sangathis sung twice

thenpaanan · Post by **thenpaanan** » 14 Sep 2009, 18:52

Does any one know the origin of the CM practice of singing every sangati twice? Even though some great artists have departed from this rule at times (MDR, Voleti, BMK, etc) you can tell that even for these folks repeating a sangati is the strong pattern to consciously depart from. The overwhelming majority of us follow this practice, even though (to me) there is no obvious reason to do so.

Is this facet of CM explicitly addressed either in ancient or contemporary scholarly works? Sometimes the two repetitions of the same line make a musical statement by themselves but in most cases I feel that the point is not being made. I have heard many a senior vidwan sing some umpteen sangatis for a line, each with minor increment of change, and even so sing each minor variation twice. Why?

Are there other musical systems where this practice is observed or is this unique to CM?

-Then Paanan

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 14 Sep 2009, 19:44

Good question. IMHO, it shows the proficiency of the artist in the raagam and his/her effort to emphasize certain words in the lyrics to enhance emotional impact.

srikant1987 · Post by **srikant1987** » 14 Sep 2009, 19:48

For revision.

If you missed some point, you can catch it in the repetition. And also, singing twice means you're singing with memory and not improvising on the spot (that too without committing to memory your improvisation). To emphasise that it's kalpita sangItam and not manodharmam.

thenpaanan · Post by **thenpaanan** » 14 Sep 2009, 20:11

srikant1987 wrote:For revision. If you missed some point, you can catch it in the repetition. And also, singing twice means you're singing with memory and not improvising on the spot (that too without committing to memory your improvisation). To emphasise that it's kalpita sangItam and not manodharmam.

By this reason (emphasizing that it is not manodharma) I would ask the question: when does the repetition start? By this argument, Tyagaraja would have sung each sangati only once (since it is kalpitasangeetham to him) but his disciples would have sung it twice to make sure they got it right.

Further along, their disciples in turn would have imitated the first set of disciples not knowing why each sangati was being sung twice and the first set of disciples not willing to admit that they were just trying to be sure.

-Then Paanan

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 14 Sep 2009, 21:19

Then paanan,
Somewhere along the way it might have become a custom. Perhaps deliberate too. Look at the benefits!
To start with, the singer and the listener establish the line (its meaning, impact) in their minds. When you move on to the second sangati with the same line, the musical (decorative) aspects also are in focus (for both).
We are happy when we 'know' what words are contained in the line, if the singer is slurring. So it is a plus, as far as I am concerned.

From a composer's point of view: yes please! Kindly repeat the line so that you know what I mean.
I am organizing my music as per order

of Rajesh, Lakshman and others and I am looking at a vAcaspati song at the moment.
the pallavi goes like this:

cendil vElanE! alai karai amarndaruLum (cendil)
Ideally (composer's wish), it should go like this--

cendil vElanE! cendil vElane! (the line here lends itself to repeating half the line first)
cendil vElanE! alai karai amarndaruLUm
Then, 2nd sangati: Cendil vE....lanE alai karai amarndaruLum and so on to the next.

Then, there are lines in a song which end with a word which can only be tagged on to the next line. So, what do you do? Leave the last word out and repeat the line again and then take the word to the next line. When the singers ignore this, it means they are not paying full attention to the sense in the song!
Anyway, I think repetition brings into focus the import of the line. It also shows that the singer respects this form of tradition for her own benefit and for that of the listener. You may get familiar with a new kruti which you really like, even at the first hearing!
Then again, repetition in a blah concert can be boring, I guess!

girish_a · Post by **girish_a** » 14 Sep 2009, 22:28

Repeating the same line twice (or more) is also the practice in Bhajans. From this, I would suggest that the practice of repeating the sangathis in CM has a devotional purpose than anything else.

I am just guessing...

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 14 Sep 2009, 23:22

That too, especially in the bhajana sense.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 15 Sep 2009, 01:25

This reminds me of a funny exchange with my friend's younger brother who was learning violin. He was playing one of the smaller songs of Thyagaraja. My friend asked him, why do you keep repeating the same thing? His response was, if I do not do that, the whole song will be over in 1.5 minutes.

