Maharajapuram S.Srinivasan's Concert at the Music Academy -1

jagagardens · Post by **jagagardens** » 24 Dec 2006, 14:19

Song List of Maharajapuram Srinivasanâ€™s Concert at the Music Academy on 19.12.2006

Accompaniments-:
Maharajapuram S.Ganesh Viswanathan-Vocal Support
Pakkala Ramadoss-Violin
R.Ramesh- Mridangam
Srirangam Kannan-Morsing

1.Neranamithi- Kanada Ata Thala Varnam
2.Mahaganapathim-Nattai-Eka-Muthuswamy Dikshitar
3.Paralokha Bhayamu-Mandari-Thyagaraja
4.Narayana-Suddha Dhanayasi-K.Chapu-Purandaradasar
5.Pranoumi-Jaganmohini-M.Chapu-Dr.V.V.Srivatsa
6.Banguri Kamakshi-Varali-M.Chapu-Shyama Sastry
7.Sri Rama Sarsaswathi-Nasikabhooshani-Adi-Dikshitar
8.Ksheenamai-Mukhari-Adi
9.Ragam-Thanam-Pallavi-Kalyani-Kanda Triputa
(KALYANIYIL UNAI AZHAITHAEN, MURUGA MAAL MARUGA VARAMARULA)
10.Shanmugapriya Nayakan-Ragamalika-Adi
11.Adineepai-Yamuna Kalyani- Dharmapuri Subaraya Aiyar
12.Bho Shambho-Revathi-Adi-Swami Dayananda Saraswathi

Music season of the Margazhi month; venue: The Music Academy; Musician: Maharajapuram S. Srinivasan; To be cherished in memory was his 19th December vocal concert with flashes of his fatherâ€™s forte fondly remembered by the rasigas. The concert opened with Ata Thala varnam NERANAMMITHI.

MAHAGANAPATHIM in Nattai followed with memorable swaraprastharas and in Mandhari, the vocalist presented PARALOHA BHAYAMU composed by Saint Thyagarajar. Its niraval in `Dhinnagamani Deivalohaâ€™ with full of nerve and finer negotiations is noteworthy. There was a detailed alapana of Suddha Dhanyasi for krthi NARAYANA to follow. The vocalistâ€™s voice that glided smoothly at appropriate places garnished the alapana. This Purandhara Dhasarâ€™s krthi was predictably pleasing.

In Jaganmohini, PRANAMOMI SAADHATHAM composed by Dr. Srivatsa and in Varali KAMAKSHI BANGARU by Shyama Sastri were blissfully brought out.

SRI RAMAA SARASWATHI, a krthi by Dhikshitar was taken up after a brief alapana. This number in Nasigabhooshini is on Goddess Lalitha. The lyric describing that the Devi is surrounded by Thara, Mandharin etc., taken up for swaraprastharams was sparkling! With a moderate yet moving alapana in Mukhari, the musician moved on to Saint Thyagarajarâ€™s TSHEENAMAI THIRUGAâ€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..O MANASA.

In RTP, Kalyani raga alapana was the highlight. Pallavi, KALYANIYIL UNAI AZHAITHAEN, MURUGA MAAL MARUGA VARAMARULA, was rendered; and Revathi, Mohanam and Shanmugapriya followed. Thus, inviting Him and invoking His blessings for Boon was inspiring! The musician might have felt that Lord Muruga was to be presented with some more ragams in praise of Him. Therefore, followed SHANMUGAPRIYA NAYAGAN in Shanmugapriya and then Sankarabharanam, Bhairavi, Mohanam, Sahana, Saramathi, Varali, Dharbar, Thodi, Kalyani, Karaharapriya and Surutti that were crisp.

ADINEEPAI composed by Dharmapuri Subaraya Aiyar in raag Yamun Kalyan was captivating. Not to disappoint the rasigas, the vocalist ended the concert with BHO SAMBHO, one of the all-time favourites of the rasigas and thus the concert concluded.

The fact that the Academyâ€™s acoustic arrangements were very excellent was evident, as the Artiste seemed comfortable throughout in this respect.

Sri S. Ganesh Viswanathan, son of the vocalist Sri Srinivasan gave good vocal support. His approach attracted instant appreciation in the form of applause from the entire audience. He has developed a perfect alignment with deep devotion to this art.

Sri Pakala Ramdass was on violin and he played, followed and supported with delightful touches. Sri R. Ramesh was on mridangam, while Srirangam K. Kannan was on morsing. They played very effectively and enhanced the enthusiasm of the rasigas, who included some foreigners and NRIs too.

by nagraj - 98415 99940

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 26 Dec 2006, 02:07

I could not resist posting this. Here is V. Subrahmaniam's review of this concert from the HINDU. http://www.hindu.com/ms/2006/12/26/stor ... 140300.htm

Again, he is quite critical like he was with GG's concert; pl see parallel thread for details. It makes me wonder if he is just very frugal with compliments (even to someone from the MVI/SSI school).

