Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 14 Oct 2016, 14:40

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp ... 216836.ece

thenpaanan · Post by **thenpaanan** » 14 Oct 2016, 22:06

Very interesting and educational. This article refers to literal references by Tyagaraja to Maratha influencers that I had never observed myself or heard of before. Previous analyses of Marathi influence were confined to musical style influences. On a tangential note I heard TMK say in a program posted on YouTube that the kathAkAlakshepam model itself comes from the Marathi influence (wherein the "nAradIya" paddhati mentioned in this article are clearly observable). But it was not clear whether TMK meant that the model did not exist in the South before that or some earlier model was heavily reworked with Marathi inspiration. Anyone know?

In a lighter vein, the emergence of abhang singing as a regular feature in CM might be us just going back to our musical roots!

-T

RSR · Post by **RSR** » 21 Oct 2016, 09:42

->kvchellappa-> Thank you very much for sharing this article. ...Pardon the short 'sentences'... around 1500 , Akbar in North, Krushnadevaraya in Vijayanagar empire. Purandharadasa of the same period. Has sung about Pandaripuram Vitoba. Gnanadeva and the entire lineage of Marathi bakthi saint-poets, of Sivaji's time ( Auarngazeb). (1700)( Jayadeva was from 1200) and eastern coast. The reference may be to a different Jayadeva. .. Tanjore was directly under Maratha rule and Raja Serfoji IIwas a great scholar and patron. Was it not perrhaps during Serfoji's rule that Saint Thayagaraja and the other two of the trinity lived and enriched our musical system?( Thyagaraja (1767–1847 CE), Muthuswami Dikshitar (1775–1835 CE) and Shyama Shastri (1762–1827 CE).... Harikatha seems to have made a profound influence on MS even in very tender age. ..My personal experience as a school boy was the hypnotizing group bajans of a Pandaripuram yathra group which camped in our perumal koil and gave us bliss.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 22 Oct 2016, 19:40

Speaking of Tyagaraja's influences and inspirations, has any scholar looked into influences of the songs and music (OduvAr) he would have heard at the Thiruvayyaru Siva temple. This may have to be a nuanced study. One question that can be posed is 'are there any differences in Kambhoji of T vs MD". The equivalent of Kambhoji popularly and frequently figures in the Sivan temple songs but it may not be exactly the same as in CM. What complicates teasing out any such differences are that MD would have been very familiar with the songs sung by OduvArs at the Thiruvarur temple. If there are any influences we then need to know if there were any differences among the OduvArs of Thiruvarur and Thiruvayyaru. But then how about the raga elaboration of the nAdaswara Vidwans attached to Sivan temples whose tradition goes several centuries earlier than T and MD period.

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 22 Oct 2016, 21:06

I think dimikida dimikida bala bhima is straight from Marathi. Interestingly, a Marathi teacher said that Marathi itself came from Tamizh.

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 23 Oct 2016, 14:03

I deflected VK's observation/query to Sri V Sriram and got this reply:
" Many thanks for your kind email. I have been trying to find out more on the aspect you mention. I will definitely write something on it once I know more."

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 23 Oct 2016, 18:38

Speaking of Tyagaraja's influences and inspirations, has any scholar looked into influences of the songs and music (OduvAr) he would have heard at the Thiruvayyaru Siva temple.

U.Ve. Swaminatha Iyer has written that the tEvAram that was being sung earlier was different from what it is now. He explains that there was a musician called Somasundara Desikar who lived in the mid-1850s in Tiruvarur. It was he who tuned the various tEvArams in CM and gave them various paNN nomenclatures. This Desikar was a disciple of a senior disciple of Muthuswami Dikshitar. (U.Ve Sa writes that he forgets the name of this Dikshitar disciple.). Most probably it was Shuddha Maddalam Tambiyappan, is my guess. So we do not actually know how the paNNs sounded in the previous centuries.

That apart there is no difference in the handling of kAmbhOji between T and D. That there exist two different schools, the T school and the D school is only an imagination of certain musicologists and musicians. Unfortunately this opinion has gained ground. Leave alone their handling of the major ragas, even their handling of rare ragas is the same. Their handling of shUlini, for example (shaika dEsAkShi in Venkatamakhi nomenclature) is the same in T's prANanAtha and D's srI shUlinIm. Their handling of the raga TakkA is the same (forget the GNB/MLV versions of rAkA sashivadana of T which is wrong. S.Ramanathan has sung it properly). Also look at the Thillaistanam notation). D's sundaramUrtim sounds alike

