Rightly called a “Trail Blazer” by Sruti, the leading Indian magazine for classical music and dance, Sangeetha Sagara[1] D.K. Pattammal (1919-2009) really opened the door for women into the top echelons of Carnatic music by venturing on stage into manodharma (improvisation-based) music including Ragam-Tanam-Pallavi. She demonstrated that women are no less capable when it comes to extempore creativity and talent. Her singing not only earned the respect of the very community that had made it a taboo for women to sing on a concert stage, but also succeeded in making it take pride in the fact that she was indeed one of their own. She left an indelible mark on Carnatic music itself and earned a permanent place in the annals of history in many unique ways.
Being the birth centenary of that great lady Pattammal, 2019 will certainly bear many tributes to her in the form of lectures, lec-dems, and scholarly articles from many institutions around the world. But an understanding of the magnitude of her achievements shall remain incomplete without juxtaposing them with those of the daunting set of male musical giants who had ushered in a golden era for Carnatic music - the milieu in which these were attained - as well as of fellow and later giants who were to embellish that era even more during her career. To say that her success is a tale of bearding a set of lions (and retaining her own territory amongst lionesses) would be no exaggeration at all.
Being the birth centenary of that great lady Pattammal, 2019 will certainly bear many tributes to her in the form of lectures, lec-dems, and scholarly articles from many institutions around the world. But an understanding of the magnitude of her achievements shall remain incomplete without juxtaposing them with those of the daunting set of male musical giants who had ushered in a golden era for Carnatic music - the milieu in which these were attained - as well as of fellow and later giants who were to embellish that era even more during her career. To say that her success is a tale of bearding a set of lions (and retaining her own territory amongst lionesses) would be no exaggeration at all.
When Pattammal entered the Carnatic stage
in 1929, it was dominated by some of the all-time greats: Ariyakudi Ramanuja
Iyengar, Maharajapuram Viswanatha Iyer, Musiri
Subramania Iyer, the Brinda-Mukta duo, and Chembai Vaidyanatha Bhagavatar. As though this was not competition enough,
Madurai Mani Iyer, Semmangudi Srinivasaier, and G.N. Balasubramaniam had
started making big waves around then, and M.S. Subbulakshmi arrived in Chennai
just a few years later as a rising star from the very start. Within a decade, there were to come some
other great musicians like M.D. Ramanathan and M.L. Vasanthakumari who quickly
gained prominence and a remarkable following of their own. An excellent account of each of these
musicians can be found in the book Great
Masters of Carnatic Music[2], our main
source for this article, which we have used in the spirit, “Originality is but a pair of fresh eyes.” Here, we shall highlight briefly the
individual forte and contributions of the stalwarts the young Pattammal had to
face and how she had to differentiate her music from theirs. We will also discuss her music in
juxtaposition to those of her peers and of those that came later. The fact that Pattammal was able to penetrate
the formidable den of these giants, who were adored highly by both experts and
lay rasikas, and continued a steep
and speedy ascent despite them and the giants that came in later is what makes
her deeds not just revolutionary, but highly commendable.
Among the stalwarts, Ariyakudi Ramanuja
Iyengar stood much taller than the rest as a margadarshi (one who showed the way.) He had streamlined the concert format, in the
words of GNB, away from the “unalloyed interpretative music … insufficient to
meet the increasing demands of the public” to one with a rich mix of
compositions in a variety of rhythmic patterns (tala) with fast and slow tempo kritis
sung alternatively, and in tune with his advice on how to format a concert,
with “kalpanaswaras … limited and proportionate, and restricted to a few
places, after a reasonable measure of neraval.” Ariyakudi’s golden mean extended also to
moderation in other aspects like the use of gamakas
(microtones) and brigas (brisk phrases similar to the vibratos employed by
Western band artists). He did not
display unnecessary virtuosity, and “one could say his music lacked passion,
romance, and abandon.” Yet, in the words
of Dr. Pinakapani, he was “embellishing it, redecorating it with jewels,
clothing it beautifully; and it appeared we heard only the raga and forgot
about the kriti, its words or the talam …”
His music was not pandering to the crowds, but one that evoked so much
admiration and imitation even by experts in the field that GNB later acknowledged,
“His music is to Karnatic music what the Gita is to Indian philosophy, its
quintessence – eternal and elemental truths and values which stand for all
times … If one may say so, his music can
be called ‘The Gita of Sangita.’” It is
quite interesting to note that GNB, who went on to become an all-time great
himself, was a master par excellence
in madhyamakala. With his highly briga laden voice, he ventured into several
new territories on stage such as grahabhedam
that Ariyakudi probably would have done much more sparingly. Ariyakudi’s music
excelled both in lakshana (grammar)
as also in lakshya (aesthetic
aspects). Although Ariyakudi drew strong criticism from traditionalists like
Rangaramanuja Iyengar who commented that his concerts were like “an appetizing
sweet dish with which traditional Hindu feasts began, (but) … stopped with
that,” his new format stood the test of time and became the de facto standard that is followed to
this day. Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar
thus embodied a highly illumined sun that could eclipse many stars and make
them invisible. Artists who could stand
the glare of such a giant do deserve our highest respect, and Pattammal is
certainly one of them.