Although, I feel that some of his statements like singing two prati madhyamam pieces back-to-back make a lot of sense. The tone of the review is unfortunately quite negative.

rasam · Post by **rasam** » 26 Dec 2006, 04:44

Quoting OV,

>> two Pratimadhyama raga kritis, one after the other, also could have been avoided for better concert effect. Suddhamadhyama in continuous tow does not have this draw back

Why? I never understood the rationale behind this widely held view that two prati-madhyamam ragams should not be sung together. Is this just because CM rasikas are not conditioned to hearing that many prati-madhyamam ragams? Some people also say that prati-madhyamam ragams in general create some sort of tension, which is also something I have never felt in particular.

Could someone throw some light on this?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 26 Dec 2006, 04:50

Right.. his review reads like a Ph.d advisor's comments on the margins of the thesis draft which usually only points out issues and problems, the good points are usually taken for granted. I also wish VS would write a few sentences about what delighted him.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 26 Dec 2006, 05:40

Is this just because CM rasikas are not conditioned to hearing that many prati-madhyamam ragams?

Rasam: I think statistically that is indeed true for CM and not true for HM. See the data here during our prior discussion on a similar topic.

http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=987

In CM there seems to be roughly three groups of madhyamapriya rasikas: Group 1: Those who like predominantly M1 based ragas, Group 2: those who like predominantly M2 based ragas and Group 3: those who can go either way. My gut feel is historically and today the size of group 2 is smaller than group 1 or group 3 and that reflects on the raga and song distribution that is in practice.

rasam · Post by **rasam** » 26 Dec 2006, 06:29

Thanks VK for the link ... While I always knew that shudha-madhyamam ragas dominate CM concerts, I find it incredible that only a mere 20% of ragas feature prati-madhyamam, 30% of which is dominated by Kalyani alone!!

Does anybody know why this is the case? Why do CM rasikas 'like' shudha-madhyamam ragas to the point that just singing back-to-back prati-madhyamam ragas in a concert evokes such a comment by VS in his review? Has there been a scientific study on this?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 26 Dec 2006, 08:17

Here is some reading material on this and related topic, for whatever it is worth: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4952646.stm

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 26 Dec 2006, 08:30

WTG, Vasanthakokilam

You have taken this discussion to an altogether different level.

jagagardens · Post by **jagagardens** » 26 Dec 2006, 09:05

The review of Maharajapuram Srinivasan(Music Academy) by VS in The HINDU ON 26.12
is nodoubt negative in nature. To call a kriti of Purandra Dasa "NARAYANA" a light piece is mere sacrilege. Purandaradasa was the Pithamaga of Music and the basic rudiments of CM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY THE GREAT COMPOSER.M.S.SUBBULAKSHMI, BHARATHRATHNA AWARDEE sang it with great devotion and bhakthi and the listeners were moved to joy and rapturous pleasures on listening to this song. I wish the reviewer takes back the comment that the status of a light piece should only be afforded to "NARAYANA", for him to escape divine displeasure and the curses so that he
regains a better frame of mind to accord the status of songs, due to divine composers.

I also endorse the view that VS should write what delighted him and leaves compliments purposely. There is always an element of "vazhavetti natthanar"(DESPERATE, FRUSTRATED SISTER-IN-LAW) in his critical reviews, which only picks holes and a mere parade of his knowledge of his music and quite cynical.

Rengarajan · Post by **Rengarajan** » 26 Dec 2006, 13:08

Probably VS wants to bring about uniformity in his reviews to avoid criticism that he is prejudiced about any particular artist. I am sorry about others who will have to content with similar reviews from him, which would have been otherwise, had there not been strong reaction for his review of Gayatri Girish and Maha. Srinivasan

mahesh33 · Post by **mahesh33** » 26 Dec 2006, 13:21

"Varali alapana was taken up as a prelude to Syama Sastri's `Bangaru Kamakshi' (Misra Chapu tala), which was rendered with the usual frills of niraval and kalpanaswaras"

Neraval's AND Kalpana swarams are obvious frills that form the cornerstone of the carnatic concert format.

I haven't heard Maharajapuram Srinivasan.....but surely, this is a nonsensical review!

Cant believe newspapers waste valuable space printing such immature, hateful prejudice......

natabhairavi · Post by **natabhairavi** » 26 Dec 2006, 14:39

I was one of those listenters to Maha. Srinivasan"s concert at the Music Academy, which contributed to very good listening pleasure with a wonderful voice , quite reminiscent of the mighty Maharajapuram Style. There was no neraval or swaras tagged to that excellent krithi and a"stand alone" composition. The reviewer should have snored away to glory and has written about frills, which were in plenty only in the rendition of the krithi. The other comment of the frustrated sister-in-law was quite amusing and light hearted and in good humour. I wish someone throws more light on the Purandara Dasa"s composition "narayana" which the critic has termed as a light piece.To my knowledge both M.S.'S (M.S.SUBBULAKSHMI AND MAHARAJAPURAM SANTHANAM)popularised this piece which came as a whiff of gentle breeze and loved by all rasikas.