GREAT MASTERS OF CARNATIC MUSIC 1930-1965: A REVIEW

-->

Great Masters of Carnatic Music 1930-1965

Author: Indira Menon, Publisher: Indialog Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2004

ISBN: 81-87981-53-9, 308 pages

A review by V. Ramaswami*

     This delightful book is comparable to a grand onam saddhya (feast) with a variety of exquisite dishes embellished by the right amount of spice and seasoning, prepared by an expert chef for discerning palates, and served in a regal style.  It should serve as a standard bearer in a field where a majority of work on the lives and times of musicians is but a shallow exercise in sycophancy or derision based mostly on gossip and innuendo, focusing more on personalities than on the art, and worsened only by poor editing, paper quality and printing.  Be it in artistic content, language or presentation, this book is an example worthy of emulation.

    A chapter is devoted to each of the following grand vocalists who reigned during the golden era of Carnatic music – Ariyakudi, Maharajapuram (Viswanatha Iyer), Musiri, Chembai, Semmangudi, MS, GNB, Brinda-Mukta, DKP, Madurai Mani, MLV, KVN and MDR – and the book also contains a set of highly informed and informative articles penned by some of them.  Eschewing both the ubiquitous beginning with inconsequential natal facts and standard clichés like “hails from a musical family,” the author starts each essay with several pages describing the stature, style and significant contributions of each vocalist – the raison d’être for inclusion in the book.  Often the details of birth etc., appear well after five or six pages that describe the uniqueness of the musician in a way that brings out the nuances of Carnatic music like sarvalaghu and laya and the differences between styles such as the briga-laden and gamaka-laden and serve as valuable pieces of reading that can improve one’s own level of music appreciation, a facility clearly highly honed by the author through critical listening.  The narratives are interspersed with a variety of related information on other grand masters of previous eras, various locales in Southern India and, occasionally, even spicy humor (like Semmangudi’s remark that Chembai’s voice needs not a microphone but a silencer), and these make them highly readable.

     Through beautiful command of the language supported by a level of cultured, cultural erudition not so common these days, the author wins the respect of the reader comparable to that evoked for the subjects her pen has served well to embellish.  I quote some example text below.

“If architecture could be described as frozen music, then the best analogy of Chembai’s style would be a column of the Doric order, solid and beautiful in its simplicity.  Just as it would be ridiculous to say that the Doric order had something missing, namely, the fluted columns and floral decoration of the Corinthian order, so would it be ridiculous to say that Chembai’s music lacked the glides, graces or emotional fervor of, say, Musiri’s music.”

“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.”

“A briga that consists of a cluster of creative ideas sung in a fast tempo can be very exciting.  But if speed is used for merely traversing up and down the scale …. or for the display of virtuosity, there is no aesthetic joy in it.  It is like a sprinter who enjoys a special thrill while sprinting, but who cannot claim to have noticed the landscape around him”

    While being unabashed in the expression of her admiration for the artist, the author avoids sycophancy and does provide a balanced portrait bringing out their deficiencies too in the most inoffensive manner.  Thus, while MLV with a style “more cerebral than emotional, … excelled in all aspects of improvisation and opened up new worlds for lovers of Carnatic music” and “displayed a hitherto unprecedented flow of ideas of a rich and fertile imagination,” the “tara sthayi was MLV’s Achilles’ heel … and her rendering of kritis was mannered and lacked spontaneity.”  Read in their context, these criticisms could evoke only a nod with tempered acquiescence even from ardent admirers of MLV like this writer.

     It is tempting to write more about this book and to quote from it, but it would rob a potential reader the pleasure of directly partaking from it.  So, I will rest by simply recommending the book as a “must read” for the serious connoisseur of Carnatic music.  The only ‘negative’ I can say about this book is that its pages have an addictive characteristic, and once you start reading, you can barely keep it down, and when you are done, you may wish to start all over again.  It would indeed be nice if the author would serve Carnatic music by also writing a similar piece on the great accompanists and instrumentalists who deserve a due share of the glory afforded to the main performers.  For now, I eagerly await my trip to India to pick up other books written by Indira Menon.

