mELa ragas

[drshrikaanth]

DRS, the ragamudra for this song is "shuddha mukhari", then how come dikshitar uses both references - kanakAmbari and shuddha mukhAri, in his compositions if they are the same?

Only dIkShitar can answer the question. All I can say is the SuddhamukhAri kRti is not given in the SSP. Also, the prosody of the Suddha mukhAri kRti is not perfect. Whereas the kanakAmbari kRti is perfect. The clever usage is so typical of MD.

And how can the same raga (if they are identical) be listed as its own janya under a different name (like what you mentioned about SSP and CP)?

Hmm. Some errors do creep in into treatises. What I would like you and others to do is to listen to kanakAmbari and SuddhamukhAri and tell if you can discern any difference. Forget about rAga names for now.

The song is good. Who is it?

Dont know.

[arunk]

drs,

thanks. I believe the artist is Smt. Suguna Purushothaman. My ears cant tell any difference between this and kanakAmbari. The same dheerga N1 and G1 as slides is employed here too (but maybe not always?).

Arun

[drshrikaanth]

The same dheerga N1 and G1 as slides is employed here too (but maybe not always?).

yep. Same handling of swaras.

srkris, ramakriya- We are waiting to hear from you too(two)

Some points. kanakAmbari and mukhAri are mentioned together only by mudduvEnkaTamakhi in his rAgalakShaNa. He mentions 2 mukhAris- one janya of kanakAmbari and the other under SrIrAga mELa which we all know.

venkaTamakhi himself only mentions mukhAri as the first mELa. He explicitly mentions G and N as the vivAdi swaras. He does not mention kanakAmbari at all nor does he mention the now very popular mukhAri.

[srkris]

I think I'll rename this thread as kanakAngi. In case someone wants to add something later, they can do. Next raga can be in a fresh thread?

[vasanthakokilam]

I dont find any difference between SuddhamukhAri and kanakAmbari except in name. Can any of you see/infer a difference?

I can't hear any difference either.

[drshrikaanth]

I think I'll rename this thread as kanakAngi. In case someone wants to add something later, they can do. Next raga can be in a fresh thread?

My 2 cents. Starting separate threads means having 72 threads potentially. And the chaos of searching for the relevant thread.

Having 1 mELa thread will keep people like arunk and ramakriya enthused to move on to the succesive mELas. This could be lost if threads are separate.

My suggestion is that the pouplar mElas are left out of this series.

[srkris]

ok

[ramakriya]

DRS, the ragamudra for this song is "shuddha mukhari", then how come dikshitar uses both references - kanakAmbari and shuddha mukhAri, in his compositions if they are the same?

I see we are not still done with kanakAngu arrr... kanakAmbari

Few observations here.

mukhAri is the name given to the first mELa, since at least kallinAtha's time ( 14th century). However, whether it is same as the current first mELa ( even though venkatamakhi, rAmAmAtya claim so), is somewhat doubted by musicologists, who think the mukhAri which was the fist mELa was probably related to the shaDja grAMa, and probably closer to the current mukhAri, than a rAGa with R1,G1,M1,D1 and N1. Or, ther

Whoever started framing new mELas as per Venkatamakhi's system chose kanakAmbari as the name to the first mELa, to fit the katapayAdi scheme. There also might have been another rAGa at the same time called mukhAri or shuddha mukhAri, with similar structure - So shuddha mukhAri could have been made a janya of kanakAmbari; And to keep it distinct, some new feature might have been applied to kanakAmbari - the new mELa no 1.

SSP give a clue between shuddha mukhAri and kanakAmbari.

The lakshaANa shOka for kanakAmbari is

kanakAmbari rAgah syAt ArOhE gani varjitah
nivakrah sArvakAleshu gIyate gAyakottamaih

(KanakAmbari rAga is devoid of ga and ni in ArOha. Sung by eminent musicians at all times of the day it has ni vakra

The shlOka for (shuddha) mukhAri is


mukhAryAkyasya rAgasya ArOhE gani varjitah
saMpUrNah sagrahOpEtah sarvakAlEshu gIyatE

(The rAga named mukhAri skips ga and ni in ArOha. It is a sampUrNa rAga having sa as graha. Can be sung always.
(Incidentally, the shlOka given for the (popular) mukhAri in mELa 22 is almost exactly the same!