I think he actually over-estimated it

In the typical speed with which those small songs are sung, it takes 6 seconds for one avarthanam. 4 avarthanams for pallavi, 1 avarthanam for wrap-around, 2 avarthanams of anupallavi, 1 avarthanam for pallavi repeat, 3 avarthanams for charanam, 1 avarthanam for pallavi repeat, so you have 12 avarthanams. So the whole song will be over in 72 seconds

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 15 Sep 2009, 01:47

This is so in one liner " pAgAi urugu nenchE, pankaja lochanai ninainthu "

Suji Ram · Post by **Suji Ram** » 15 Sep 2009, 02:07

It is for the violinist perhaps- they can get it perfect the second time. just kidding..

I always wonder how violinist can play in a fraction of second the same sangati the vocalists are singing.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 15 Sep 2009, 02:34

Suji,
You violinists (and flutists. flautists) are a brighter lot than the vocalists, I suppose

Vocalists repeat everything they sing and yet wonder how the violinists can learn then and there and reproduce even from songs they have not heard before

VKokilam,What does your friend say about pallavi lines?

mohan · Post by **mohan** » 15 Sep 2009, 05:15

I've noticed that duet singers and or those who sing with disciples are stricter with the repeating of sangatis. This is logical as it ensures some consistency in rendition.

A singer may opt to sing a sangati only once if the concert has a time constraint and she wants to present a number of different items in the concert.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 15 Sep 2009, 07:06

Of course, for dance, you need to repeat lines several times. Personally, I like meaningful or very descriptive lines when they are repeated many times. When the words flow and have a pleasing sound to them, it is even better--just as in a pallavi line.

vmr · Post by **vmr** » 15 Sep 2009, 11:02

GNB Sir's rendering of Samaja vara gamana in Hindolam is one where he repeats the Pallavi line about 10 or 12 times with variations in each of the sangathi. This is totaly top of the world example of how sangathis are to be rendered.....

thenpaanan · Post by **thenpaanan** » 15 Sep 2009, 20:14

vmr wrote:GNB Sir's rendering of Samaja vara gamana in Hindolam is one where he repeats the Pallavi line about 10 or 12 times with variations in each of the sangathi. This is totaly top of the world example of how sangathis are to be rendered.....

Combining this with Suji Ram's observation that repetition may be for the accompanist, one case where repetition (and here I mean repeating the exact same sangati twice every time) is useful is for the violinist to play that sangati perfectly when it is repeated. But even this reason falters: there seem to be two schools of thought on sangati singing and tradition. On the one hand we have "traditionalists" such as DKP/DKJ, SSI, MSS, Rajam Iyer, etc who prided themselves on being almost perfect recorders of tradition and not changing a single note if possible. On the other hand, artists like MDR, BMK, GNB, etc took a more liberal attitude towards sangati singing. And guess which camp follows the "sing all sangatis twice" rule religiously? It is the former.

GNB used to literally pack his kriti singing with a significant number of original sangatis which should be treated as kalpita sangita and hence it is entirely appropriate that GNB sang each one twice (which he did, but not fastidiously). When we can predict precisely what the next sangati is going to be for DKP/DKJ/SSI/MSS etc, what is the need to sing each sangati twice? Even if you have disciples singing along, you can always practise the precise set ahead of time (as DKP/DKJ/MSS used to do) -- indeed you will _need_ to sing twice only if you choose a random set of sangatis on the fly to deliver on each occasion (as SSI used to do) so your disciples can catch on and sing the repetition correctly (you can sometimes hear SSI's disciples singing tentatively the first time and with much more confidence in the repetition).

Re: the case of repetition in the Bhajanai tradition is somewhat different, I think. In a bhajanai, the first time a line is sung the lead singer sings alone (or with his main support). The second time that same line is sung, everyone in the audience sings along. It is crucial that the second time be identical to the first time, otherwise the setup simply will not work. Since no one in the audience is singing along in a CM concert (ignoring the mamas who insist on sitting in the front rows and giving a secondary kutcheri of their own

), I dont see the parallel.