*The author, Dr. V. Ramaswami, is a past President and Secretary of CMANA.  He has written many compositions in Carnatic music with three albums by Sri Sikkil Gurucharan and one by Dr. R. Suryaprakash.   Some of his articles on Carnatic Music in the form of blogs can be seen to the right of this page.  Views expressed here are strictly personal.

TAMIL ISAI - TO BE OR NOT TO BE

The major institutions of Chennai need to challenge themselves and designate one prime time concert during each music season to Tamil Isai if only to demonstrate that Tamil Isai belongs not to any special groups of Tamilians, or even to only Tamilians, but to all Carnatic music lovers.

     Tamil Isai, in the context of Carnatic music, refers to a vocal concert comprising entirely of compositions in the language Tamil.  I got the privilege of organizing the first such concert in New Jersey (which is possibly the first public Tamil Isai concert in the USA as well) in 1986 by sheer accident.  As one born and educated in Kerala for several years, Tamil is certainly not my forte; nor was Carnatic music.  It was simply an act of desperation and self-interest by me drafted to become a trustee and immediately thereafter to be the Secretary of the Carnatic Music Association of North America (CMANA), mainly for physical work and hopefully to bring some management expertise as well.  I had no clue that this was to launch me into an incredible controversy and have me take a stand against many elders I had come to respect enormously for their knowledge of music and commitment to serve.

    First, let me state how all this came about.  We had invited Sri D.K. Jayaraman for his first US tour, who has earned, since then, an immortal place in the annals of Carnatic music.  Those were days when for a variety of reasons including the fact that the Indian diaspora was small, it was hard for CMANA to make ends meet even with superstars.  Yet we had a commitment to sponsor at least one artist less known in the USA each year for a tour.  The tour of Sri Jayaraman did not start off well.  A delay related to visas resulted in the cancellation of many early concerts of the tour which could not be rescheduled, and this meant that we would be facing a projected loss of about $8,000, an amount that the already struggling organization could not afford to lose.  I must note that this was even more heart wrenching to us since Sri Jayaraman not only gave a superb performance but also succeeded in winning the hearts of his listeners at every one of his concerts and left an indelible positive impression of his music in their minds.  In fact, the audience loved his music so much that they made several song requests; as a result, he ended up singing for an hour more than the time scheduled for each concert. The audience who attended his concerts still hold fond memories of how he would sing the note “ma,” or kritis like “Nannu vidachi,” “Kapāli,” “Soundararājam,” “Lāvanya Rāma” and many others. However, despite the fact that he had made a positive impression on his audience, we were acutely aware that it would be folly on our part to assume that we would have a large audience if we presented him for the third time in a row in the NY/NJ area.  However, we were facing a gap of two weeks with no concerts booked for the artist anywhere; we felt we needed to do something.

    It was then that I came up with this idea for a Tamil Isai concert.  I certainly had a selfish interest too, for, I felt that if I had a collection of songs in Tamil, my mother tongue, I could use that as a ready reference for at least some ragas whose identification always eluded me, thanks to being a near ignoramus in Carnatic music.   DKJ had an enormous repertoire in Tamil, and I considered it an opportunity not to be missed.   But, without exception, every trustee not only opposed my request, they also considered me as unnecessarily injecting some counterproductive language politics.  The purists among us also argued that a concert of only Tamil compositions would not have enough classicism and depth.  To them, it was heretic to stray away from the Trinity of Thyagaraja, Muthuswamy Dikshitar, and Shyama Sastri, except perhaps in the “light” pieces sung as tukkadas towards the end of a concert.  Some non-Tamilians complained they could not relate to songs in Tamil, and it would not be fair to them, forgetting that a majority of Tamilians who enjoy the Trinity do not understand Telugu or Sanskrit, and many of them do take pains to understand the lyrics only via translations.

     After much argument and a threat to resign, all I could get was an offer to make the artist available to me for a private concert that will not have even an endorsement, let alone co-sponsorship, of CMANA and that too only if I would pay the same amount charged to any other organization irrespective of outcome.  Friends as they were, fellow trustees did caution me, however, in no uncertain terms that I would cut a sorry figure with little attendance and also lose much money.  Being young and impetuous as I was then, I could not but pick up the glove thrown at me. 