We can see that ni vakratva is mentioned only in kanakAmbari - and it could have been a distinguishing feature. It may have been artificially put in there too to create a new mELa kanakAmbari, different from an existing (shuddha) mukhAri.

I saw some ni vakra prayogas in the sancharas given in SSP for kanakAmbari. I have not shuddha mukhAri sanchAras given there carefully to see that this could be a distingusing feature in practice.

Hmm. Some errors do creep in into treatises. What I would like you and others to do is to listen to kanakAmbari and SuddhamukhAri and tell if you can discern any difference. Forget about rAga names for now.

One thing I noticed in 'muraharENa mukundEna', particularly in the kalpanA swara part, the artist has used avrOhaNa prayOgas lot more than the arOhaNa prayogas. Wonder why so?

-Ramakriya

[ramakriya]

I think I'll rename this thread as kanakAngi. In case someone wants to add something later, they can do. Next raga can be in a fresh thread?

My 2 cents. Starting separate threads means having 72 threads potentially. And the chaos of searching for the relevant thread.

Having 1 mELa thread will keep people like arunk and ramakriya enthused to move on to the succesive mELas. This could be lost if threads are separate.

My suggestion is that the pouplar mElas are left out of this series.

I agree that keeping one thread is better for managing - rather than having to deal with 50+ threads.

I said 50+ because, it is definietely better to leave the obvious ones ( the likes of tODi, shankarAbharaNa, kalyAni, kAmavardhini ) except where the there is a need to discuss the asampUrna v/s sampURna mELa schemes with respect to any specific well known mELa.

-Ramakriya

[srkris]

Ramakriya, thanks for the detailed explanation.

About the thread, yes we can stick with DRS' suggestion to stick to a single thread and leave out ragas that have either been already discussed or else popular.

[drshrikaanth]

There also might have been another rAGa at the same time called mukhAri or shuddha mukhAri, with similar structure -

"Suddha" prefix is simply added at a later date to differentiate it from the mukhAri we know today. This points towards mukhAri being better known than Suddha mukhAri (At least at the time of adding Suddha prefix) and hence the need to add a differentiating prefix.

SSP give a clue between shuddha mukhAri and kanakAmbari. ------
--
We can see that ni vakratva is mentioned only in kanakAmbari - and it could have been a distinguishing feature. It may have been artificially put in there too to create a new mELa kanakAmbari, different from an existing (shuddha) mukhAri.

The latter is very likely the case. And I must say here it was a failed attempt. For one, it is not distinctive enough. Also the vakra phrases "SDNDP", "SPDNDP" are given a viSESha tag which immediately says they are rare. If you see in the SSP, neither the gIte nor the kanakAmbari kRti of MD have even a single instance of the vakra/viSESha phrases. Only Subbarama Dikshitar meticulously mentions them once each towards the end of his sancAri.

Also when you see the gItes, the gIte for both rAgas mention them as rAgAnga. Clearly the composer was not the same. No composer would give the same mELa status to 2 rAgas. Also, the gIte for (Suddha) mukhAri is more detailed and lists the janya rAga Suddha sAvEri. This is like the gItes in other rAgAnga/mELa rAgas.I will say this is definitely vEnkaTamakhi's. The gIte for kanakAmbari simply states it as rAgAnga without giving the janyas. It is a short piece. This is very likely muddu vEnkaTamakhi's.

The inference is clear- kanakAmbari not only replaced mukhAri as the mELa but was simply a new name for the same rAga. Old wine in a new bottle

One thing I noticed in 'muraharENa mukundEna', particularly in the kalpanA swara part, the artist has used avrOhaNa prayOgas lot more than the arOhaNa prayogas. Wonder why so?

The rAga is distinct only in the avarOhaNa as it has G1 and N1. Thence the avarOhi usages are more frequent.

[kartik]

I have an interpretation of Kanakangi in HM,on the Sitar by Raja verman and sounded quite close to our Kanakangi.IIRC,kalyanaraman in his Shankarabharanam rtp sings beautiful swaras in kanakangi in the ragamalika section.Does someone have that?