-Then Paanan

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 15 Sep 2009, 20:46

>When we can predict precisely what the next sangati is going to be for DKP/DKJ/SSI/MSS etc, what is the need to sing each sangati twice?

Well, for the audience. They can definitely enjoy listening to a good sangathi twice.

Arasi already pointed out the aesthetic difference between A>B vs A->A->B , so even a simple repetition has its differences in the transitions, both in terms of sahitya, swaras and possibly eduppu.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 15 Sep 2009, 21:08

In sAi bhajan, first round repeat twice in slow beat and second round repeat once in fast beat

thenpaanan · Post by **thenpaanan** » 16 Sep 2009, 08:00

arasi wrote:Then paanan,
Somewhere along the way it might have become a custom. Perhaps deliberate too. Look at the benefits!
To start with, the singer and the listener establish the line (its meaning, impact) in their minds. When you move on to the second sangati with the same line, the musical (decorative) aspects also are in focus (for both).
We are happy when we 'know' what words are contained in the line, if the singer is slurring. So it is a plus, as far as I am concerned.

I can believe this argument if the practice were to simply repeat the first sangati twice so that the words get embedded in the listener's mind. After the first sangati, the idea that you have to repeat each sangati twice to get the words does not hold. The later sangatis are precisely musical decoration. Otherwise we should sing slightly different words or sing the words with different emphasis (a sangati on the words! why not?) -- something to make it worth the while, rather than a mechanical thing.

arasi wrote: From a composer's point of view: yes please! Kindly repeat the line so that you know what I mean.
I am organizing my music as per order of Rajesh, Lakshman and others and I am looking at a vAcaspati song at the moment.
the pallavi goes like this:

cendil vElanE! alai karai amarndaruLum (cendil)
Ideally (composer's wish), it should go like this--

cendil vElanE! cendil vElane! (the line here lends itself to repeating half the line first)
cendil vElanE! alai karai amarndaruLUm
Then, 2nd sangati: Cendil vE....lanE alai karai amarndaruLum and so on to the next.

Then, there are lines in a song which end with a word which can only be tagged on to the next line. So, what do you do? Leave the last word out and repeat the line again and then take the word to the next line. When the singers ignore this, it means they are not paying full attention to the sense in the song!
Anyway, I think repetition brings into focus the import of the line. It also shows that the singer respects this form of tradition for her own benefit and for that of the listener. You may get familiar with a new kruti which you really like, even at the first hearing!

As a singer who sings kritis composed by others, I would ask that composers write the kriti exactly as they expect it to be sung. I would not treat your case as repetition, since you are making a point by repeating the line somewhat differently. This is not the case with the way we sing most kritis in CM today! I think , if something is to be sung twice (as desired and designed by the composer) it should appear twice in the lyrics -- that would mark the difference between repetition for musical emphasis and repetition for some other reason. Otherwise we have the endless confusion that we have today with our existing lyrics -- not knowing where to break, where to stop, and what to repeat. We have endless arguments whether singing sundArini in 'dArini telusukonTi' makes sense. If Tyagaraja's disciples had written them down exactly as sung, we would not be in this predicament today.

arasi wrote: Then again, repetition in a blah concert can be boring, I guess!

I am looking at it from the aesthetic point of view. What is the aesthetic or musical value of repetition? I believe that the answer is something deeper that I cannot articulate. My sense is that in CM there is a hidden communication going on between performer and listener (more so than in Hindustani music, just to take a point of comparison). When a singer sings Bhairavi or Todi or Kambhoji, there are standard phrases that the listeners wait for and hearing them gives them a sense of satisfaction, notwithstanding the fact that the same phrase (e.g. M,GP,Ds,) is heard in practically every exposition of Kambhoji no matter how short the alapanai. Furthermore, these standard phrases are all over the place, so much so that a short alapanai completely filled only with stock phrases would be considered a success in CM (less so though not entirely in HM). Perhaps repeating sangatis performs the same function?

I am now reaching well beyond the levels of my expertise.