What has happened is that over the years, with the advent of the so-called sampUrNa mELa system, every mELa raga, especially the rare ones, have been distorted by the so-called findings of the Music Academy and subsequent inattentive learning by musicians. One instance I'd like to quote is that of rItigauLa which is supposed to different in the two "schools". If you consult the 2nd part of the Thillaistanam book (tyAgarAja kIrthanaigaL) by S.Parthasarathy, he, before giving the notation for T's bAlE bAlEndu bhUShaNi' says that " iraNDu sampradAyatthilum (i.e., in both T's and D's sampradaya) 20avdu mELathai shErnda inda rAgathil nALaDaivil daivatathai mELE ETri chatusruti daivatamAgavE mAtri viTTArgaL (In both T's and D's sampradaya, this raga belonged to the 20th mELA, but in course of time, the value of D1 was raised and now everyone sings with D2.) And he gives the song's notation with D1. We now have the recording of Shakuntala Narasimhan, recently uploaded on sangeethapriya where she sings this song with D2 and the song sounds different from the usual popular one.

There are many ragas like this.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 23 Oct 2016, 19:29

"the T school and the D school is only an imagination of certain musicologists and muscicians."

This was the same idea I portrayed in a series of posts which I posted in "OVK and Ravikiran compositions - a new development" last year along with the changes that many ragas have seen. This was the reason for me to say callaga natho was not composed in Vegavauhini!

With respect to Reethigoulai, I have another view. I think using both the dhaivatham was in vogue even during the days of Sri Thyagaraja. My asssumption is based on the fact that Sr. Chinnasvami Mudaliyar, in his book, had notated both the dhaivatham in the krithi cheraravade mira! So, Reethigoulai, perhaps, after the days of Venkatamakhi must have absorbed chatushruthi dhaivatham like ghanta (my assumption).

As mentioned by Ravisri, not only with Takka or reethigoulai we see this unifrom handling; same can also be seen with balahamsa, malavasri, bilahari, ghanta to name a few.

Ravisri, I will be grateful if you can share with me the notations/recordings of Tillaisthanam version of raka sashivadana.

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 25 Oct 2016, 18:18

challaga nAtO, I have seen in the Wallajapet list as being in vEgavAhini, that is why I mentioned it in an earlier post. As for rItigauLa, Chinnasami Mudaliar came much later than Thyagaraja, therefore the D2 must have crept in before Mudaliar's time but after Thyagaraja's time. Further, since in the 20th mELa, the D1 is difficult to maintain in the avarOhaNA, some musician must have sung with D2 to Mudaliar. I prefer to go by the Thillaistanam book since S.Parthasarathy the author was a disciple of Dr.Srinivasaraghavan who was a disciple of Panju Bhagavatar, disciple of Rama Iyengar. They have maintained the purity of the raga both in notation as well as in rendition, of Shakuntala Narasimhan, disciple of her mother Sugandha Raman who learnt from Dr.Srinivasaraghavan.

balahamsa, malavasri, bilahari, ghanta

Yes, as also in guNTakriyA, chAyatarangiNi, and many other rare ragas. As also in familiar ragas, like, asAvEri, suruTTi, nArAyaNagauLa, dEvagAndhAri, kamalA manOhari etc. So this so-called Thyagaraja school and Dikshitar school is a myth and has to be rejected, at least by the seekers of truth.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 25 Oct 2016, 19:17

Yes.. All the ragas mentioned by you come under this list.
Mudaliyar's source was Valajapet Krishna svamy Bhagavathar, who himself is a disciple of the Saint. So his sources, too are authentic and can be relied on with respect to Reethigowlai. Now for the question as to why Subbarama Deekshithar mentions as an upanga is ( at least according to me) elevating Reethigowlai to the status of raganga raga. When he mentions about Ghana or anandabhairavi , he clearly says the changes crept in after the demise of Venkatamakhin. This cannot be said for Reethigowlai as it is escalated to the position of raging, whereas the former were only janyas. I too consider the raga lakshanam of Thillaistanam school to be authentic. But, considering the genuine and authenticity of Mudaliyar's and his works, this possibility cannot be excluded.
Yes, callaga nacho is mentioned as vegavahini, but the raga lakshanam does not.

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 26 Oct 2016, 18:32

Yes, callaga nacho is mentioned as vegavahini, but the raga lakshanam does not

True, but I have another take on it. What if the learner after learning the song, after a few years forgets a few prayOgas, sanchAras and makes inadvertent mistakes. This has happened to everyone. And people compound it further by claiming that this was how his/her guru taught them. We must remember that it was oral tradition all along without any recourse to books, since there were no books or notations during the time of the Trinity and after too for many decades. This notation business came about only recently. This, I agree, holds good for Thillaistanam school too. It holds good for Wallajapet also, not to speak of the now corrupt Umayalpuram so-called school. Naina Pillai who learnt from Ramaswami Bhagavatar and Jalatarangam also belonged to the Wallajapet school. But down the line there are possibilities for mistakes to creep in.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 26 Oct 2016, 20:10

Yes, what you have said is possible. But, in this case, few prayogas or sancharas will be alienated from rest of the krithi. {This is totally a shadava sampoorna, nishada varjya, avakra raga (in the version under discussion). Routine version is too shava sampoorna, but panchama varjya and vakra raga. Vegavahini handled by Dikshithar is totally different}. This raga lakshana is maintained throughout the notation. So, it is up to us to decide.