[arunk]

ramakriya

mukhAri is the name given to the first mELa, since at least kallinAtha's time ( 14th century).

I thought kallinAtha did a commentary on sangItaratnAkarA which was based on grama-system and hence no mELas? Can you please elaborate on where kallinAtha talks about mElas?

Thanks
Arun

[arunk]

it is same as the current first mELa ( even though venkatamakhi, rAmAmAtya claim so), is somewhat doubted by musicologists, who think the mukhAri which was the fist mELa was probably related to the shaDja grAMa, and probably closer to the current mukhAri, than a rAGa with R1,G1,M1,D1 and N1. Or, ther

I believe that this S R1 G1 M1 was the indeed the first mEla in certain areas - as there appears to be no concept of mElas till atleast 13th century. Whether the notion that this mEla was the mukhAri from old with all "suddha swaras" is the one that is disputed.

But anyway, this is getting steered away from the current topic and towards history. Should be stick to mEla ragas and move on to ratnAngi?

Also I thought the thread would mainly focus on the mELa ragas themselves rather than mElas and janyas. So from that standpoint i had assumed it we would talk about tODi, shankarAbharaNam, kharaharapriya etc. just as rAgas. We can certainly bring in janyas as and when appropriate but probably only for "rarer" mElas like kanakangi here. But i am also ok in avoiding the popular mElas if thats what others feel like it.

Arun

[ramakriya]

"Suddha" prefix is simply added at a later date to differentiate it from the mukhAri we know today. This points towards mukhAri being better known than Suddha mukhAri (At least at the time of adding Suddha prefix) and hence the need to add a differentiating prefix.

True ..

SSP give a clue between shuddha mukhAri and kanakAmbari. ------
--
We can see that ni vakratva is mentioned only in kanakAmbari - and it could have been a distinguishing feature. It may have been artificially put in there too to create a new mELa kanakAmbari, different from an existing (shuddha) mukhAri.

The latter is very likely the case. And I must say here it was a failed attempt. For one, it is not distinctive enough.

Also when you see the gItes, the gIte for both rAgas mention them as rAgAnga. Clearly the composer was not the same. No composer would give the same mELa status to 2 rAgas. Also, the gIte for (Suddha) mukhAri is more detailed and lists the janya rAga Suddha sAvEri. This is like the gItes in other rAgAnga/mELa rAgas.I will say this is definitely vEnkaTamakhi's. The gIte for kanakAmbari simply states it as rAgAnga without giving the janyas. It is a short piece. This is very likely muddu vEnkaTamakhi's.

All the gItes in SSP for mELa rAGasa (kanakAmbari, phEnadyuti series, with the katapayAdi prefix are likely to be Muddu Venkatamakhis, because Venkatamakhi never did have names for all his new mELas, nor did he have katapayAdi prefix for pUrva prasiddha mELas like shankarAbharaNa, bhairavi or varALi.

-Ramakriya

[ramakriya]

But anyway, this is getting steered away from the current topic and towards history. Should be stick to mEla ragas and move on to ratnAngi?

Also I thought the thread would mainly focus on the mELa ragas themselves rather than mElas and janyas. So from that standpoint i had assumed it we would talk about tODi, shankarAbharaNam, kharaharapriya etc. just as rAgas. We can certainly bring in janyas as and when appropriate but probably only for "rarer" mElas like kanakangi here. But i am also ok in avoiding the popular mElas if thats what others feel like it.

Arun

I have not yet got the pallavi recording in kanakAngi - Hopefully this week!

No objection to having Shankarabharana and Todi etc - But my thinking was these rAgas are discussed quite elaborately, quite often too - So that is why I made that suggestion.

May be we should have a specific time (# of days for each mELa) so that we do not get carried away into the sidelines. ?

-Ramakriya

[ramakriya]

ramakriya

mukhAri is the name given to the first mELa, since at least kallinAtha's time ( 14th century).

I thought kallinAtha did a commentary on sangItaratnAkarA which was based on grama-system and hence no mELas? Can you please elaborate on where kallinAtha talks about mElas?

Thanks
Arun

Arun,

I wrote it from the top of my head - Now that you mention this, I have to really check!