Standing high in popularity in the 1920s along
with Ariyakudi was Maharajapuram Viswanatha Iyer. He deserves the credit for
being the first to bring about a change in the concert style by shifting its
emphasis to kritis. He was also the first to introduce Hindustani
touches to Carnatic music. His singing
was brisk and marked by an emphasis on lakshya,
the aesthetic aspects, which mattered more to him than lakshana. He approached
ragas differently each time and never repeated himself. Even today, his renderings of certain ragas
like arabhi and mohanam must be acknowledged to be very special, as they have the
unique ability of touching one’s heart immediately and making one want to
listen to them again and again. Although
his career started waning precipitously in a couple of decades, he was
certainly a formidable force on the stage at the time when Pattammal entered
it.
Yet another favorite on the Carnatic
stage was Musiri Subramania Iyer who had a high pitched, almost feminine voice. He had a leisurely style emphasizing bhava, the emotional aspects of ragas
and kritis, and he handled even
difficult phrases with considerable ease.
Perhaps due to his giving priority to sahitya and treating technique only as its handmaiden, his music, more
than that of the others, was on the lips of most listeners. His neravals displayed the best of manodharma music. He could hold a note
for an incredibly long amount of time, and his inflections of the notes,
particularly, were sensuous. The way he
calls out “Deva!” in the kamboji composition
Tiruvadi Saranam and his rendering of
that song as also ‘Nagumo’ are
unmatched even today. Indira Menon2 has noted the
following with regard to M.S. Subbulakshmi:
“Musiri’s greatest achievement as a guru was
to train (her) … She acquired technique and depth from Semmangudi. But in the shaping of the MS bani with its
special tonal effects, nuances, and embellishments in alapana and niraval
singing, Musiri’s influence is unmistakable. … Every sensuous inflection in
Subbulakshmi’s voice sounds like that of Musiri.”
Available recordings of Musiri do confirm these assessments. Unfortunately, Musiri’s career on the stage almost ended by 1940 on account of his poor health although he was at his peak when Pattammal started off her career.
Brinda and Mukta, who were well known already by the time Pattammal started, were granddaughters of the legendary Veena Dhanammal to whom flocked even famous and highly respected musicians to hone their own skills. They were probably the first popular female duo to sing on stage and specialized in javalis and padams, which they sang in a very slow tempo (ativilambakala), a kalapramana (time measure) that requires ‘a special kind of voice culture, breath control, and a special tala.’ While this partnership lasted a while, it was Brinda who reigned as a ‘musician’s musician’ on the Carnatic scene for many decades. We refer to the excellent article3 by Savita Narasimhan in The Hindu for an eloquent portrayal of Brinda confining ourselves here only to some main aspects of her style. Brinda’s was a style that emphasized gamaka heavily to the point of drawing criticisms from some. Comparing her to GNB, Indira Menon2 notes, “The difference between the Brinda and GNB styles (to take two extreme examples of gamaka- and briga-oriented styles) may be likened to (that between) a river of the plains winding slowly along and a torrential mountain stream.” There was none to match her in the way she used gamakam particularly in singing padams like “Ososi” and “Peyyada,” and her oscillations in ragas like Kalyani and Todi were masterly. Semmangudi Srinivasaier is supposed to have remarked, “Even if someone can sing even a single padam as well as Brinda, one can consider one’s life well-spent.” Indira Menon2 notes with great regret that “Brinda’s musicianship or the fact that she was the pioneer woman vocalist to enter the male domain of manodharma sangita did not receive the appreciation they deserved,” and we recall this here with no disrespect to Pattammal whose popularity and appeal were certainly much higher. In fact, Dr. Menon states explicitly in her book, “… her music did not dazzle. Hers was not a ‘popular’ style.” It is, after all, well known that the appreciation of music at a slow tempo that truly brings out the ragabhava (the emotive aspectis of a melody) in the best possible manner is not given to all but mainly to those with an innate ragajnanam (knowledge to discern melody.) It would be appropriate to recall Brinda’s own words in this context, “Many people have swarajnanam (knowledge of notes) or layajnanam (knowledge of beats and timing) but very few people have ragajnanam. It is something you either have you don’t have. It can’t be learned or acquired from someone.” Despite that, Brinda and her sister Mukta do occupy a special place in the world of Carnatic music. Brinda, deservedly, continues to have a large following, and several worthy students continue to propagate her bani (style).
