TRADITION AND CARNATIC MUSIC

The word tradition refers to “long established or inherited ways of thinking or acting” and “the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation.”  Groups, nay even nations and peoples, often distinguish themselves through their so-called unique traditions and hold many of their unwritten rules to be inviolable.

Part of the reason people value tradition is because it does play an important and useful role in society.  In a world that is fast changing, it provides an anchor for guiding social norms and behavior.  Individuals and groups view their traditions as important components that define their very identity and group membership.  Traditions have helped preserve generations of empirical wisdom, social etiquette, and many time tested practices and principles.  Often, a practice or belief is elevated to the level of tradition simply because it has been in vogue for a long time.  Once it gains recognition as tradition, its survival is assured since going against the collective (supposed) wisdom of the elders and ancestors who gave birth to it is a difficult task.

Yet, does age alone make something sacred and sacrosanct?  Even as early as the fifth century, Kalidasa responded to this question by claiming,

             puraanamityeva na saadhu sarvam , na caapi kaavyam navamityavadyam,
             santah pareekshanyataraa bhajante, madhah parapratyayena buddhih

All that is old is not good, nor is a piece of poetry bad because it is new.  A man of discernment will critically evaluate both and select the good, but the fool will select on the recommendation of others.

Tradition is a double edged sword, which when blindly followed can become highly regressive hindering progress and denying even justice and fair play.  One can find ample examples of this, for instance, in the realm of religious practices.  Equally (in the sciences for instance) one can cite numerous examples to show that real progress and paradigm shifts occurred only because some erroneous traditions were defied.  Both religion and science provide many examples of the high resistance to violating tradition, and the perils and persecution to which reformers are sometimes subjected.  No area of human activity is exempt from the operation of these features, however.   On the other hand, allowing tradition to be flouted by anyone at will may usher in total anarchy and result in such unacceptable levels of individualism that could violate the very ideas of society, social consciousness, and social ethos.  For millennia, societies have continually faced this dilemma of wanting to uphold tradition and at the same time give into modifications leading to positive and constructive outcomes.

As a field of human activity, Carnatic music has had its share of its issues and controversies with tradition.  First of all, Carnatic music is steeped in traditions that range all the way from the very concert format to some inconsequential ones related to how musicians seat themselves on the concert stage. Tradition dictates how to render various ragas and the admissible phraseology associated with each raga.  However, the music itself has evolved as a result of many pathfinders challenging its traditions.   Examples from a not too distant era illustrate some of this evolution.  For instance, Ariyakkudi Ramanuja Iyengar stepped away from prevailing tradition and established today’s concert format, the female musical trinity - and D.K. Pattammal in particular - ended the male monopoly on the Carnatic concert stage, and G.N. Balasubramanian made briga laden singing in a fast tempo as well as many novelties like shruti bhedam not only acceptable but highly popular.  However, the task of implementing these changes was not always easy.  Often, the challenges faced by the trailblazers were daunting as exemplified by the skepticism GNB had to endure from his own father, a venerable and powerful figure in the Music Academy.

Fortunately, the Carnatic music fraternity has managed the transitions admirably well.  This is due in part to two reasons.  Firstly, the ones who successfully pushed the changes were extremely qualified and knowledgeable people with pristine motives, and even as they brought in some needed changes, they had great respect for tradition and the need to preserve traditions at large. They were not motivated by the need for sensationalism or notoriety, but by some higher goals not alien to the cause of the art.  Secondly, like the scientific community that refuses to accept new theories without vetting them and putting them to serious tests, so also has the hard core Carnatic music community not rushed to adopt a change simply for the sake of change, but with considerable caution based on considerations of aesthetics and acceptance by the audience.  These two are worth emphasizing today when challenges to tradition in Carnatic music are initiated not necessarily by experts and are being arbitrated by the media and the masses.  All of us bear a great responsibility to ensure that any breaks in tradition only lead to the betterment of the music and greater benefit for all its stakeholders.

Carnatic music thrives in the Hindu milieu whose philosophers consider everything in this world as ephemeral (mitya) and subject to constant change.  It is therefore very surprising that there are fanatic, die hard sticks-in-the-mud within that community who resist any change without regard to whether they are needed, will be in the best interest of the field and profession, and will enhance the enjoyment of music and increase its support base.  An example of this is the opposition to Tamil Isai, concerts of exclusively Tamil compositions, which appeal to those who do not understand other languages like Telugu or Sanskrit and may have the effect of increasing the overall support base of listeners among Tamils.  More recent examples include the initial reactions to the introduction of various western instruments like the mandolin and saxophone.  There are also extreme fanatics who aver that no composition other than those of the Great Trinity deserve to be sung or performed and denigrate any attempts by those who compose new pieces, although sometimes this is a convenient ruse used by musicians who lack creativity in that dimension.  Such positions are as ridiculous as saying that everything that is needed has been invented by Newton and no new discoveries are needed or should be considered. The absurdity of this is heightened upon reflection that beauty in music is indeed in the ears of the listener and not in the pedigree of the composer.

