“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” so may have declared a heroine of Shakespeare, but yet there are certain monikers like ‘royalty’ that have often been the subject of much debate and contention. In the world of Carnatic music itself, the moniker ‘vaggeyakara’, used by many to describe a lyricist in general, is one that has become quite contentious in many venues from social media like Quora and FaceBook to famous vidvat-sabhas (scholarly assemblies).
Western music has terms for distinct categories of creative artists like ‘lyricist’ and ‘composer’, while in the Carnatic parlance,, these roles are confused so much that a person called vaggeyakara may be a lyricist, lyricist-composer, lyricist-composer-singer, or lyricist-composer-instrumentalist. The most revered composers of Carnatic music that go by the name ‘The Trinity’ - Muthuswamy Dikshitar, Thyagaraja, and Shyma Sastri - not only wrote beautiful lyrics, but are believed to have set their lyrics into music in terms of svaras (the notes) fitting them into specific raga-s (melodic patterns), tala-s (rhythmic patterns), etc., and sung them too. Their lyrics are also pregnant with weighty thoughts that evoke the highest of sentiments. Their compositions have indeed become both an inspiration and the standard for later day lyricists and composers. Of course, no one would argue about any of them being called a vaggeyakara despite the fact that the current renderings of many of their lyrics may or may not adhere to how they fashioned it, and that some are even sung in different ragas by different musicians. The art is blessed with a continuing stream of notable composers even today like Sangeetha Kalanidhi Neyveli Santhanagopalan, Dr.R. Suryaprakash, Sri N. Ravikiran, et al.. Their type of an all-rounded creative talent combined with other noble traits is what makes some composers venerable.
There are yet many well-known and respected personalities of Carnatic music whose contributions are limited to the writing of lyrics in that they have not themselves set them to notes or sung them, and their lyrics have been turned into beautiful Carnatic musical pieces by others. Examples of the latter type include many famous ones from the most revered Tamil poet Subrahmanya Bharathi and yet another celebrated poet Arunachala Kavi to some more recent ones like Ambujam Krishna and Periasamy Thooran. It is worth noting that some in this latter category of lyricists did indeed write for specific ragas and talas adding even svara-patterns and sollu-kattus (solfa syllables) etc., as part of their lyrics. Of course, that group also includes poets whose creations have become an important part of the Carnatic repertoire even if it be due to serendipity and efforts of others and not by their own intent or personal renderings. The contention under discussion is about naming anyone in this second group by the term vaggeyakara. Some elitists seem to assert that the term must be reserved only for lyricist-composer-singers (or at least lyricists who have set their lyrics to notation) and well versed also in the theoretical aspects of Carnatic music, although there may be several who are very well versed in music and do write music for their own lyrics, but yet, the lyrics themselves are quite unremarkable.
Some among the elitists have sometimes got very loud against even such great lyricists as Periasamy Thooran who certainly should have had a high level of music knowledge. Their vituperative rhetoric is said to have got in the way of Thooran being named a Sangeetha Kalanidhi (a treasure trove of music), a description that would fit him eminently with or without that being bestowed on him formally as a title. Ironically, even as the pedants engage in their elitist arguments, the larger community of music lovers and performers seem to care more about the artistic creations themselves than about the profile or pedigree of their creator(s). Also, many of the elitists who make a big issue of this may well be forgotten while the work of many they take issue with may survive and stand the test of time.
If we take the elitists too seriously, then we are also faced with throwing most of even the very great composers into the second pile and deny them the title vaggeyakara. Saint Thyagaraja may have set his lyrics to notations and sung them, but is that what we hear in a concert? What we hear is often either an abridged version of a kriti and one that is embellished with the singer’s own manodharma of various types. We are also faced with great composers like Jayadeva and Narayana Teertha whose notations for their major creations are yet to be unearthed, and we are content with those made by later musicians. We can argue who the real vaggeyakara for ‘Bhavayami Raghuramam’ of Swati Thirunal is, given that it was originally a piece conceived in saveri and later turned into a ragamalika by Sri Semmangudi Srinivasaiyer. The list goes much farther and includes Devarnamas, Annamacharya’s padams, etc., too. So, let us delve into the source of all this confusion at some depth.