-Then Paanan

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 16 Sep 2009, 15:21

A one-time colleague of mine would have answered this question, "because once is not enough but three times would be too many".

I hesitate (at least this once) before being trite in a conversation between serious musicians, composers and rasikas, and we used to groan on the many occasions that colleague used to employ his repetitions --- but sometimes, perhaps, things can be that simple?

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 16 Sep 2009, 18:09

Thenpaanan,
If aesthetics are sacrificed (musical and lyrical), then there is nothing there for us to enjoy. I do see it the way you do. Also, if the lyrics are just nAmAvali, with repetitions, they belong more in a bhajanai than in a concert hall--by which I mean there, the bhakthAs supply the emotional element automatically.
We have no doubt that T's krutis naturally qualify because of their rich emotive lyrics and musical richness too. Even those who do not consider MD's krutis as lyrically emotive--because they do not describe personal ardor or are 'baring the soul' as in T's songs--can marvel at their musical excellence and the rAga bhAvam in them.
An exponent of CM can succeed in bringing out the merits in both sAhityam and the music, and repetitions in such a case enhance the rendering. As for repeating ensuing lines, is it necessary? Depends. I am not thinking of fillers here but of heavier krutis. In a good composition, there are lines which are worthy of a neraval and they are worth repeating--not all the lines, I agree.
Anyway, even a gem of a song can suffer when the musician does not internalize the impact of the song. The song leaves us cold (in a bhajanai, it is different. where the bhakthas suppy most of the emotion).
Without internalizing the music, whatever level the musician is at, he can only produce a mechanical rendition.
When the performer makes the bhAvam of the song and of the ragam her own, then I am very happy indeed with the results.

Lakshman · Post by **Lakshman** » 17 Sep 2009, 01:03

arasi in post 11 wrote: You violinists (and flutists. flautists) are a brighter lot than the vocalists, I suppose Vocalists repeat everything they sing and yet wonder how the violinists can learn then and there and reproduce even from songs they have not heard before

This is very true. Some years ago, at the Cleveland Aradhana, a well known artist sang a song the rAgA of which I did not recognize.
At the end of the concert, I approached the violinist (an excellent local artist) and asked for the name of the rAgA. To my surprise the answer was: 'I have no idea. I just played the notes by just listening to the artist singing'!

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 17 Sep 2009, 10:12

Lakshman,
A revealing moment!
So, it is that keen musical sense which they possess. It helps when an unknown rAgam is sprung on them.Not a deficiency after all, not knowing the Ragam and the ArOhaNa avarOhaNam!

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 17 Sep 2009, 13:33

Back in my carnatic infancy (I am, as yet, still in childhood) I asked a violinist if he was ever faced with ragas he did not know. He replied, "regularly. We just have to see which note is high, which note is low...". It is one of the things that I hold in awe about this music, that accompanists must, and can, accompany that which they do not even know!

karthikbala · Post by **karthikbala** » 23 Sep 2009, 09:47

Lakshman wrote: At the end of the concert, I approached the violinist (an excellent local artist) and asked for the name of the rAgA. To my surprise the answer was: 'I have no idea. I just played the notes by just listening to the artist singing'!

I'de say this ability is de rigeur for accompanists. I remember on occasions the violinist playing for Rishabhapriya, Kokilavarali pieces without having encountered the ragas before. Any quality vocalist too would/should possess perfect note recollection/recognition ability. It is always amazing to me how talented singers have minds like recorders! I'd say it is a litmus test to distinguish between the gifted and the plodders (like me).

As for the practice of repeating sangatis, I daresay sangatis should be sung as many times as necessary until the performer gets it right...

Unfortunately for some, singing the same sangati twice in a row in identical fashion may be a herculean task, so it could also serve as a demonstration of basic competence. Reminds me of the S.V.Shekar drama "Periyathambi", where a thaatha frequently quotes meaningless "pazhamozhis". When asked to repeat at least one of them, he is unable as all along he has been mouthing gibberish at random...

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 23 Sep 2009, 10:56

karthikbala: Your post adds a different color to the discussion. Much appreciated.

