D.K. PATTMMAL - A TALE OF BEARDING LIONS IN THEIR DEN

      

     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.

    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).

    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

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.