Valajapet Venkataramana Bhagavathar has written the notations even during the times of Thyagaraja.

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 27 Oct 2016, 18:52

Valajapet Venkataramana Bhagavathar has written the notations even during the times of Thyagaraja

Fine, but when was that? When he was disciple of Thyagaraja or after he settled at Wallajapet later? Where is it mentioned that he wrote the notation during T's time? And did Venkataramana write the notation or Krishnaswami? This is also important to determine.

And, does the Wallajapte MS contain any other T composition in rItigauLa, apart from 'chErarAvdEmirA'?

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 27 Oct 2016, 20:13

According to oral tradition, he used to notate the songs that he learnt from his master on that day itself.
Both the father -son duo had recorded. As I have mentioned earlier, Chinnasvamy Mudaliyar notated the versions as given by Sri Krishnasvamy Bhagavathar. He had listened to various versions, even that of Umayalpuram and found Krishnasvamy bhagavathar's (KB) version to be authentic. Sambamurthy had mentioned that a manuscript written by KB is available in Sourashtra sabha.

Cheraravademira is not found in those manuscripts; but notated in the book by AMC. Dvaitamu sukhama and raga ratna were notated in those manuscripts.

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 28 Oct 2016, 18:14

Dvaitamu sukhama and raga ratna were notated in those manuscripts

Were these two songs notated with D2?

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 29 Oct 2016, 08:47

Svarasthanas were not mentioned in those manuscripts. They just mention the raga name. But in the above mentioned songs, some archaic phrases like srsgrgm, mdns and unusual phrases like pdp, mdm can be seen reminiscent of sri neelothpala nayike.

SriKrishnan · Post by **SriKrishnan** » 29 Oct 2016, 20:09

Getting back to the original discussion, I would like to share the following from research work of Dr.Prameela Gurumurthy ( Head of Department of Music, Madras). She had done her Doctoral thesis on Kathakalakshepa, published as a book in 1994.
"
The concept of narrating inspiring stories and reinforcing moral values has been a practice from Vedic age. The story of Mahabharata was narrated by Vysampayana to Janamejaya and the Srimad Bhagavata was narrated by Suka to King Parikshit.
The styles of such narration were many. “Purana Patana” was one such common practice. Pauranika read out verses from the Purana kept on “Vyasa Peeta” explained the meaning. Sometimes, another person reads out and the Pauranika explains. Ramabrahmam , father of Sri Thyagarja was one such scholar himself. He used to perform such expositions at the court of King Tulajaji of Thanjavur. Thyagaraja is said to have read out the slokas, while his father expounded them. There were no musical elements or any accompaniments. The contents were philosophical and meant for more intellectual audience than popular. This was called Purana Patana or Purana Pravachana.
There was a parallel track with the Tamil literature. The Oduvars expounded Kama Ramayanam, Kanda Puranam, Villi bharatham, etc and were called “Prasanga”. This was more musical in rendering the verses.
The “Bhagavathars” blended both these styles beautifully and started rendering “Kalakshepa”. The content was equally covering Bhakthi, Dharma and Moksha. It was appealing to much more audience.
During the Maratha rule in Thanjavur, many “Kirtankars’ from Pune and Gwalior came to Thanjavur. The Kirtankars were colourfully dressed, performed with many accompanying instruments. They used Pandarpur Jalra, they used various metrical forms of compositions in catchy tunes. With their style of devotion and entertainment, they were attracting huge audience. Earliest popular Kirtankar from that period was “Meruswami”, who had the title of Kokilakanta ( Cuckoo Voiced). He also visited the Royal court of Swathi thirunal in 1833, and introduced the Kirtan form in kerala. Another one was “Ramachandra Buva from Gwalior. He was called “Morkar Bava”, as he hailed from the village called “Moregaun”. The Kirtan form became very popular in Thanjavur region.
This was the time when Thanjavur Krishna Bhagavathar (1847-1903) stepped in. As a young boy, he had attended many Kirtan performances by Morkar bava. He provided Violin accompaniment to Morkar Bava’s performances. He knew Marathi. He created the form of ‘Katha Kalakshepa” blending the elements from Marathi Kirtan. It was an immediate success and the tradition continues.
ysampayana to Janamejaya and the Srimad Bhagavata was narrated by Suka to King Parikshit.
The styles of such narration were many. “Purana Patana” was one such common practice. Pauranika read out verses from the Purana kept on “Vyasa Peeta” explained the meaning. Sometimes, another person reads out and the Pauranika explains. Ramabrahmam , father of Sri Thyagarja was one such scholar himself. He used to perform such expositions at the court of King Tulajaji of Thanjavur. Thyagaraja is said to have read out the slokas, while his father expounded them. There were no musical elements or any accompaniments. The contents were philosophical and meant for more intellectual audience than popular. This was called Purana Patana or Purana Pravachana.
There was a parallel track with the Tamil literature. The Oduvars expounded Kama Ramayanam, Kanda Puranam, Villi bharatham, etc and were called “Prasanga”. This was more musical in rendering the verses.
The “Bhagavathars” blended both these styles beautifully and started rendering “Kalakshepa”. The content was equally covering Bhakthi, Dharma and Moksha. It was appealing to much more audience.
During the Maratha rule in Thanjavur, many “Kirtankars’ from Pune and Gwalior came to Thanjavur. The Kirtankars were colourfully dressed, performed with many accompanying instruments. They used Pandarpur Jalra, they used various metrical forms of compositions in catchy tunes. With their style of devotion and entertainment, they were attracting huge audience. Earliest popular Kirtankar from that period was “Meryswami”, who had the title of Kokilakanta ( Cuckoo Voiced). He also visited the Royal court of Swathi thirunal in 1836, and introduced the Kirtan form in kerala. Another one was “Ramachandra Buva from Gwalior. He was called “Morkar Bava”, as he hailed from the village called “Moregaun”. The Kirtan form became very popular in Thanjavur region.
This was the time when Thanjavur Krishna Bhagavathar (1847-1903) stepped in. As a young boy, he had attended many Kirtan performances by Morkar bava. He provided Violin accompaniment to Morkar Bava’s performances. He knew Marathi. He created the form of ‘Katha Kalakshepa” blending the elements from Marathi Kirtan. He used many of the Hindusthani Ragas for his compositions, with a Carnatic touch. It was an immediate success and the tradition continues.
"