    Hard work at publicity along with the reputation that Sri DKJ had already established and Divine Grace helped make the concert a grand success. This Tamil concert I held attracted a very large audience above and beyond anything we had seen in CMANA until then, and generated a profit of over $4,000 (which the trustees of CMANA graciously resolved to accept.)  What was even more pleasing was that the concert disproved all myths about a Tamil Isai concert; instead, it demonstrated that it could be as classical and Carnatic as any concert could ever be.  The main item “Kapāli” in Mohanam showed off Papanasam Sivan as no less a composer than the Trinity and was rendered in the most beautiful manner.  It displayed proudly many Carnatic composers, all the way from Nilakanta Sivan to very recent ones like Periasami Thooran.  The concert recording is a true collector’s item.  That success was to be repeated thrice more during my tenure in the Tamil Isai concerts of the Bombay Sisters, T.V. Sankaranarayanan, and the Rudrapatnam brothers.  In fact, the second Tamil Isai concert which was of the Bombay Sisters at a Rutgers University auditorium, saw a full house with people having to be turned back due to fire codes - something that had never happened until then.  [Needless to say, no major effort succeeds due to one person, and I thank each and everyone who helped me succeed with the Tamil Isai concerts.  I will be failing in my duty if I did not thank my wife Dr. Soundaram Ramaswami, who also served as President of CMANA later, who did a lot of work like making hundreds of phone calls and managing the ticket distribution and other logistics, while also hosting the musicians.]

    Music truly has no language, or else how could we enjoy an instrumental (only) concert or one featuring many compositions in languages unknown to us?  That is true not only for Carnatic music, but to all music.  After all, how many understand the German lyrics of Beethoven?  Yet, I must admit that there may be some who cannot enjoy a vocal concert restricted to songs in one language only.  Thus, I would be the last to propose such a concert were it to be the only one in an area organized by a music organization.  After all, an organization obligates itself to all its members.  Yet we also need to recognize that we cannot be like a dog in the manger either and should step up to appreciate music for its own sake and allow specialized thematic concerts to happen.

    That said, what is the real case for Tamil Isai?  Some I have already stated earlier, but there are many more. 

1.     A vocal concert provides enjoyment in many an extra dimension besides music alone.  When one can comprehend the lyrics, many of which are filled with highly exalting thoughts, high philosophy, and imagery, they touch our hearts even more than just through sound.   For example, most consider the piece “Sri Rama Jayarama” of Saint Thyagaraja in Yadukulakamboji as a wonderful musical piece, but one’s enjoyment of this same song multiplies many fold when one understands the meaning of the stanzas that capture the joy and love of Dasaratha as a father; similarly the maternal joys of Yasoda can best be realized when one hears the Tamil composition of Papanasam Sivan’s, “Enna Tavam cheythanai” in kāpi.  This is one reason why we can enjoy the vocal singing of even a beginner more than that of an instrumentalist at a comparable level.    If one were to refute this, one is actually refuting the very importance of vocalizing itself.

2 .   Much as the members of the Trinity of Carnatic music have been very great composers occupying center stage for many good reasons, there are many other great composers, whose compositions (in Tamil particularly) often get ignored or relegated to the tail end of a concert as short pieces.  While Tamil music of the Sangam period and of the saints like Appar and Manikkavachagar predates Carnatic music, they often appear as short viruttams, if at all, in Carnatic concerts. Unfortunately, the Tamil composers who came later did not have a large lineage of students who could propagate their music to a deserving level and became underdogs as art increasingly became victim to competition with an entrenched establishment wanting to maintain status quo.

3.        The argument that a Tamil Isai concert will not be deep or classical enough is absurd.  Even fairly recent composers like Sri Papanasam Sivan are known for many pieces like Kapāli (Mohanam), Sivakāmasundari (Mukhāri), Srinivāsa (Hamsānandi), Kandā Vā (Varāli), Kārtikeya Kāngeya (Todi) and many others, which define the very ragas and their lakshanās (signatures) in which they are composed showing their multihued splendor.  Such theoretical arguments aside, all one has to do is to actually listen to a good Tamil Isai concert to appreciate that fact.