-Ramakriya

[drshrikaanth]

--- All the gItes in SSP for mELa rAGasa (kanakAmbari, phEnadyuti series, with the katapayAdi prefix are likely to be Muddu Venkatamakhis, because Venkatamakhi never did have names for all his new mELas, nor did he have katapayAdi prefix for pUrva prasiddha mELas like shankarAbharaNa, bhairavi or varALi.---

This is the general belief and is probably correct in most cases. But Suddha mukhAri (Which anyway does not fit kaTapayAdi sUtra) gIte is definitely not mudduv's for reasons I have explained earlier.

[drshrikaanth]

No objection to having Shankarabharana and Todi etc - But my thinking was these rAgas are discussed quite elaborately, quite often too - So that is why I made that suggestion.

This is what I said as well. We should leave them out except perhaps briefly to discuss sampUrNa vs asampUrNa or some other issues that might be left out in other discussions.

May be we should have a specific time (# of days for each mELa) so that we do not get carried away into the sidelines.?

No. No time limits please. This is not an exam.

[drshrikaanth]

C.Rangiah is one of the few composers to have composed in all the 72 mELas. His kRti in kanakAngi is on the rAga itself. Quoting some relevant lines-

kanakAngi pAhimAm karuNArasa sampUrNE ||P||

vinutE prathama kOmala saptaswarE |
manamOhana rAgE rasika janEDitE ||AP||

mangaLAngi suprabhAta gItE |----

[ramakriya]

DRS,

Interesting sAhitya. We have seen many kritis where dEvi is described as *rAgapriyE - Perhaps this is the first kriti where in the dEvi is the rAga itself!

Do you have the notation/ audio for this ?

-Ramakriya

[drshrikaanth]

Do you have the notation/ audio for this ?

Sorry I have neither

[arunk]

nice!

[ramakriya]

Looks like we have exasusted discussion of kanakAngi - kanakAmbari.


Before moving on to mELa 2 -

1. Can someone post the names of earlier kanakAmbari scheme? In this scheme, all the mELas did not have the katapyAdi prefix. IIRC, Bhairavi is the 20th mELa instead of rItigouLa, sAmantha is the 30th mELa instead of nAgAbharaNa and so on.

Is there a table with all the 3 schemes somewhere ? I have not checked karnatic.com or anyother websites. It would be useful to have such a table handy.

2. Does anyone on the forum have access to Govinda's sangrahacUDAmaNi? It would be useful to lakshana shlOka for the sampURna mELa along with the lakshaNa given in SSP for asampUrNa mELa.

3. I still have not got the recording of kanakAngi RTP. I will post once I have it, after getting the artists permission. Meanwhile we can move on to ratnAngi

-Ramakriya

[drshrikaanth]

1. Can someone post the names of earlier kanakAmbari scheme?

kanakAmbari was kanakAmbari only. Even before that it was mukhAri.

[arunk]

. Can someone post the names of earlier kanakAmbari scheme? In this scheme, all the mELas did not have the katapyAdi prefix. IIRC, Bhairavi is the 20th mELa instead of rItigouLa, sAmantha is the 30th mELa instead of nAgAbharaNa and so on

I have some references at home which lists the melas in various texts (i.e. ramamatya vs vidyaranya etc.). Is that what you mean? If so, I will see if I find time today to post it (as i wont be able to for a few days). As you know, it was not just a nomenclature difference then, they assigned different existing ragas to mela status.

2. Does anyone on the forum have access to Govinda's sangrahacUDAmaNi? It would be useful to lakshana shlOka for the sampURna mELa along with the lakshaNa given in SSP for asampUrNa mELa.

One of the references I have I think has this - but i can only post the translation (cant read!)

[ramakriya]

I have some references at home which lists the melas in various texts (i.e. ramamatya vs vidyaranya etc.). Is that what you mean? If so, I will see if I find time today to post it (as i wont be able to for a few days). As you know, it was not just a nomenclature difference then, they assigned different existing ragas to mela status.!)

No. Anyone before Venkatamakhi did not have 72 mELas. Venkatamahki said 72 mELas are possible with 12 notes, and he mapped then existing mElas (19) into his scheme.