Sri Thayagaraja must have been exposed to the Kritan form and heard Meruswami and Morkar Bava.

shankarank · Post by **shankarank** » 30 Oct 2016, 23:54

http://madrasmusings.com/Vol%2022%20No% ... wartz.html

I guess by the time of tyagaraja - he figured he was only left with Sri Rama to appreciate valor - and hence came his rejection of the court!

The westerners appropriated that also with their Aryan theory!

If the learned men had studied the "other side" early on and learnt to weaponize and fight against the enemy - maybe we would not have gotten nidhi cAla sukhama ( or there is the other kriti)! and all the pacifist musings of the later era.

Our beloved historian V. Sriram muses how Sivakamiyin Sabadam teaches him about fruitless wars!! https://sriramv.wordpress.com/2016/09/1 ... s-evening/

His friend our beloved kalanidhi still uses eTTappan as a pejorative here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEmQGED8W-A even though his historian friend himself might have clarified the position on that!

The good chunk of the knowledge systems of the U.S is built on national defense. Every Handyman ( a good one) is a U.S Veteran - even the one that taught me how to open the blinds by holding the bottom in one hand!

We are instead, so concerned about Women's rights etc.

After the British and their empire Pride - even Africans are finding their source of Pride in India: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJLGBvjqzlY. It conveniently paints the Mughals as the whites to fit the narrative. It seems their Sultan Elites taught Shivaji the Guerilla Warfare!!

Next what Jews and Zoarastrians?!! Everybody except us?!

The last worthy one to be the chief guest at M.A was Dr Abdul Kalam. The next worthy ones ought to be some professor from the Nuclear establishment (if not a General or a Jawan) who made the calculations for Pokhran II - for any peace that exists is Nuclear Peace even in the words of the darling of the left : Noam Chomsky. We nevertheless appreciate the incisive analysis, except that we should draw our own conclusions based on our own world view!!

We should just stop this President of the Sadas thing - instead downgrade that to a coordinator or Yojnakarta - no nAyakas! An idea from Samskrita Bharati. They should have knowledge beyond just performance.

shankarank · Post by **shankarank** » 31 Oct 2016, 00:52

More interesting stuff here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 370492.cms

Ritual pilgrimage to legitimize power (Now subtly re-interpreted as aestheticization of power! - so the masses will not revolt)

shankarank · Post by **shankarank** » 31 Oct 2016, 01:00

Let us muse on this a bit. It seems tyAgaraja had access to the immense waters of Cauvery in his times! So he must be viewed as immensely rich relative to what is going on now!

