Even though the questions raised in this thread have been completely addressed by me and I have moved on to another thread, I am compelled to address some misinformation that I came across. My interest is to ensure that people are not misled.
Stanzas or padams should not have odd number of lines excluding one, ie, it can have one line, two lines or four lines etc.
These are opinions written as guidelines
by theoreticians of various eras based on what they studied and/or believed in. Practical music, which combines melody, rhythm and lyrics in various interesting ways is an infinitely bigger subject. Numerous examples of what have been claimed as doshas
can be cited here. These are not
doshas at all. These are the very beauty of our great system which is constantly expanded by brilliant minds through processes of evolution or revolution. Tradition, as GNB often said, is not a frozen thing but a constant dynamic process.
1. One of the most well known songs will establish this beyond contest.
Mahaganapatim - Nattai - Muttuswami Dikshitar (MD) - Chaturashra Ekam.
How many cycles of tala does this have in Pallavi? Three.
What is the 2nd syllable in the opening line? hA
(mahA) What is the 2nd syllable in the madhyamakala in Pallavi? si.
Perhaps, the poster is not familiar with this song?
2. Now, an example from the song the poster has himself mentioned - Saraswati Manohari (which I had the privilege of learning from the inimitable Brindamma).
How many lines does anupallavi have? Three.
3. Another well known song: Vatapi - AP = 3 cycles.
4. Moving on to Tyagaraja, how many lines do Shree manini (Poornashadjam) and Evarichira (Madhyamavati) have? Three again...
I can give hundreds
more. But my point is not that. It is more that these are all not doshas if seen in the works of mega composers with proven track record such as Dikshitar, Tyagaraja, SS or OVK level composers.
They sought to expand and explore newer frontiers, keeping one thing uppermost in their inspired and scholarly minds - their personal artistic visions. [/i]
However, if composers of lesser merit employ such things, they would no doubt be viewed as flaws.
But there is one prasa which is a must in literary works, dwitiyakshara prasa. In this, the second letter of the first word in every should be the same.
Again, incorrect. The poster would do well to study literature from North India, South India and learn more about this. Does the poster know, for instance that Kalidasa or Valmiki have not employed much of dwitiyakshara prasa? Does the poster know the reason behind use of dwitiyakshara prasa seen in some Sanskrit literature? Since that is not in context here, I will not bore readers with this. Suffice to say that another 'dosha' has been negated. Also, note that the number of lines is 3 in pallavi which is odd both mathematically and literally. It is avartha bhangam. In other words, a stanza is not allowed to have odd number of lines. The same trend is followed in anu-pallavi and charanam by having 6 avartanams and 12 avartanams instead of 4 and 8 or 16.
The other thread covers this point but let me share a common sense perspective of it here. Cycle count of madhyamakalas are obviously half of what they would be in normal speed, since they are rendered at twice the speed.
2 cycles of normal speed + 1 cycle of double speed = 4 cycles of everything
in normal speed.
Any student practising sarali varishais
would be aware of this. Yet, the poster does not? Again, at surface level, it seems like a big point
but it cannot hold water even with someone at a sarali varishai level.
To sum it up, 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. Music is about observing realities from various sources, listening, learning, contemplating extensively, analysing deeply, gaining vast experience and then evaluating carefully
. Sometimes, the process can take years. It needs tons of patience, objectivity and humility. Hasty studies with wrong intent and negative mindsets about great people is not research.
It can be dangerous and self-defeating.