Later someone came up with names, (and rAga lakshaNas ?) for all the 72 mElas possible in Venkatamakhis scheme. This is called the 'earlier' kanakAmbari nomenclature. This lists all 72 mELas, ( as against smaller numbers that we'd find in Ramamatya or Vidyaranya). Many of the names are missing the katapayAdi prefix. As I mentioned earlier, in this scheme bhairavi was the 20th mELa - kEdAragouLa was 28 mELa and so on.

Sometime later the nomenclature for sampURna mELas came up (kanakAngi -ratnangi- ..), as listed by Govinda in Sangraha cUDAmaNi for the first time. All mELas in this list have katapayadi prefix.

The asampoorna nomenclature that is given in SSP comes from Muddu Venkatamakhi's rAgalakshana anubandha for caturdanDi prakAshike. This is considered post kanakAngi scheme. Here all mELas have katapayAdi prefix. So we have katapayAdi prefix. We can also see many of the katapayAdi prefixes are same as in kanakAngi-ratnAngi scheme.

Some scholars think Mudduvenkatamakhi made rItigouLa the 20th mELa, because around that time chatushruti Dhaivata was gaining prominence in Bhairavi, and so it was removed from having mElatva.

One of the references I have I think has this - but i can only post the translation (cant read!)

I think translations would help too!

-Ramakriya

[arunk]

> Later someone came up with names, and rAga lakshaNas for all the 72 mElas possible in Venkatamakhis scheme.
you mean other than mudduvEnkaTamakhin (i believe you imply that later on)? That is interesting - what is your source of reference for this?

Arun

[ramakriya]

I have read it in some book, which I can not cite exactly - Most likely one book in Kannada by Prof V Ramarthnam. It had the listing of earlier kanakAbari and later kanakAmbari. I do not have that book with me now.

Look at the following - where Prof SRJ is seems to have discussed earlier and later kanakAmbari schemes in his book.

http://www.sruti.com/July04/bshelf.htm

In his lecdem on rAgas exclusive to SSP (available on sangeethapriya.org), Prof SRJ talks about earlier kanakAmbari. Listen to the section on rAga kalAvati. He mentions that the rAga was named kalahaMsa in earlier kanakAmbari, and became kalAvati in later kanakAbari.

And I am not sure if there was a rAga lakshaNa text associcated with it - or it was just a listing of names of the 72 mELas - I am modifying my earlier post to indicate this doubt.


-Ramakriya

[drshrikaanth]

R.R.Keshavamurthy's book "rAgalakShana mattu rAgakOSa" has the complete list of 3 sets of names.

[arunk]

googling, i find that the telugu work "sangIta sArasamgraha" by Akalanka is the first work post venkatamakhin, which may have given the names for all 72 melas and possibly lakshanas:

http://www.chembur.com/carnatic/page02.html
http://www.narada.org/ariyakudi/tradition.html

Arun

[drshrikaanth]

R.R.Keshavamurthy credits akaLanka with the names of the 72 sampUrNa mELas. So he is definitely later than muddu venkaTamakhi (at least)

[arunk]

ah ok. But is he then earlier than gOvindAcAryA? Isnt his sangrahacUDAmaNi the one to first name 72 sampUrNa mElas? Or is that (again) only to make them in accordance with the katapayadi scheme?

Doesnt R.R. Keshavamurthy's book mention who named all the 72 melas that ramakriya talks about (i.e. early kanakAmbari)?

Anyway, i am itching to go home now (:-). I am quite certain a couple of my references would shed light on this. (I also have Ragas at a Glance by Prof SRJ).

Arun

[drshrikaanth]

ah ok. But is he then earlier than gOvindAcAryA?

It is believed so. I have also read the gOvindAcArya is a fictitious figure created by the taccUr brothers(SingrAcAryulu etc) and that sangraha cUDAmaNi was their handiwork and not actually an ancient treatise. They waned to give tyAgarAja's rAgas (as popularly handed down) afoundation of SAstra.

Doesnt R.R. Keshavamurthy's book mention who named all the 72 melas that ramakriya talks about (i.e. early kanakAmbari)?

He credits vEnkaTamakhi with the ancient names(Without kaTapayAdi prefixes). No named author for the asampUrNa mELa names that are in accordance with kaTapayAdi sUtra. akaLanka is credited with the 72 sampUrNa names.