4.     Unlike the vast majority of the compositions of the Trinity that are on various deities, Tamil composers and poets (e.g., Vedanayagam Pillai and Subrahmanya Bharati) have ventured into many secular compositions, including highly patriotic ones, appealing to a wider audience.

5.       Finally, all ideological considerations aside, being inclusive only expands the support base for the art.  In places like the US where the total potential audience is a tiny fraction of the concert goers in even a city like Chennai, there is an even greater need to draw more people to Carnatic music if only to support the art in a sustainable manner.  The power of thematic concerts deserves to be explored.

    Unfortunately, the Tamil Isai movement has a checkered history as it got embroiled in caste based divisions of Tamilnadu.  Many of the original proponents were bigoted against the caste that dominated Carnatic music and did not make their case based on arguments grounded only in art and music.   (For a sanitized version of the history of Tamil Isai, see the article by Mr. V. Sriram, one of the current Secretaries of Music Academy, Chennai in the web page
https://sriramv.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/the-tamil-isai-movement/ ). One must say that it probably resulted in a major disservice to Tamil Isai and may, to some degree, have contributed to its relegation to the sidelines despite the existence of flourishing institutions like Tamil Isai Sangam in Chennai.  It is certainly gratifying to see that many younger Tamil Carnatic musicians do not feel fettered as their predecessors did and do venture into Tamil Isai in their concerts at other venues as well. But enough is not being done, and it is fair to say that Tamil Isai still is not elevated to its deserved place in Carnatic music. The major institutions of Chennai need to challenge themselves and designate one prime time concert during the music season to Tamil Isai if only to demonstrate that Tamil Isai belongs not to any special groups of Tamilians, or even only to Tamilians, but to all Carnatic music lovers.

    Artists, not just the Tamilian artists but all artists, owe a fair share of the responsibility in promoting compositions in Tamil just as they do of compositions in other languages.  Tamil Isai has succeeded enormously in the USA.  Much of the success could be attributed to the changing attitudes towards hosting such events. In the eighties, it was near impossible to convince a Tamil Sangam in any state to lend its name to a Carnatic Tamil Isai program; today, Tamil Sangams not only sponsor Tamil Isai Carnatic concerts but also succeed in attracting a large number of their members to these events. The artist’s responsibility, however, does not stop at performing in them but also to have the courage to present Tamil compositions as their main piece. Tamil Isai programs should be conducted in such a way that ensures that both the organizers and the performing artists are not only respectful of the classicism and the decorum the art deserves but also are mindful about showcasing the greatness of Carnatic music in all its splendor so that the audience will be drawn to other Carnatic concerts as well.  The success of the four Tamil Isai concerts I was associated with was no less due to the careful manner in which the artists chose their pieces and how they performed turning every possible objection to Tamil Isai into a potential embarrassment.  The “kapāli” of D.K. Jayaraman, “Tiruvadi charanam” of the Bombay Sisters, “kāna kan kodi vendum” of T.V. Sankaranarayanan, the RTP “Engalathu nāttai kuranji enbār” of Rudrapatnam Brothers as well as certain other pieces they sang elaborately as in a regular (should I say old fashioned) Carnatic music concert brought many first time attendees to their Carnatic music concert to others as well.  They carefully stayed away from pandering to the crowd with light film songs and the like. They respected the idioms and grammar of Carnatic music strictly and did not just superimpose Carnatic music on some Tamil lyrics, but chose pieces extremely suitable for a Carnatic concert.   A stick in the mud perhaps in the eyes of some, I would indeed be shocked if I were to see “Do Re Mi” or something like that performed in a Western classical concert, or if the audience gets invited to waltz with the orchestra.  I am sure there are many like me who consider the art of Carnatic music as something sacred, much above and beyond just entertainment, and I would request that our sensibilities be respected as well. Finally, for Heavens sake, they should not inject divisiveness of any kind into this divine art. It is certainly pleasing to see many musicians of today meet these challenges very well, and we should indeed be thankful to them.  To those of my friends who have not ventured into appreciating Carnatic Tamil compositions, let me just say, “You will be amazed, as a world as nice as the one you know in music awaits you.  Please join us.” 