Brinda and Mukta, who were well known already by the time Pattammal started, were granddaughters of the legendary Veena Dhanammal to whom flocked even famous and highly respected musicians to hone their own skills. They were probably the first popular female duo to sing on stage and specialized in javalis and padams, which they sang in a very slow tempo (ativilambakala), a kalapramana (time measure) that requires ‘a special kind of voice culture, breath control, and a special tala.’ While this partnership lasted a while, it was Brinda who reigned as a ‘musician’s musician’ on the Carnatic scene for many decades. We refer to the excellent article3 by Savita Narasimhan in The Hindu for an eloquent portrayal of Brinda confining ourselves here only to some main aspects of her style. Brinda’s was a style that emphasized gamaka heavily to the point of drawing criticisms from some. Comparing her to GNB, Indira Menon2 notes, “The difference between the Brinda and GNB styles (to take two extreme examples of gamaka- and briga-oriented styles) may be likened to (that between) a river of the plains winding slowly along and a torrential mountain stream.” There was none to match her in the way she used gamakam particularly in singing padams like “Ososi” and “Peyyada,” and her oscillations in ragas like Kalyani and Todi were masterly. Semmangudi Srinivasaier is supposed to have remarked, “Even if someone can sing even a single padam as well as Brinda, one can consider one’s life well-spent.” Indira Menon2 notes with great regret that “Brinda’s musicianship or the fact that she was the pioneer woman vocalist to enter the male domain of manodharma sangita did not receive the appreciation they deserved,” and we recall this here with no disrespect to Pattammal whose popularity and appeal were certainly much higher. In fact, Dr. Menon states explicitly in her book, “… her music did not dazzle. Hers was not a ‘popular’ style.” It is, after all, well known that the appreciation of music at a slow tempo that truly brings out the ragabhava (the emotive aspectis of a melody) in the best possible manner is not given to all but mainly to those with an innate ragajnanam (knowledge to discern melody.) It would be appropriate to recall Brinda’s own words in this context, “Many people have swarajnanam (knowledge of notes) or layajnanam (knowledge of beats and timing) but very few people have ragajnanam. It is something you either have you don’t have. It can’t be learned or acquired from someone.” Despite that, Brinda and her sister Mukta do occupy a special place in the world of Carnatic music. Brinda, deservedly, continues to have a large following, and several worthy students continue to propagate her bani (style).
Yet
another giant of this era was Chembai Vaidyanatha Bhagavatar. Though his music
missed “many facets – like gamakas, curves, bends, and glides, and fast brigas,”
he still commanded a major part of the field through his style, which was “massive
and weighty, shorn of embellishments and sentimentality, (but) went straight to
the heart.” Just as a roaring lion cannot
or does not have to modulate its voice to get attention, Chembai too could
simply rule the stage with his full- throated and high volume singing (the
latter once inviting the comment from Semmangudi that he needed no microphone
but a silencer). Indira Menon, who
equated frozen music to architecture, considers Chembai’s music to be like the much-admired
Doric order of architecture in that they are both majestic and solid in their simplicity.
Chembai was known not only for his vocal music, but also for his great mastery
over the violin. He often provided violin accompaniment to many of his leading
colleagues. His renderings of certain
verses from Narayaneeyam like “Agre
Pasyami” are played to this day across temples in Kerala. We must note, among others, that Chembai’s
devotion to Guruvayurappan was such that he gave away almost all his earned
wealth to the Guruvayur Temple keeping only a bare minimum for his sustenance.
The
above is a brief account of the musical giants reigning at the time Pattammal
entered the stage. Some of those mentioned
above who entered the scene just around the time she did or later – Semmangudi,
Madurai Mani, M.S. Subbulakshmi, GNB, and MLV
- are well known to the present generation. Unfortunately, space does not permit us to
write in detail about them, but we must note that M.S. Subbulakshmi, D.K.
Pattammal, and M.L. Vasanthakumari came to be hailed as the Female Trinity of
Carnatic music. While each of these
artists was a musical giant in his or her own right, what is relevant to this
article is that none of them could unseat D.K. Pattammal from her position or
diminish the great following of rasikas
she enjoyed. What then was her
uniqueness and magic? We explore that
only briefly below in the hope that other articles on her will cover these in
much greater detail, and the reader will be spared of unnecessary repetition.