This brings up something I have been thinking about in different contexts. Is the quality of musicians and their music measured/determined by technical correctness and prowess ( like the two you mention, ability for perfect note recognition/repetition and the ability to sing sangathi twice exactly the same way ) or by the 'hard-to-define' bhavam/emotion exhibited in the music? Does the former necessarily lead to the latter? Can the bhavam be still high in quality even if someone is a little less than top notch in technical prowess? ( we are of course talking about the 90-95th percentile range among professionals on these measures )

ravikiran.g · Post by **ravikiran.g** » 23 Sep 2009, 12:43

I believe its more related with "diffcult to explain" Bhavam than anything else. Ofcourse, we can also understand how much 'grip' the musician has over the 'swaras' when they sing the sangathis in variations.
Listen to "Krishna nee begane baaro" from MDR & TNS"¦!

You can make out how easily MDR can convince Krishna to come just by singing the pallavi twice & how many times TNS has to sing this to convince krishna..!!

)

karthikbala · Post by **karthikbala** » 23 Sep 2009, 13:44

vasanthakokilam wrote: This brings up something I have been thinking about in different contexts. Is the quality of musicians and their music measured/determined by technical correctness and prowess ( like the two you mention, ability for perfect note recognition/repetition and the ability to sing sangathi twice exactly the same way ) or by the 'hard-to-define' bhavam/emotion exhibited in the music? Does the former necessarily lead to the latter? Can the bhavam be still high in quality even if someone is a little less than top notch in technical prowess? ( we are of course talking about the 90-95th percentile range among professionals on these measures )

The sangathi-repetition comment was more tongue-in-cheek. IMHO the ability to grasp notes perfectly, on few if not single listenings, is very basic for the truly gifted. In earlier days, when we did not have recorders etc. I guess this helped weed out the mediocre and untalented wannabes from seriously learning CM. Today we have all sorts of specimens clambering on to the dais willy-nilly.

IMHO, bhavam in a composition is encoded with great care by the composer through choice of raga, setting of tune, phrases, tempi etc. To faithfully bring this out in a rendition what is needed is sensitive and capable interpretation of which accurate note-reproduction is but one aspect, but by no means optional. For the incapable, there are the usual crutches or window dressings viz. abhinaya involving various body parts, convenient note transpositions (downward), eschewing of difficult phrases, humming, crooning and other gratuitous voice modulations to distract from inaccurate pitching, highly mannered rendering etc.

I recently chanced upon a music programme on some Telugu TV channel, where Anuradha Sriram related an incident involving her entry into film singing. When she had just started to sing into the studio mike, she was advised by the sound engineer to correct her pitching! According to her, this unexpected response after having trained in CM for 15+ years, was eye-opening and helped her improve her singing greatly. She went on to say that there is an "escapist" mindset in CM, where singers get away with a lot.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 23 Sep 2009, 22:21

I believe that every artist should master the technical aspects of their art, and know to use the tools of their trade. Who will want to look at the sketches of someone who cannot draw, regardless of the feeling or sincerity?

thenpaanan · Post by **thenpaanan** » 24 Sep 2009, 18:39

karthikbala wrote: I recently chanced upon a music programme on some Telugu TV channel, where Anuradha Sriram related an incident involving her entry into film singing. When she had just started to sing into the studio mike, she was advised by the sound engineer to correct her pitching! According to her, this unexpected response after having trained in CM for 15+ years, was eye-opening and helped her improve her singing greatly. She went on to say that there is an "escapist" mindset in CM, where singers get away with a lot.

Thanks for the quote. Did she elaborate on these ideas? E.g. what did correcting the pitching mean -- go higher or lower? What do CM singers get away with?

Most important, I wonder if she was able to bring back those improvements to her CM singing.

I dont know of any artiste who is in both CM and film singing who has ever said that their CM singing _improved_ as a result of their film singing (it is always the other way around). Seems hard to believe that it could be so one-sided.

--Then Paanan

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 24 Sep 2009, 21:15

Learning and improvement can happen in any setting so long we keep an open mind, IMHO.

