Am I missing some thing here?

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 26 Sep 2008, 20:18

SVK wrote:Natural talent can take a musician to the top, but to keep it requires gaining maturity on proper lines. Hearing his HCL concert at The Music Academy, one was tempted to conclude that T.M.Krishnaâ€™s style and musical content these days are moti vated by a new pantha of swaying between slovenliness and spirit.

This is the opening paragraph of a review written by SVK:
http://www.hindu.com/fr/2008/09/26/stor ... 950200.htm

I was always taught that the opening should summarize the essence and that the body of a composition should then provide evidence in support of the conclusions in the lead paragraph. Now, try as I might, I did not find anything to support the observation of slovenliness anywhere in the article. Just to make sure that there was no other interprettation for this word, I checked with my reliable Merriam-Webster's, and did not find anything other than what I 'knew' it to be.
This is what the online version says:
Main Entry: slovÂ·enÂ·ly
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1568
1 a: untidy especially in personal appearance b: lazily slipshod <slovenly in thought>
2: characteristic of a sloven <slovenly habits>
â€” sloÂ·venÂ·liÂ·ness noun
â€” slovenly adverb

I looked for something to substantiate 'lazily slipshod'....

SO, back to my original question - what on earth is Sri SVK talking about?

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 26 Sep 2008, 21:11

Ravi:

You are right, 'slovenliness' is not the word to use. At the top of the article there is a summary "T.M. Krishna swayed between sedate pace and sprightly gait revealing fine vocal balance in the process.". That seems to capture the content of the article.

ganesh_mourthy · Post by **ganesh_mourthy** » 26 Sep 2008, 21:44

yes you both are are right. I did a bit of research too. It does not seem appropriate here.

And I have observed that The Hindu is mostly a prolix. They adhere to that like a fixation.

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 26 Sep 2008, 22:36

The impression I get is that of a reviewer taking great pains to couch his criticism...the result is a bit of a muddle...

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 27 Sep 2008, 02:53

The second paragraph of the review is

The values and creativity had these definite overtones. While the almost whispering lethargic sancharas in the early development of a raga was aimed at imparting a sense of tranquillity, the sudden flood of speedy open-throated passages in the follow-up meant recognition of the need for tempo. The former was to dramatise musicâ€™s emotion and the latter to uphold the virtues of vitality of velocity

As VK states SVK has used the term 'slovenly' to mean 'slow-paced = tranquil' vs 'spirit= vitality of velocity'. He may not have clearly understood the meanng of the term he used which is a legitimate error. But then the sub-editor should have caught it.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 27 Sep 2008, 04:26

Saying it was sloppy?

Sam Swaminathan · Post by **Sam Swaminathan** » 27 Sep 2008, 05:27

I am sure SVK meant to write " sedate or tranquil"......

Correct me if I am wrong...but should this be "lethargic sancharas in the early development of a raga" were aimed?:)

kamalamba · Post by **kamalamba** » 27 Sep 2008, 08:45

I agree with Vijay , SVK is somewhat critical and couches his criticism. A case in point "The progress was around segments which, in his view, constituted the quintessential quality of serenity"............to the end of the paragraph"

But unfortunate / inappropriate choice of "slovenliness"

Not sure if sloppy was really meant by the reviewer. I haven't seen any evidence sloppiness in TMK concerts.

arasi · Post by **arasi** » 27 Sep 2008, 09:03

kamalamba,
No, my 'sloppy' does not have anything do with TMK"s singing! I continued what CML said about the sub-editor coming in to the picture. On seeing SVK's copy, HE would have called his use of the word 'slovenly' sloppy!

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 27 Sep 2008, 09:12

I read the review again. To be critical of the concert is his prerogative but it is not easy to understand which part he does not like. Now I am beginning to think that the summary at the top of the article is written by someone else and Vijay interpreted it right.

Even outside of slovenliness, his style of writing is a bit contrived and very confusing:

>"He successfully connected his subjective vision of the two ragas with the objective reality of exposition",

This almost sounds like the starting words of a philosophy article that a computer program put together

> "The kalapramana of the kirtana ............... was soaked in depth and sahitya grace. The oscillation of the sangatis breathed melodic charm into the song."

Head scratching stuff... How do you soak deeply the kalapramana of a krithi? And how you do oscillate a sangathis as a whole?

I will chalk it up on my inability to comprehend.

rajeshnat · Post by **rajeshnat** » 27 Sep 2008, 10:39

My take on SVK:
Perhaps he is just a great critic (not sure though), but he just focusses too much on waxing eloquence , some times I always find it confusing to first understand his vocabulary in identifying whether he likes the concert or not. Especially when an artist like TM krishnA is reviewed , perhaps he tries more eloquence to ensure that he is not rubbing in the wrong side.

To that extent we reviewers giving a ball to ball commentary from a viribOni varnam to pavamAna with stale words like ok,good ,very good , excellent is just far better.

BTW , here is a nice blog , review of SVK's review
http://arunnnarasimhan.wordpress.com/20 ... t-and-ink/

peanutbutter · Post by **peanutbutter** » 27 Sep 2008, 13:40

Another meaning which made more sense to me: Marked by negligence (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slovenliness)

Reviewers I've noticed like to use big words that rarely fit in the context but are rather forced in, to show their writing 'skills.' Usually backfires, as it has here.

Anyway, the overall tone seems to be, as vijay said, couched criticism. In fact comparing the first paragraph with most of the rest of the review seems as though he starts off harshly then softens up...

Regardless, IMO, TMK's music these days (by these days I mean last 2-3 years) is definitely 'marked by negligence.' He seems negligent of the audience, negligent of his fellow artists on stage, and certainly negligent (or ignorant) of proper Carnatic music.

vijay · Post by **vijay** » 27 Sep 2008, 14:31

Well enough has been said about Shri SVK in this forum and others so I will save my breath this time...nice blog though - if nothing else, the reviewers has earned for himself, a little footnote in the history of CM!