---------------------

--> Dr. V. Ramaswami is a past Secretary and President of the Carnatic Music Association of North America (CMANA).  A set of ten compositions of his (3 in Sanskrit, 6 in Tamil, and a bhajan in Hindi) have been brought out as an album ‘Swarābharanam’ with Sikkil Gurucharan (vocal) accompanied by V. Sanjeev (violin) and J. Vaidyanathan.  This article was written for the 2018 annual souvenir of the Indian Fine Arts Association of San Diego (IFAASD).

A critique of critics and criticisms

Mightier than the sword as it has come to be widely acclaimed, the pen should, in all fairness, oblige its wielder to exercise a level of impartiality and objectivity and, more importantly, charity and restraint similar to what may be demanded of one who is to be trusted with a sword. Since the subject of criticism has rarely a chance to rebut or will, upon rebutting,  only appear defensive, it behooves the critic, whenever in doubt, to prefer the eloquence of silence to the venom of verbiage. Most critics of repute do indeed observe these norms most of the time if only to maintain their own credibility with the reading public and respect among performers. However, it is not rare to see transgressions of these unwritten norms, and it may therefore be worthwhile to review the role and responsibilities of the critic in the performing arts. 

The role of the critic in the arts is one of significant importance. The critic is a cheerleader for talent and, when expert, knowledgeable and articulate, can help to define and clarify the standards for excellence in the art. To live up to that role, the critic must, as Oscar Wilde says, have “a temperament exquisitely susceptible to beauty, and to the various impressions that beauty gives us.” The statement of McLuhan that “it is critical vision alone which can mitigate the unimpeded operation of the automatic” is also applicable to performing arts where the gem of creative talent is often unearthed by judiciously sifting out the more ubiquitous imitation, the “operation of the automatic” that can at best only mimic and turn the crank. Indeed, as rightly observed by Arthur Kael, “what we ask [of the critic] is that he should find out for us more than we can find out for ourselves.” 

A good critique is one that edifies, and not one that vilifies. Its purpose is not to ridicule and slander either the art or the artist, but to challenge all practitioners of the art to rise to ever greater heights. Just as the best speech is almost always the one wherein the topic assumes the dominant position and not the speaker, so also the best critiques are those in which the critic is relatively less visible than the subject. Attempts to impress through excessive jargon, irrelevant autobiographical information, or strong language when pointing out alleged slips and inadequacies are counterproductive in that they often turn the discerning reader off and distract one from one’s main thesis. The following quote from Margaret Fuller eloquently summarizes the differences in styles: 

“There are two modes of criticism. One which … crushes to earth without mercy all the humble buds of Phantasy, all the plants that, though green and fruitful, are also a prey to insects or have suffered by drouth. It weeds well the garden, and cannot believe the weed in its native soil may be a pretty, graceful plant. There is another mode which enters into the natural history of everything that breathes and lives, which believes no impulse to be entirely in vain, which scrutinizes circumstances, motives and object before it condemns, and believes there is a beauty in natural form, if its law and purpose be understood.” 

In short, what is asked of the critic is no less than some of the qualities included in the description by the Lord [Bhagavat Gita, Ch. 12] of the wise as one who is without hate (adhweshtaa), is friendly and compassionate (maitrah karuna eva cha), and one who neither oppresses the world (yasmaan no dwijathe lokah) nor is distressed by it (lokaan no dwijathe cha yaha). 

The critic must constantly bear in mind that art is ipso facto highly subjective, and that no two individuals’ enjoyment of it need be the same. Thus a good review should reflect the humility born of the realization that what is written is but one person’s point of view, and what is produced 

as review is “at best ephemeral and superficial reading. Who thnks of the grand article of last year in any given review?” [Lord Byron]. Nor can everything be brought down to a set of rules and precedents. “Art is not the application of a canon of beauty, but what the instinct and the brain can conceive beyond any canon. When we love a woman, we don’t start measuring her limbs” [Pablo Picasso]. Imagine how popular and important Shakespeare would have become had the grammarians had the final say in his merit as a dramatist and poet? Luckily, the most read Shakespearian critics are those who glorify his flights of imagination and imagery and certainly not those who gloat in their own ability to find faults with his use of the language. Critics of the latter type are the ones S.Y. Krishnaswamy correctly described as “an inspector of drains in a mansion …. (whose) profession carries with it its own punishment.” Their writings often degenerate into an exercise in cynicism and a vain attempt at self advertisement. Such a critic “is always evaluating instead of enjoying. He is also thinking of what to write.” [SYK].  What a terrible way to approach the Shakespearean “food of love” which, in the context of Carnatic music, is love in its highest form as bhakthi (devotion) towards the Divine? 