A friend of mine talked about a calculation of the amount of land utilized per capita by a U.S person - as a citizen/consumer etc. It included parking lots , road highways, water storage, food production , housing , schools, other public amenities, commercial space etc. to serve 1 person's need. It came to be the amount of land used by an elephant to feed itself.

How can earth accommodate 6 billion elephants?

Our sages who had access to large swathes of aranyams ( in terms of the elephant measure) have to be viewed as filthy rich!

So we can all sing nidhi cAla sukhamA with no guilt whatsoever - especially our musicians

srini_pichumani · Post by **srini_pichumani** » 06 Nov 2016, 08:31

A late response on this thread of rItigauLa, difference between Tyagarajaswami/Dikshitar schools etc -- actually just more questions and a couple of points...

RaviSri, while KVRamachandran and others of similar persuasion make a very strong case for the identity of the 2 schools on all major traditional ragas -- cf the papers I sent you long ago -- and I really like his thesis, I do hope we allow for exceptions... and not use it as a stick too aggressively whether to question the traditions of Walajapet Venkataramana Bhagavatar, Krishnaswami Bhagavatar, Chinnaswami Mudaliar, or to dismiss Umayalpuram.

Anwyay wrt RitigauLa, how about Veena Kuppier and his varnam ? Is there any indication that his varNam was sung entirely with D1 ?

Similarly, one can't throw away everything that Prof.Sambamoorthy says on RitigauLa (though, how I wish the venerable Professor was around so we could ask him clarifying questions, so he gets out of his straightjacket presentations creating music syllabus), or Prof.SRJ who agonizes over this in his own discussion on RitigauLa in the Ragas of the Sangita Saramrta volume.

Coming back to what Bhaktim_Dehi is saying, I don't know if synchronic notation of Tyagarajaswami's RitigauLa is available or not -- but if you look at the staff notation of Cheraraavademiraa in Chinnaswami Mudaliar's volumes, the specific usages of A naturals & flats are marked. Even assuming that the intonation of the A natural that he heard and transcribed do not equate to a bright & cheery D2, there is an implied ambivalence.

(can someone give this staff notation to VSNarasimhan Sir and have him play it as is without improv and record it, I wonder -- mimicking what Chinnaswami Mudaliar himself did with a violinist from the Madras school of music in the 1890s to check the veracity of his transcriptions)
_________

Finally, here's a link to some wonderful music... I recorded Kalpagam maami in 1994 playing "s'rI nIlotpala nAyike" at her home... she was very self-effacing and said that she didn't want any controversy, so she would routinely ask the AIR announcer to say nArIrItigauLa as the raaga name !

https://archive.org/details/0191210

Best regards,
-Srini.

varsha · Post by **varsha** » 06 Nov 2016, 11:40

I recorded Kalpagam maami in 1994

reminded me .to upoad her video.thanks

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 06 Nov 2016, 17:42

Anwyay wrt RitigauLa, how about Veena Kuppier and his varnam ? Is there any indication that his varNam was sung entirely with D1 ?

while listening to reethigoula with occasional D1 itself is rare, where can we go the renditions with total D1 usage? But, what I feel is, at-least Sri Subbarama Deekshithar must have been aware of rendering this varnam with only D1(or a mixture of D1 and D2). My assumption is based on the fact he didn't use any accidentals in his notation. The theory that he is a strict follower of his tradition cannot hold water as he has included accidentals (against his tradition) while notating some urupaddis in saveri and anandhabhairavi.

Even AMC didnt have anything to say about reethigoulai in his book (he gave separate notes about anandhabhairavi and bhairavi that only sudhha D is present in both of them).

RaviSri, while KVRamachandran and others of similar persuasion make a very strong case for the identity of the 2 schools on all major traditional ragas -- cf the papers I sent you long ago -- and I really like his thesis,

what was his thesis? Can you share with me those mentioned papers and his thesis?

Similarly, one can't throw away everything that Prof.Sambamoorthy says on RitigauLa

what did Prof Sambamurthy say regarding this?

Prof.SRJ who agonizes over this in his own discussion on RitigauLa in the Ragas of the Sangita Saramrta volume.

Prof SRJ, like anyone else had an opinion that Sri Thyagarja and Sri Deekshithar were from different schools and he didnt take pains to verify the same. This is reflected in the entire segment written by him (in that book).