The term vaggeyakara (वाग्गेयकर ) is a Sanskrit compound composed of three terms vaak (वाक्), gEya (गेय), and kara (कर), respectively meaning word, song, and maker. The literal meaning of the compound word thus could be given as ‘one who turns words into songs’ (य: वाच: गेयं करोति स:). However, we must note that Sanskrit compounds (विग्रहवाक्य), which in their formation ignore case-endings (विभक्ति), could lend themselves to different meanings depending on how one injects case-endings to break up the compound term. Thus, we may take the term vaggeyakara also to mean “one who makes music with words” (य: वाग्भि: गेयं करोति स:) as opposed to an instrumental musician who may make music devoid of words or lyrics. With either of these, using the term vaggeyakara for one who produces songs for Carnatic music may appear legitimate to many. However, don’t you assume that calling one who makes music with someone else’s words a vaggeyakara would be acceptable based on Sanskrit grammar alone! There is an implicit understanding that the words are one’s own. If I may throw in a bit of a wrinkle of my own, I find this term ‘vaggeyakara’ itself quite sexist since ‘kara’ denotes a male, and I have never heard the term ‘vaggEyakarI’ (वाग्गेयकरी) ever used by anyone (including female musicologists) in these discussions despite the proliferation [1], going even all the way back to the very beginnings of Carnatic music, of many females who would eminently qualify to be called thus.
The orthodoxy itself leans on two texts: ‘Sangitaratnakara,’ a learned and extensive treatise on music written in the 13th Century by Sarangadeva, a scholar poet who gave the desirable qualities in a vaggeyakara; and ‘Sangita-shiromani,’ considered to be written by a group of scholars of the 15th Century, that carries this further and provides even a gradation of music makers with regard to compositions.
Sarangadeva’s list of desirables for a vaggeyakara is quite extensive and covers broad areas of proficiency including in what we would call linguistic skills, music theory, poetry and prosody, vocal and instrumental music, command over timing issues related to music, and a great ability to understand and depict human emotions. They also include some that at first sight may not even appear directly necessary for excellence in creating music per se such as deep knowledge about dance, debating skills, lack of bias, etc.
A recent webinar of IFAASD titled ‘The Art of Composing’ [2] actually gave a list, quoting Sarangadeva, of the following specific items: knowledge of many languages; a vast vocabulary; expertise in composing different words for the same tunes; proficiency in the scientific theories of fine arts; expert knowledge of vocal and instrumental music; command over laya (tempo), tala (time cycles) and kala (speed); knowledge of dance; thorough knowledge of grammar with prasa (rules of alliteration) and rhyme; knowledge of prosody and meter; awareness of emotive states (bhava); lovely tone-quality to project own works; command over three octaves; maturity in producing gamakas; proficiency in creative aspects like alapana; discrimination of different intonations of notes with regard to context like raga; versatility in different forms and types of music; genius for creativity and imagination; acquaintance with regional ragas; cleverness in conversation and ability to win debates; intelligent familiarity with local custom; objectivity (freedom from likes and dislikes); aesthetic sensitivity; propriety in expression; ability to create new melodic forms (ragas?); knowledge of a character’s mind (in composing operas e.g.,); ability to compose songs at short notice.