First
and foremost, D.K. Pattammal broke all the barriers that kept out women, particularly
Brahmin women, from singing on stage and displaying their real talent in manodharma (improvisation) and in
rendering swaraprastharas and RTPs. Although
other women like Brinda had already ventured on stage with manodharma, Pattammal was the only one to ‘go the whole hog.’ She also effected this major change in an
evolutionary manner by relying on her unquestionably high musical merit. Hers was a success one simply could not argue
with and did not need any visual branding, politicization, or other
extra-musical support. She established a
unique bani (style) of her own in
many diverse ways including through some innate aspects she was blessed with.
Among
others, her deep-toned voice resembling the veena had a special charm of its
own. Even with no reference point, she
had the fantastic intuition to choose the tempo and style of the veena that
could “draw out the grace notes with the minimum plucking2.” Her kalapramana
was also unique. Hers was a slower pace
than that of Ariyakudi, but yet closer to the madhyama than those of, say, Brinda or MDR. That choice made it possible for her to excel
in the popular compositions of Sri Thyagaraja as also in the more slow moving
ones of Sri Muthuswamy Dikshitar and Sri Shyama Sastri. Her sruti was low-pitched compared to other
females but one that did not ‘take away the power and depth of classical
music.’ Her greatest strength, however, was her sense of laya. She had a special way
of singing pallavis. She would sound as though she was repeating herself but,
in reality, would be adding micro variations in
small doses akin to an artist adding minute details to an intricate
sculpture. Above all, her high
self-confidence never morphed into pride and that allowed her to be easily
liked and remain approachable. She remained
a perpetual student, learning Thirupugazh and Pallavi singing from Nayana
Pillai and others, and the kritis of the great vainika Sri Muthuswamy Dikshitar from Justice T.L. Venkatarama Iyer. She acknowledged with great generosity and
candor her debt to her teachers in these words:
“My interest in laya originated from my
admiration for Nayana Pillai’s style of singing. This made me take a deep interest in Pallavi
singing and learning Thirupugazh songs … If you learn (Thirupugazh songs in 108
anga talams) you can distinguish the subtle nuances of rhythm and become a
master of tala. I learnt these songs
from Sri Appadurai Acharyar … (and) many new and difficult Pallavis from Sri
Narasimhalu Naidu of Tirupati …”
She introduced many new
compositions to the Carnatic stage by setting many pieces of Sri Subrahmanya
Bharati and Sri Papanasam Sivan to tune, adding yet another facet of novelty to
her concerts. She had a high national
consciousness and participated in the freedom movement through singing many
nationalistic compositions in her concerts.
And, she developed a great coterie of disciples including her
illustrious brother D.K. Jayaraman and granddaughter, Nithyashri, who is now
highly popular. It is these multifaceted
achievements that make her a Sangeethasagara,
an ocean of music. To this day, her singing inspires us with so much awe that
we often ask ourselves ‘Eppadi paadinaro,’
a phrase borrowed from a composition she herself set to music. The lady, who sang in a poignant manner “Santi
nilava vendum” (Peace must indeed reign) soon after the death of Mahatma Gandhi
and later adopted it as the ending piece of her concerts, exuded peace both in
her music and persona. May her
celebrations be a call for that peace both in the land she loved and in countries
around the world!
========
This article was written for the souvenir of the 12th annual festival of IFAASD, Indian Fine Arts Academy of San Diego.
[1]
Sangeetha Sagara is a lifetime achievement award of The Carnatic Music
Association of North America (CMANA). It
is given sparingly to extraordinary contributors to Carnatic music who
demonstrate the highest levels of creativity in multiple areas and can be
called role models. CMANA sponsored the
first tour of Pattammal to the USA.
[2]Indira Menon,
author. Indialog Publications, 2004, ISBN:
81-87981-53-9. For a review of this
book, see
https://veeraam.blogspot.com/2019/02/great-masters-of-carnatic-music-1930.html
https://veeraam.blogspot.com/2019/02/great-masters-of-carnatic-music-1930.html
3https://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/music/a-sum-total-of-the-carnatic-aesthetic-tradition/article2742366.ece
4Sruti, 1983 interview.
_____________________________
The author, Dr. V.
Ramaswami, is a past President and Secretary of CMANA. He is also a composer with many compositions
in Tamil, Sanskrit and Hindi, some of which have been released as a set of CDs
with the title Swarabharanam
performed by Sikkil Gurucharan, Sanjeev Venkataraman, and Kalaimamani J.
Vaidyanathan.