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 06 Nov 2016, 18:23

RaviSri, while KVRamachandran and others of similar persuasion make a very strong case for the identity of the 2 schools on all major traditional ragas -- cf the papers I sent you long ago -- and I really like his thesis, I do hope we allow for exceptions... and not use it as a stick too aggressively whether to question the traditions of Walajapet Venkataramana Bhagavatar, Krishnaswami Bhagavatar, Chinnaswami Mudaliar, or to dismiss Umayalpuram.

I agree with what you have said. My lament was regarding the sweeping generalisations made by people like Sambamurthy and SRJ regarding the differences between both schools. Can the differences be so wide and varied? I doubt. Both the composers, ass well as Shyama Sastri were contemporaries, and they lived within a few miles of each other. Can there be, therefore, huge differences between their handling of ragas? Subbarama Dikshitar, the eldest of the musicologists (he was a musician too as we all know) clearly says that Thyagaraja was a disciple of Sonti Venkatasubbayya who belonged to the Venkatamakhi sampradaya. Can we discount this? (I can hear people say his guru was Sonti Venkataramanayya. Even the Kanchi Paramacharya raised this doubt, it seems, with many musicians and musiclogists, none of whom could give him a definitive answer. They just mumbled that it was generally accepted that Venkataramanayya, not Subbayya was Thyagaraja's guru)

What has apparently happened over the decades is that the Music Academy and a few musicians and musicologists created this myth of two different schools and to conform to their pet theory, went about redefining many ragas. I can cite examples of this, bEgaDA for instance. Today this has reached alarming proportions where we have this theory applied to tODi also. This trend has prevailed for the simple reason that most of the popular musicians followed the safe path of following the establishment. Thus many ragas lost their original colour (e.g., AbhEri).

Of course we can allow for minor differences like the usage of dhaivatA in srI rAgA which Dikshitar has done but not the other two. Similarly one can understand a slight, rather rare usage of D2 in rItigauLa, yes, but standardising D2 as the dhaivatA for this rAgA and bringing it under the 22 mELa is simply unacceptable to me, especially in the light of what Sri S.Parthasarathi, disciple of Thillaistanam Srinivasaraghavan writes in his note before notating 'bAlE bAlEndu bhUShaNi'.

When I met Kalpagam Swaminathan in 2005, I had a brief discussion with her on this matter. She was forthcoming and said that she had heard from Tiger himself that rItigauLa used only D1 and if necessary D2 was permitted but not the exact D2. This, Tiger said was applicable to Thyagaraja kritis too. I have heard this from another disciple of Tiger too. We discussed bEgaDA too, where the question of the DNS prayOga also came up as it does in rItigauLa, but both these are shunned now.

shankarank · Post by **shankarank** » 07 Nov 2016, 01:29

RaviSri wrote: What has apparently happened over the decades is that the Music Academy and a few musicians and musicologists created this myth of two different schools and to conform to their pet theory, went about redefining many ragas. I can cite examples of this, bEgaDA for instance. Today this has reached alarming proportions where we have this theory applied to tODi also. This trend has prevailed for the simple reason that most of the popular musicians followed the safe path of following the establishment. Thus many ragas lost their original colour (e.g., AbhEri).

Is that so easy to do? All it takes is a bunch of musicians and musicologists and an establishment?. Wow. It seems like the ancient fervor - when rAgas like Arabhi, SuruTTi formed - was still alive and well as recently as 100 years back

!! We must feel blessed. How many more such rAgAs are left to be discovered ?

How did we get HindOlam as it is prevalent today ? What about kalyANa vasantam - I think I heard D2 there in a recently posted recording from a Chittoor parampara musician! Same question on Abheri? How did we lose D1?

The musicologists who supposedly shun science - for the fear of scientists taking over their departments - have that science in their books they study themselves - so those observations are not considered scientific because they happened in ancient times??

What is happening to tODi in terms of constituent notes - or are we talking just piDis?

CM is no longer to be looked at as a static system is it?

OK I am leaving the soap box and letting the floor to continue with serious people

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 07 Nov 2016, 18:14

Is that so easy to do?

Very much easy when the general population is very light minded and not serious.

when rAgas like Arabhi, SuruTTi formed - was still alive and well as recently as 100 years back !! We must feel blessed.

They are alive; mutilated and deprived of beauty. Very much blessed!!!!

Kalyana vasantham is a separate story to be covered separately.

RaviSri · Post by **RaviSri** » 07 Nov 2016, 18:26

Same question on Abheri? How did we lose D1?

This question is is by now, I think, settled. It was according to popular belief (and it is true also), Musiri Subramanya Iyer who changed nagumOmu's D1 to D2 for the simple reason that he could not intone the D1 properly. The others followed suit. Balamurali after learning it from Musiri's recording, sang the song with D2 like Musiri. But he got to realise that this rAgA utilised only D1. He then asked Musiri, 'would it not be better to sinmg the song in its original meTTu with D1' and proceeded to sing it before Musiri. The latter advised him, "No, you sing with D2 itself. That is more attractive." Thus BMK popularised nagumOmu with D2. This BMK himself narrated at the Indian Fine Arts Society in 1990 when he presided over the IFAS conference during his lecdem one day. The next day morning he came to the Academy. I asked him about it and he repeated what he had said at IFAS.