[drshrikaanth]

I will credit muddu vEnkaTamakhi with the names of asampUrNa mELas fitting the kaTapayAdi rule.

[drshrikaanth]

One addendum. Although in the list Keshavamurthy says "akaLanka matada sampUrNa mELa rAgagaLa hesaru", in his introduction, he says gOvindAcArya refined and created(Some of them) names of the 72 sampUrNa mELas.

[arunk]

He credits vEnkaTamakhi with the ancient names(Without kaTapayAdi prefixes).

I didnt think vEnkaTamakhi named all 72 of them - or did he? I do have CDP at home (with english translation), and i am confused and my memory is also failing me.

Arun

[drshrikaanth]

CDP proper does not list the 72 names. The rAga lakShana anubandha, credited to muddu vEnkaTamakhi does give all the 72 names. These names are according to kaTapayAdi rule.

[arunk]

ok. The "Ragas at a Glance" book by Prof. SRJ does have the list of 72 melas in both the "early kanakambari" and "later kanakambari" list. The "source" for the early list of 72 melas is actually none other than sangracUDAmaNi itself (adyar edition according to this book)! In other words, some ragas are introduced in sangracUDAmaNi as belonging to existing mELAs (which of course were renamed), and since these differ from those of mudduvEnkaTamakhin, the "early kanakambari" list came about. According too Prof. SRJ we came to know of mudduvEnkaTamakhin's mELas only through SSP (i didnt know that!?). Besides since certain differences were obviously only to fit to katapayadi scheme, it was deduced that mudduvEnkaTamakhin's was "later kanakambari" (as already indicated in this thread)

I cross-referenced some of the differences with other references (namely a monster book on all mela treatises by Hema Ranganathan), and in many cases the first reference to certain mELA names is sangracUDAmaNi itself (e.g.raghulIla, raupyanga). In some cases, the "non katapayadi" confirming mela names are found in works by sahAji or tulAji (e.g bhinnasadja, vELAvaLi).

Arun

[drshrikaanth]

According too Prof. SRJ we came to know of mudduvEnkaTamakhin's mELas only through SSP (i didnt know that!?).

I dont know what SRJ meant. But the 72 asampUrNa mELa names are first mentioned by muddu vEnkaTamakhi in the rAgalakShaNa that is an addendum to CDP. Everyone else including gOvindAcArya came later. Several treatises mention kanakAngi- ratnAngi names of the 72 mELas- sangraha cUDAmaNi, sangIta sAra sangrahamu of tiruvEnkaTakavi(telugu), rAgalakShaNam (unknown author), kannaDa treatise sangItaratnAkara (unknown author) and mahAbhArata cUDAmaNi (tamil treatise by unknown author). All these are form the later half of 18th C or early 19th C CE (R.Sathyanarayana)

[drshrikaanth]

Some relevant links

SRJ
http://www.sruti.com/July04/bshelf.htm

http://carnatica.net/onlinedictionary/dicc.htm

Names of the 72 mELas with kaTapayAdi names in asampUrNa and sampUrNa scheme

http://www.karnatik.com/melakarta.pdf#s ... kambari%22

[ramakriya]

Since I do not see anymore posts on kanakAngi / kanakAmbari, I am moving on to mELa #2.

In sampUrna scheme this is ratnAngi. In asampUrNa scheme, the 2nd mELa is called phEnadyuti.

Ratnangi, the 2nd mELa has all shuddha swaras, except Nishada, which is kaishiki. As per the sampUrna mEla scheme it's mUrchane can be represented as

S R1 G1 M1 P D1 N2 S
S N2 D1 P M1 G1 R1 S

By looking at my very limited listening of ratnAngi, (a grand total of 2 renditions , it looks like it offers limited scope for elaboration - at least more limited than its neighbouring mELas on either sides ( kanakAngi and gAnamUrti). I am not aware of any film songs in this rAga.

Tyagaraja has composed a kriti in ratnAngi (kalashavArdhijAm), which is considered of doubtful authenticity by some scholars. Sri O S Thyagrajan has sung this kriti in one of his commercial releases.

Other composers in this rAga include Kotiswara Iyer, BMK etc.