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 25 Sep 2009, 06:57

Dear brother-member, VK RAMAN, Very nice but a small modification - ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“Learning and impovement will only happen in any setting so long we keep an open mindÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢. amsharma

gavats · Post by **gavats** » 25 Sep 2009, 10:18

karthikbala wrote: I recently chanced upon a music programme on some Telugu TV channel, where Anuradha Sriram related an incident involving her entry into film singing. When she had just started to sing into the studio mike, she was advised by the sound engineer to correct her pitching! According to her, this unexpected response after having trained in CM for 15+ years, was eye-opening and helped her improve her singing greatly. She went on to say that there is an "escapist" mindset in CM, where singers get away with a lot.

strange !! I have only heard people saying that their film music has improved as a result of learning carnatic music and never the other way around...can you pl elaborate what she meant by the "escapist mindset in CM"

karthikbala · Post by **karthikbala** » 25 Sep 2009, 14:17

gavats wrote: strange !! I have only heard people saying that their film music has improved as a result of learning carnatic music and never the other way around...can you pl elaborate what she meant by the "escapist mindset in CM"

I think the singer was referring to the experience of singing in an environment with a high fidelity microphone etc. that faithfully captures nuance and blemish alike. Also, the fact that no music director worth their salt is likely to overlook apasvara-laden singing, unlike many of the self-appointed CM cognoscenti/critics/patrons. As Mr. VK RAMAN has pointed out, there is always something to learn if we are open-minded and step out of our comfort zone.

I do not think anybody is disputing the value CM is bringing to film music. There are quite a few successful playback singers who are highly trained in CM and probably the only reason they do not give kutcheris is that it would not be professionally meaningful given the ecosystem that prevails.

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 25 Sep 2009, 18:55

ravikiran.g wrote:You can make out how easily MDR can convince Krishna to come just by singing the pallavi twice & how many times TNS has to sing this to convince krishna..!! )

Ravikiran - I have no intention of going down this path (

), but this just reminded me of a scene from an old tamizh movie - where two savants sing sequentially, in an attempt to make 'god' do things like open a closed temple door, etc, and something similar happens - the first guy sings and in a very short time, what he wants happens, and the second guy has to sing for a much longer time, before he gets what he requests making the second guy wonder if his 'devotion quotient' is lower than that of the first guy's - the first guy reassures him that since he sang better, the Lord took his time because he was too immersed in the music to accede to the request being made!!

thenpaanan · Post by **thenpaanan** » 25 Sep 2009, 19:28

karthikbala wrote: ...
I do not think anybody is disputing the value CM is bringing to film music. There are quite a few successful playback singers who are highly trained in CM and probably the only reason they do not give kutcheris is that it would not be professionally meaningful given the ecosystem that prevails.

To give a concrete example, Unnikrishnan once said that film singing for women can be very bad for their voice vis-a-vis their CM singing because film songs for women tend to be in very high pitch. While discussing the value that his CM music background brought to his film music he mentioned the knowledge of note positions. He also said that once in a rare while it can also be a problem if the music director wants you to deliberately sing an off-key note.

Similarly, on a program on TV in the US, a woman who won a raffle had chosen a trip to a recording studio as her prize. During the tour, a professional recording artist offered to help her record a song just for fun (she apparently had some training in WCM vocal). For the next ten minutes he offered a variety of small and subtle tips that made me go aha! For example, consistent with Anuradha Sriram's comments, he said that the mic is actually very very sensitive and that you should not "push" your voice -- it will catch every nuance and flaw and pushing your voice will amplify the flaws as well -- one should sing as much as possible uniformly throughout and as if one were talking to someone a couple of feet away, emphatically no shouting and no whispering. It made me realize that in my CM training I have never had a conversation of this type. I shout at times and over-modulate at other times out of sheer ignorance.

But these days there is practically no CM concert without mic's -- so is there knowledge in CM circles about such aspects of "performance" and if not are we getting this knowledge from the people who should know about such things, namely, cine singers?