Vedavalli is on record saying that it is difficult to hold the D2 for most musicians, especially in the avarOhaNA of ragas belonging to the 20th mELA and they easily slip into D2 from the N. But how do people intone the D1 correctly in hindOLam is a question to which I have not got a proper answer from anyone.

'vINABhEri' (Dikshitar) by MS and S.Ramanathan and 'ninnuvinA marigaladA' (Shyama Sastri) by MLV and Vedavalli are preserved with D1. Vedavalli has also sung nagumOmu holding the D1 as did her guru Mudicondan.

If time permits I'll explain what happened at the Music Academy in the early 40s regarding bEgaDA. One can realise how the establishment can influence ragas themselves that too wrongly.

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 07 Nov 2016, 18:49

TMK said that aberi is with D1 and with D2 it is Devagandhari (he said there are two devagandharis, karnataka devagandhari if you like). Recently Sumitra vasudev sang ninuvina mari with D1 as given by Rangaramanuja Iyengar also (who acknowledges there is a way of singing it with chatusruthi daivatam also). He says that it is similar to Bhimpalasi. Is not Bhimpalasi close to Karnataka Devagandhari? MS and SSI seem to have followed Musiri school.

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 07 Nov 2016, 20:18

Given that Tygaraja and Deekshithar followed same lakshanas, there cannot be two abheri; the one which we commonly hear(with either suddha or chatushruthi dhaivatham), audava sampoorna avakra raga and the other, chatussvara sampoorna vakra raga in which we have veenaabheri (as per SSP). According to the later treatises namely Sangita Saramruta, Ragalakshana of Muddu Venkatamakhi, only the later can be called as abheri. So the former version was misnamed as abheri.
I have heard that suddha dhaivata version of the former audava-sampoorna raga was calles as padma! This I have heard with reference to Syama Sastri krithi ninnuvina marigalada. Hence we can apply the same to nagumomu too.
Also, I have seen in a manuscript, nagumomu mentioned as indugantarava!!
So, nagumomu - the present version itself (replacing chatushruthi dhaivatham with suddha dhaivatham in the routine version) is an altered one or not is to be found out.

shankarank · Post by **shankarank** » 07 Nov 2016, 22:05

That old abheri - vINaiyil tAn vAsikka muDiyum enbatAl ( we can play it only in vINA) - we can name it vINAbheri

After all you only need a name for it.

MaheshS · Post by **MaheshS** » 07 Nov 2016, 22:30

Fascinating post on Abheri by Arun [arunk].

The Abheri conundrum

shankarank · Post by **shankarank** » 07 Nov 2016, 22:42

Yes - heard that - have a lot to say on that in due course. Let the serious people come forth with all they got. Then will say what I wanted to.
Meanwhile lets just get a new name. If we are too adamant ( romba aDam piDittAl bhashAgam paNNiviDuvArgal) - they will make it a bhAshAnga raga and serve us a hindustani chat finger food!

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 08 Nov 2016, 08:36

Arun,
Remember reading your post now. We can feel your jOsh in it even today!

A-bhEri--D1 or D2, vINAbhEri or KD...this rAgA we have is delightful...

kvchellappa · Post by **kvchellappa** » 08 Nov 2016, 10:07

Sanjay's take:
http://sanjaysub.blogspot.in/search/label/Ragas

He says that if Abheri should not be called Abheri, Pantuvarali also should not be called Pantuvarali! (Pl read the original, if interested, my cryptic comment is for fun).

bhakthim dehi · Post by **bhakthim dehi** » 08 Nov 2016, 17:11

Yes. Pantuvarali is subha Pantuvarali and Pantuvarali which is being sung now is only kamavardhani.

shankarank · Post by **shankarank** » 11 Nov 2016, 10:41

RaviSri wrote: Musiri Subramanya Iyer who changed nagumOmu's D1 to D2 for the simple reason that he could not intone the D1 properly. The others followed suit. Balamurali after learning it from Musiri's recording, sang the song with D2 like Musiri. But he got to realise that this rAgA utilised only D1. He then asked Musiri, 'would it not be better to sinmg the song in its original meTTu with D1' and proceeded to sing it before Musiri. The latter advised him, "No, you sing with D2 itself. That is more attractive."