After a kriti on Ganesha in Kanakangi, BMK has chosen to compose a kriti on Sri Tyagaraja in this rAga.

Here is a link to srI gurum chintayAmyaham in ratnAngi - from sangeethapriya.org

http://www.sangeethapriya.org/%7Enanda/ ... 1indu.html

-Ramakriya

[drshrikaanth]

More informative links

Details of the 2 mELa systems
http://www.geocities.com/vasudevanvrv/carnatic/mela.htm

MIDI files of the scales of all mELAs rendered on Piano
http://www.carnaticindia.com/melakartha_ragas.html

Historically important and informative
http://www.chennaionline.com/music/carn ... /329th.asp

[drshrikaanth]

By looking at my very limited listening of ratnAngi, (a grand total of 2 renditions ,

3rd one here
http://www.musicindiaonline.com/p/x/Nq2 ... As1NMvHdW/

I am not aware of any film songs in this rAga.

pADu nilAve from the tamizh movie udaya gItam. This is listed as ratnAngi in one online list. Do others get the feel of ratnAngi?

http://www.musicindiaonline.com/p/x/FrI ... As1NMvHdW/

[ramakriya]

I fail to recognize any ratnAngi in this song ...

-Ramakriya

[Suji Ram]

pADu nilAve from the tamizh movie udaya gItam. This is listed as ratnAngi in one online list. Do others get the feel of ratnAngi


In the above song the line "taen kavidai" for eg sounds like in ratnangi. Probably the G1 R1 combo.
In comparison to BMK'song I don't see much shades of ratnangi here.

[Lakshman]

Here are the kritis in kanakAngi:

Annaiye amizhde arum tamizh taye ayiram koti-Adi-Tamizhnambi
Brahma vishnu maheshvara-Adi-Rama Rajan
Chanuramalla (lng)-Triputa-Govindacharya
Kakara rupa patumam-Adi-R.Vishveshvaran
Kanakamaya bhushani katyayani karunarasa-Adi-Ashok R.Madhav
Kanakambari karunyamruta lahari kamakshi mamava-Rupaka-Dikshitar
Kanakangaka sukha guha-Adi-Kotishvara Iyer
Kanakangam-Chapu-Bangalore S.Mukund
Kanakangi-Adi-Bellary Sheshagiriachar
Kanakangi ragam-Rupaka-Abraham Panditar
Manavinivuma-Adi-Ramasvami Shivan
Moham ennum ti (f)-?-Ilayaraja
Ninnai sharan adainden devi kanyakumari-Chapu-Cuddalore Subramaniam
Rara rara ramayani vemaru piluva puja cheyu-Sriramachandra Murti Sistla
Ravi chandragni teja-Rupaka-R.K.Suryanarayana
Shanmukha unai nambinen santatam arul sheiguvai-Adi-D.Pattammal
Shri gananatham bhajamyaham shrikaram chintitartha-Adi-Tyagaraja
Shri ganapati-Adi-Dokka Sriramamurti
Shrisha putraya namostute vighna vinashaya vibhava-Rupaka-Balamuralikrishna
Ullam urugi urugi anbu aghado parama-Rupaka-Shuddhananda Bharati
Vara siddhi vinayakam sanchita-Rupaka-R.K.Suryanarayana
Venkatesha-Sriramachandra Murti Sistla

[drshrikaanth]

Lakshman
Good list. In it, you have included kanakAmbari of MD. Technically it is a different rAga. Also, you have missed out C.Rangiah's kRti from the list. Please also post ratnAngi list.

[ramakriya]

How about creating some audio examples ourselves, for mElas with very few examples? There may be cases where there is just one or two commercial recordings and thus can not be posted ? Someone having access to that can try out to sing/play the kriti for the benifit of all

I am sure that there are many on this forum who could sing/play from reading notations That is a way that could be tried out to generate these new examples too.

Agreed, that is not the way to go , in general Because we always prefer a master's recording :/ But in special cases like this I think this method should be tried!

-Ramakriya

[drshrikaanth]

How about creating some audio examples ourselves, for mElas with very few examples? I am sure that there are many on this forum who could sing/play from reading notations

Good idea. If you can get people to sing