK conducted workshops and demonstrations of his kruthis in aradhanas etc., "!!!

* AS far back as 1960-64 ,NKB used to stay in Madurai months together &conduct kathakalakshebam in Thallakulam temple ,Madurai..
*We used to go &learn during his leisure @the place of his stay -I remember for a moderate fees of Rs.10/-per song including" Bhajanamruta -Nattai-One of the Suptaretnas" &one in Jayanthsri (NERADASAMA NEELAKRISHANA)-The raga I first came to know of through that Kriti.
*Ramnad Sri. Sankara Sivam permitted OVK songs to be rendered even during Thiagaraja Aradhana (of course at a later part of the prog).
*I have also heard doyens like TNS used to clarify with one elderly professor woman in Trivandrum those days on rare ones of OVK.She still has a lot of rare thillanas to teach I am told.
*I also understand that Sri. Tiruvengadu Jayaraman knew all the Saptaretnas.*Popular songs like Thaye yeshoda(MMI famous neraval in Kalinil silambu-those days this neraval used to be imitated by even uninitiated in places like Virudunager near madurai&,Alaipayude were doing the rounds in dance circles.

To be quite honest, the empirical evidence set aside, it is highly improbable that OVK was a post trinity composer. Considering that Sri Tyagaraja himself lived past the eras of both sri Dikshitar and sri Syama Syastri (approx. until 1847) and to think that a composer would compose almost 400 or so KNOWN krithis (each a diamond to be admired) and most of them be lost and then later discovered post Thyagaraja seems to be a tale of a stubborn skeptic. OVK's style of sanskrit in his compositions, as well as tributes/references to composers such as in Padmavati Ramanam and Bhajanamruta suggest a much earlier life span. Furthermore, it would be pure common sense to think that if OVK lived after the time of the trinity, there would be more reference/popularity/knowing of him in the music circle by a wide variety of scholars and musicians (considering the wide variety of masterpieces he composed), however we see the opposite when in fact most of the knowledge of him in the 20th century was confined to a select group of people.

Furthermore dealing with the odd number of avarthanams, in Sri Dikshitar's Ahiri Navavarnam, in the pallavi, specifically the line "sripura bindu madhyasta..." the avarthanam count for rupakam comes out to be 7. I think such "inconsistencies" can be attributed to the greatness of these respective composers and the artistic licences they can take in order to bring out the true essence of the ragam or portray bhavam.

It is a subjective argument to try and prove that OVK is not on par with the trinity. It is highly opinionated and cannot be proven with fact. In my opinion it is the higher route for all musicians to respect the great musicians, vageyakkaras, and composers of the past without belittling their achievements over petty arguments about the _____, ______, and _______ being better. Ravikiran sir said it perfectly when he stated how composers should be evaluated in terms of quality and substance. We should not be biased against non trinity composers because of insecure beliefs that no one before the trinity could be on par with them in terms of scholarship, complexity, or accomplishments. Carnatic Music was not spontaneous and I would strongly argue that the trinity did not see themselves as the patron saints of our great music. Our music has evolved over time. If this is true then why is it hard for anyone to conceive the possibility that OVK achieve the greatest of accomplishments attributed to the trinity, before the trinity?

Every great composer is a god given gift meant to keep our music refreshed and ever evolving. To stubbornly argue that one composer is lesser than others, without providing objective and accurate facts seems to be counterproductive.

Scratching History beyond a point/limit is akin to velai illatha ambattan poonai mudiyai sarachan What difference does it make if OVK lived in the 1st century or the 22nd century!
Let us enjoy the beauty of the compositions be it OVK, Trinity, ST, or others and carry on >>......

Ravikiran has done a wonderful job on this and the efforts on popularising OVK kritis is indeed laudable. So does Srikantham Sastry who has vast knowledge. Lets take out the best and move on ....

you said it musicfan ! i second it. the observation on " what difference.... " is bothering me also. Hope we will have more informative and healthy discussion !

I completely agree with many of you. In absolute terms, the value of OVK, Trinity, PD, Annamacharya, Kshetragna and several other greats are beyond time-space contexts. Being primarily a student of beauty and quality, I have focussed over 90% of my energies on sharing only those with respect to OVK, over the last 20-25 years - be it concerts/lectures/courses/books/articles.

However, in the context of this thread, we can definitely say that the primary evidence - which is luckily available to us in the form of the descendants of OVK's brother's family as well as OVK's own works, assumes significance. Family records - in a country like India - can be accurate only to a certain extent but they cannot be off by more than a few decades. Even though Needamangalam Krishnamurthy Bhagavatar arrived at 1680s as the possible birth period OVK, my studies so far have not been able to take this conclusion at par.

Weighing all the available facts and corraborations I have shared in this thread as well as evidence from his prolific works, we can unhesitatingly conclude that

(a) the period of OVK's birth could be anywhere in the earlier part of the 18th cent.
(b) he was not and could never have been a recent or modern composer.

I will update rasikas as and when I unearth any more pertinent information. Meantime, I will share further examples to illustrate his multi-dimensional genius, which will enable all of us appreciate not only his distinct style but also the magnitude of his definitive contributions.

Dear sirs,

it is indeed a ground breaking discussion going on here. As a keen music student, i found that certain points were left in between due to some distractions...

A major one is that Mr. Shastry conclusively tells that OVK is not a disciple of bhaskara raya. Assuming tht is true, since nobody proved otherwise, then whose disciple was OVK, or was he a srividya upasaka at all? if not, then what is the significance of his navavaranas?

Another interesting point is about attributing the number 9 to sankirna which was also lost midway. When was no. 9 given to sankirna and where is it mentioned? We know that trinities have composed in all 7 suladi talas which has everything except sankirnam. That again leaves room for confusion, i feel...

The third unconcluded point was regarding ragas like jayanthasri etc. for which we, common people, think the lakshya and lakshana were given by tyagaraja. But compositions like neeradasama again remains as an irony in which case is it possible that someone retuned the compositions like what is done for purandara dasa or annamacharya compositions...

In my humble opinion, I feel that the discussion would be incomplete without attending to these points...

Regards
Anoop.