If this is true this does not sound like an change made with some disregard to tradition. Musiri is a known sAdhaka - and something felt by him - he is sharing with another seeker. A conversation like this has to be viewed with some respect it deserves like a Guru-Sishya conversation which is revered in our tradition. It only further affirms the amount of respect he drew from a young musician like Balamurali and how tradition and it's preservation is handled in those days. Musiri did not go hammer and tongs publicly and rant in front of everybody - how all this holding of tradition is causing harm and affecting innovation. Rather he shared it in one of those privileged moments with another worthy sAdhaka - a moment as equally or even more sanctified as the attorney-client or spousal secrecy privilege in the modern legal system.

RaviSri wrote:'vINABhEri' (Dikshitar) by MS and S.Ramanathan and 'ninnuvinA marigaladA' (Shyama Sastri) by MLV and Vedavalli are preserved with D1. Vedavalli has also sung nagumOmu holding the D1 as did her guru Mudicondan.

It is the same revered Guru-Sishya system that gave us the new Abheri - that also preserved the old Abheri. No purging has happened but yet we have gained a new rAga. That is how Indian tradition operated in all spheres. We should be proud of this! Instead we have people arguing against the integrity of the sampradaya system using such examples! Perverse!

Just in the recent MSS event RK Sriramkumar shared an instance of teaching from MSS : the saurashtra kriti SrI ganapati nI - where a certain prayOgam was taught by Smt. Brinda to MSS that may not agree with the krama of the rAgA - but MSS pointedly told him this is how I have been taught - you also keep it the same!!

This convinces me even more that in all the things that one learns from a teacher : vyAkaraNam and SAstram specifically have to be sought from a worthy Guru! Else it gets to being what Bhagavat pAda said : nahi nahi rakshati DukRinkaraNE! or if one needed a tamizh version one can use the SubramaNya Bharati's : sAttiram pEsukirAye kaNNamA sAttiram EtukkaDi Attiram koNDavaRkE sAttiram uNDODi! Even Bharati's works have to be philology-ed with a philosophical angle - not literally and bluntly.

I will write about the other good things we got from this new Abheri - in a later post.

shankarank · Post by **shankarank** » 12 Nov 2016, 07:34

The somber mood evoked by D1 that is pointed to in Arun's blog

https://sunson.wordpress.com/2009/03/25 ... conundrum/

is directly related to the phrase based samvAditva that is different between the two rAgas.

Reference to that discussion previously posted here again: http://www.musicresearch.in/download.ph ... le_164.zip

In modern Abheri those phrases abound with more expressiveness : (s)ndp -> (m)grs (sa-pa relation) , nsgrs -> mpndp (sa-ma relation). In the traditional abheri with d1 one could conceive in avarOhaNam dpm -> grs with a sa -ma relationship - but not much beyond that. So this is much more deeper than just saying d2 resulted in some sweetness!

The samvAdi relationship between d1 and g2 is not expressing itself - mainly due to all effort directed towards the holding d1 intact. Which reduces the expression of N2 as well.

In the Dikshitar's vINAbhEri , he had to knock off quite a good number of notes on the ArOhaNa keeping it to sa-ma , pa-sa to get what maximum he could in terms of expressiveness.

Given that music moved out of the courts/sadas into larger popular audience, more expressiveness is a preferred thing. Given the dramatic style of Musiri - that makes even more sense why he preferred that.

But it is surprising that we put so much importance to the effects of who patronized the music than what a musician (who is a proven sAdhaka) feels they should pursue at any point of time.

Old Abheri -> thoTTu pADuthal (touch and go!) - evident from Smt. Vedavalli's rendition. Sounds like some genius Mozart set the meTTU!

New Abheri -> viTTU pADuthal. ( letting go)

Diskhitar Abheri - oru eTTu kaTTi ETRi viTTAr

Figuratively and literally

- if you consider all the looping in the arOhana smgmps
Translation: He drew a 8 pattern to push it up!! ( humor fully available only in Tamizh - sorry folks)

With expressive raga phrases - one obvious outcome is how laya-viSrAnti also gets highlighted. Of course we have to consider laya-viSrAnti as substantive music by itself even before we have the mind to consider this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmZ5U9SfDNk - at the end of pallavi into anupallavi.

Which is lot more than just one swarasthana that a musician is obsessed with. The latter is what I would call artistic freedom of the modern types - I will hold the note even if it is against the grain. Expressing their will power against Mother nature. No samvAdi rather piDivAdi

We talk about MSS and classicism - above one is a good example - MSS in the lion's den of Dr BMK. Much better than MSS singing like her Guru SSI - the mArubalga posted in this forum by varsha. madhura vANi doing staccato - nah!!

rasikas.org

Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja

Re: Marata Influence on Thyagaraja