Much controversy is engendered when a musician violates long accepted traditions related to concert formats and even more so when hard core musical technicalities impinging on raga lakshana (the grammar of the raga) and the like are involved.  In an environment where there is a paying audience with pre-set expectations, it is important to be careful in experimenting on the stage.  In the least, the musician or organizer needs to let people know ahead of time if the concert would depart significantly from what one normally expects so that people can make an informed choice on whether to attend or not.  As for technical aspects, each musical system is defined by its own unique grammar and conventions, and their modification should be undertaken only by experts.  The likelihood that even the slightest modification in these can lead to debates that may last for decades is high, as can be seen in the ever-lasting one on whether the Mohanam of the GNB school traverses an extraneous note and if it should be allowed. 

I like to end this article by highlighting some aspects of tradition that are becoming extinct and could pose a serious threat to the very profession and art.  In olden days, Carnatic music was supported by kings and very wealthy landlords through munificent grants based often on their love of the art (and sometimes snobbery too) and their access to unimaginable resources in money and man power.  Musicians who made it to the courts were exceptionally talented and were afforded enormous respect comparable to the best from other professions.  Many of the musicians also approached their art not just as a means of living but as a spiritual pursuit (recall Saint Thyagaraja’s Nidhisaala sukhama) and could care less about the size of the audience or for the clout of the patron.  The patrons were too wealthy to have to care about the expenses involved, and decisions were highly centralized and almost individual.  That environment certainly fostered a climate of sycophancy and a culture of entitlement in the music community with members of it acting as though the world owed them all just because of their talent, and some of that attitude continues even today.  The larger pool of available patrons and other revenue sources like recording revenues, marriage concerts funded generously and often by black money, and movie singing have simultaneously diminished even more the respect of the musician for the stage, the audience, and the organizer.  That is not a healthy trend particularly in an activity for which patron and audience involvement is a discretionary choice, almost for a luxury and not a necessity, and much support is needed from volunteer organizers and paying listeners who have no personal material gain from the activity.

Today, the main patrons of music are music organizations which depend on audience and volunteer support by way of donations, ticket revenue, time, and work.   Decisions are also made collectively by committees that have to accommodate diverse tastes.  The need to please a large number of people has thus become essential for the success of the art and the artist.   Spheres of human activity have exploded reducing the amount of time and energy of the average individual for the performing arts.  Unlike the pre-independence days of India when opportunities for Indians were limited and professions only a few, there are many Indians who have risen to being prima donnas in many diverse fields.  Some of them who adorn the seats either as organizers or audience have little patience for antics based on any sense of entitlement, for such antics are not acceptable in their own professions.    Along with this, the availability of music in the form of recordings in various forms has rendered attendance at a concert ever more discretionary as a means of enjoying music.  In this scenario, can musicians cling on to expectations that their predecessors were lucky to enjoy by citing tradition?  Will escalating demands based on musical merit and popularity alone (alas, sometimes as perceived only by the musician or a small coterie of fans) continue to get satisfied when they are not validated by corresponding box office collections, or would it accelerate the rush to a tipping point catastrophically turning away support?  Shouldn’t the entire profession become more professional in the way it does business today?  Which of the “traditions” in this arena should give, and how should they be molded?  These are interesting questions indeed.

Let me hope that this modest foray into a difficult and vast topic will generate much more discussion related to Carnatic music traditions and their evolution, and even more importantly that such discussions shall be in a constructive vein enriching all aspects of the music and enhancing the happiness of all stakeholders.

 
_____________________________

This author, Dr. Vaidyanthan Ramaswami also wrote the books 'Innovation by India for India, the Need and the Challenge' as also 'Bhaja Govindam - A Topical Exposition'  besides writing and editing several books in his fields Applied Probability & Telecommunications.  He is a former President & Secretary of CMANA, the Carnatic Music Association of North America under whose Presidency its Sangeethasagara award was instituted.  He has penned over 40 compositions in Carnatic music.  A probabilist by profession, he has been a serial inventor with many patents, and among his positions was one as Chief Scientist at Bellcore.  He was named a Distinguished Science Alumnus by Purdue University, an honor given to a very small percentage of its graduates.