--Then Paanan

rajeshnat · Post by **rajeshnat** » 25 Sep 2009, 21:26

One sure fact is overall film singers understand the nuances of mike much better to bring in the right aesthetics and sensitivity, especially one like SPB. There are many musicians who perhaps dont take that extra effort to get a fairly better aesthetics. To a great extent the greatest exception is maharAjapuram santhanam whose mike understanding just brought so much of aesthetics.

Having said comparison of CM vs Film Musicians is more an apple to oranges comparison. We always hear film music after it is recorded and polished by orchestration and countless hours of sound engineer technicalities .Hence you generally over estimate their usage of mike. Such a thing is not possible in CM most of the times.

A close apple to apple comparison is say CM musician in a kutcheri vs even film musicians when they perform in concerts or shows , they also seem to get into the same problem and as always you feel the mic usage can be far better.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 26 Sep 2009, 00:29

Then Paanan, you awaken one of my hobby horses! The microphone is a primary trade tool to a performing musician, and yet one regularly sees even those with decades of experience patently ignorant about its correct use. Really, they abuse it rather than use it, and in the whole yes-sir-no-sir-anything-you-say-sir attitude that seems to prevail with seniors, nobody is going to put them right. That is sad.

VK RAMAN · Post by **VK RAMAN** » 26 Sep 2009, 00:44

Microphone is a tool by which it catches all the nuances of sound and one should be trained to use it.

msakella · Post by **msakella** » 26 Sep 2009, 12:08

Microphone should be utilised only to increase the sensitivity of the music but not the volume alone.

thenpaanan · Post by **thenpaanan** » 27 Sep 2009, 00:07

msakella wrote:Microphone should be utilised only to increase the sensitivity of the music but not the volume alone.

Sharmagaru

As an accomplished musician and thinker, can you tell us in more "actionable" terms what the correct use of the mic would be for vocalists and violinists? Do you think students and novices should practice with microphones and learn how to perform with them?

Thanks

-Then Paanan

srkris · Post by **srkris** » 27 Sep 2009, 01:47

I think we need to view Carnatic Music with some historical perspective. The use of books and notation in CM is very recent, their use as regular aids in learning is even more recent...

Learning music itself was by hearing how other singers render a particular song ("keLvi jnanam" or aural knowledge). There have been stories where musicians learn songs on the fly from listening to other musicians. So repeating each saMgati twice was a necessity.

The second time, I have always found to be much more clearer and confident than the first time a saMgati is rendered.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 27 Sep 2009, 06:54

You understand the words and the meaning better. The bhAvam too. I think that with the first sangati it is essential to repeat the line because it is simpler than the ensuing sangatis where intheir complexity, it may not be possible to spell out the words as easily, or keep the bhAvam of the line in focus. I say it because the musical intricacies may come into play then. Anyway, repeating a sangati serves several purposes.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 27 Sep 2009, 23:17

karthikbala wrote: IMHO the ability to grasp notes perfectly, on few if not single listenings, is very basic for the truly gifted. In earlier days, when we did not have recorders etc. I guess this helped weed out the mediocre and untalented wannabes from seriously learning CM. Today we have all sorts of specimens clambering on to the dais willy-nilly.

IMHO, bhavam in a composition is encoded with great care by the composer through choice of raga, setting of tune, phrases, tempi etc. To faithfully bring this out in a rendition what is needed is sensitive and capable interpretation of which accurate note-reproduction is but one aspect, but by no means optional. For the incapable, there are the usual crutches or window dressings viz. abhinaya involving various body parts, convenient note transpositions (downward), eschewing of difficult phrases, humming, crooning and other gratuitous voice modulations to distract from inaccurate pitching, highly mannered rendering etc.

Karthik: You bring in a lot of interesting points in the above tightly-packed paragraphs including your consistent theme of beating up on the, fortunately unnamed, CM musicians of today in comparison to other music systems, even film music. That is fine but I was not really going there.

My focus is the high value judgment you afford to the phrase repetition skills. Let us consider the set of musicians whose note recognition and repetition skills put them in the top 10-15 percentile. Assume they all have accurate and sufficient sruthi control.