Lists of this type are available for desiderata for great compositions, great singers, etc. Such lists are not limited to music either as our religious texts like Bhagavad Gita (e.g., some slokas starting with ‘adveshta sarva bhootaanaam’) abound in such lists for even a noble or desirable human being. These lists serve the purpose of giving us a list of traits to aspire for and work towards to progressively improve ourselves. They are not intended as checklists to grade people. Even more, if one were to insist that one can be named thus-and-thus only if one meets the whole set of criteria, we would certainly be met with an empty set except perhaps for some characters from our mythology. I think some elitists have indeed crossed a line in their views on limiting the use of the moniker ‘vaggeyakara’ and invoking Sarangadeva. The list of Sarangadeva is to be treated more as a guide to those aspiring to be top composers and to give some broad guidelines only. None of this, however, is a reflection on the great contributions of Sarangadeva or their relevance and importance to music and related performing arts.
The irony becomes even more glaring when one considers that many of the purists of Carnatic music are quite ignorant and sometimes even averse to dance even though the same Sarangadeva they quote defined Sangeetham as comprised of vocal and instrumental music and dance (Gitam, Vadyam tatha Nrtyam trayam Sangitam uccyate.) Thus, sometimes the discussants of the term vaggeyakara debase themselves not to just ‘cherry picking’ but using the merits of cherries to decry other varieties of fruit bearing plants and their tasty fruits.
If Sarangadeva set a high bar for a vaggeyakara through his long list, subsequently the authors of the work Sangita-Shiromani appear to have gone a step further and classified vaggeyakaras into three categories. According to them, the highest (shreshta) among them are those who not only write lyrics but turn them into music themselves. The middling ones (madhyama) are those who set notes to other people’s compositions. The lowest (adhama) are those who write lyrics matching the music of someone else. Frequently, this is also a subject of discussion among the elite. I personally consider these discussions a non-constructive waste of time and not in the interest of furthering the art for several reasons. First and foremost, it sounds like arguing who is really the builder - the architect who conceives and plans, the ‘builder’ who manages the construction process, or the ‘brick layer’ - and who is more important. Secondly, this discussion appears to give greater emphasis to the process than to the final product. Thirdly, the final categorization as adhama would fit most composers even of the highest category when their compositions do not result in a new raga hitherto unknown, for they are, after all, writing words to a previously well defined tune (raga)! By the way, it would offend most lyricists in fields like the movies, some of whom - like Kannadasan - are great poets who do make wonderful songs with their words. They are indeed vaggeyakaras in a literal sense unless you wish to turn it around and say geya-vaak-karas; in fact, most of them may fit both bills. These point to a failing on the part of many to take anything, especially if said in Sanskrit and long ago, as God given, forgetting that some indeed may just be an opinion of one or more fallible humans with their own strong biases and opinions or to meet the needs of a specific group or time period. Not only Kalidasa has cautioned us “Puranamityeva na sadhu sarvam” (it is not true that something is good just because it is ancient), even modern thought leaders have asserted it strongly, as for example Swami Ranganathananda [3] in delineating the distinctions between sruti and smriti with regard to which the same failing occurs all too often causing much harm and injustice.
The simple fact is that what matters most is the final musical piece irrespective of the process through which it came to be. Constructive critiques of them by experts in a way to highlight what may constitute great compositions are certainly valuable if they are also given with sensitivity in discussing lapses. A vast majority of those who venture to compose do so out of an irresistable creative inspiration or urge and not to earn any particular moniker. As for the moniker vaggeyakara itself, treat it as we treat a title like “Doctor” given out by universities. Some are earned through academic credentials and a demonstration thereof by way of a dissertation, while some others are given to recognize great contributions. Indeed, sometimes they and their givers both are of questionable stature, but that is not something to become a major topic of discussion even if such abuse of titles is one to be avoided and called out occasionally. As for me, I can only quip, “Call me by whatever name you wish, as long as you don’t call me names!”
References:
[2] “The Art of Composing”, A webinar of IFAASD.
[3] “Practical Vedanta and the Science of Values,” by Swami Ranganathananda, 1996.
Acknowledgment: I thank Dr. Radha Bhaskar for providing me some example compositions. This was written for the 2023 souvenir of IFAASD (Indian Fine Arts Association of San Diego, CA). The author is a past President and Secretary of CMANA.