I am claiming that phrase recognition and repetition skill, though found concomitantly with great musicians, is subordinate to musicianship and it by itself does not indicate greatness or define 'truly gifted' musicians. The corollary is, the top 1% musician in accuracy of phrase recognition skills, need not necessarily produce great art compared to another musician who is only in the top 15% in that skill.

It is definitely true that the composers sets the theme for the bhAvam and emotion carried in the song with the choice of phrases from the raga, laya, tempo and sahitya. But we will find one rendition noticeably different in overall quality from another one, even among technically competent musicians. That is why I want to put the art part of singing at a higher pedestal than this mere phrase recognition and repetition skills. I do recognize that this criteria for value judgment is different from Western classical music and our own film music.

Nick, I would never say that technical skills do not matter. Hope the above sheds some light on the nuances I am talking about.

As a sidebar, we do not really know if what we hear is strictly what the composer intended. In CM, even in kalpita sangItam practise, it looks like they have gone through a bit of evolution, the concept of pAdAntharam notwithstanding. But the interesting thing is the bhAvam of Nannu Palima is still communicated with great effect by Bidaram Krishnappa or by MSS, even though their renditions of sAhitya including sangathis etc. are quite different.

Radhika-Rajnarayan · Post by **Radhika-Rajnarayan** » 28 Sep 2009, 17:13

Maybe it is for the listener that this repetition is meant? In fact, CM has several layers - the musical value, (again subdivided into the melodic and rhythmic values) the literary value (prasa, yati, etc) and the philosophical message. So the more you listen the more you appreciate!

thenpaanan · Post by **thenpaanan** » 28 Sep 2009, 19:02

Radhika-Rajnarayan wrote:Maybe it is for the listener that this repetition is meant? In fact, CM has several layers - the musical value, (again subdivided into the melodic and rhythmic values) the literary value (prasa, yati, etc) and the philosophical message. So the more you listen the more you appreciate!

You may be on to something here. It seems to me that in each music performance system there is a pattern of learned and shared behavior between performer and audience that is developed over time. Even in an highly improvisation-based system such as HM, the audience is led through familiar territory first before the exotic or the unfamiliar are presented. Unfamiliar and unexpected music is harder to appreciate and absorb. Repetition in CM may be serving such a purpose -- to create familiarity so the audience can rest easy. Indeed, a concert full of rare kritis or ragams is treated as an oddity, an outlier. Even GNB, the greatest of CM innovators, would not do that in a regular concert, because the CM audience is trained to expect some familiarity. Perhaps that is why veterans like MMI and SSI were so beloved to their admirers. Each time SSI sang the umpteen sangatis of "chakkani rajamaargamu" the audience was looking to see what he (or the accompanists) would do differently _this_ time, not at all minding the fact that he sang it often because it was familiar. Repeating sangatis in an unfamiliar kriti is, of course, necessary for the audience to absorb. But repeating sangatis especially the nth one, in a well-worn kriti allows the audience to relax or alternately pay attention to what the accompanists are doing (or perversely, start talking to those sitting nearby).

Nonetheless, I believe this is pure learned behavior -- we have evolved a system of repetition in CM (probably starting from the pattern of home practice, because note that the lines of a pallavi are not repeated like sangatis) and the typical listener expects it and performers cater to it. Paradoxically, without this familiarity it would be very difficult for CM performers to perform new stuff (and be appreciated), and this tradition allows complex systems of presentation to come into being that have in them several layers, some very familiar and others not so.

--Then Paanan

vainika · Post by **vainika** » 29 Sep 2009, 09:42

thenpaanan wrote:Does any one know the origin of the CM practice of singing every sangati twice?

Aquarium hobbyists term this the Noah's Ark phenomenon - our conditioning to have two of each kind

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 04 Oct 2009, 01:56

And they all went into the ark, just to get out of the rain--goes the song! Which makes me think of the old saying: one hasn't even been in a school to get shelter from the rain or, never been in a concert even to stay away from the rain!

Seriously, I do realize that as the musical content gets more complex in second and consecutive sangatis, the words may get a bit smudged (it is very difficult to emulate DKP or MSS). So, repetitions of sangatis is the best way to bring out the lyrical content and bhAvam of a song.