None of the above is a call to abridge the prerogative of the critic to criticize, for, “culture is only true when implicitly critical, and the mind which forgets this revenges itself in the critics it breeds. Criticism is an indispensable element of culture” [Theodore W. Adorno]. Without critical analysis, a review will inevitably degenerate into empty platitude. The essence therefore is one of maintaining a constructive tone, a decent level of sensitivity and decorum, and avoiding the pitfalls of pretentious pedantry. “Good critical writing is measured by the perception and evaluation of the subject; bad critical writing by the necessity of maintaining the professional standing of the critic” [Raymond Chandler]. The review should not be antithetical to the purpose of art, namely, to uplift the human mind and to provide enjoyment. 

The effect of insensitive reviews is to stifle talent and to impede the natural expression of the artist’s creativity. It certainly can dissuade experimentation which is key to growth, not only of the artist but also of the art form. The statement, “Praise or blame has but a momentary effect on the man whose love of beauty in the abstract makes him a severe critic of his own works” [John Keats] unfortunately does not represent the mindset of most artists who through their art must also satisfy certain mundane needs and personal ambitions. Contrary to popular opinion, it is often the senior, well established artist who reacts more negatively to criticism than younger and upcoming ones who have much greater stake in favorable reviews. In Carnatic music, this often manifests itself as a refusal by them to allow the recording of one’s concerts, and this results in the loss of opportunities to capture permanently for posterity the flights of spontaneous creativity on the stage in response to an enthusiastic audience. Such moments can rarely be repeated in the stale atmosphere of a recording studio; nor does the finite amount of space in a commercial tape allow for extempore explorations that truly bring out the best of the music and the musician. Given that a good Carnatic music concert is an extempore expression of manodharma (mental prowess) and not a well-rehearsed recital from a pre-written score, there should be a total ban on writing reviews based on recorded music. The critic, who is “but an artist with his wings clipped” [SYK] may have the luxury of playing back the music ad nauseum until he can tear it apart, but unfortunately its creator does not get a corresponding chance to correct his occasional slip. Nor does he get the opportunity to retort as did the great violinst Thirukkodikaval Krishna Iyer, who said, “The purpose of your coming has been served, and you may now leave, for, I don’t intend to make another slip,” to a critic who shouted an inconsiderate sabaash (bravo) at one of the violinist’s rare uncomfortable moments on the stage! There should be a ban on critiques of concerts based on listening to their recorded version if only for the lack of the ability to capture in the recording the total experience characterized by the participation of both artist and listener. So also, verbal reviews at the end of a concert by dignitaries are to be eschewed, for, they are often nothing more than platitudes that tax the patience of the audience. 

Perfection may be a desirable goal for a performer, but that alone does not guarantee aesthetic beauty; nor need an occasional imperfection take away the overall splendor of an otherwise enjoyable performance. Consider the following story narrated by Dr.. D.E. Knuth, the reputed Professor of computer science at Stanford, a pioneer in the field of computerized text processing, whose hobbies are computerized calligraphy and computer music. With considerable effort he had conquered the difficult problem of mathematically defining accurately the curves through which one could typeset the calligraphic alphabet S and had proudly implemented it in software only to find that the `perfect’ S produced by the machine was pathetically unappealing relative to the `imperfect’ S that typically comes out of an old fashioned letter press. Exploring further into this, Prof. Knuth discovered that his computerized S became significantly more pleasing to the eye upon the addition of random errors in the computed coordinates. Dr. Knuth claimed that his experience with computer music has also been similar, and that the machine producing perfect frequencies is no match to the human, however imperfect the latter may be. If that is so with Western music, it must be infinitely more so for Carnatic music whose essence is improvisation. [In this context, I must paranthetically note my own lack of enthusiasm for such things as the use of a contact microphone for veena and fiber glass constructions of the mrdangam which are attempts at perfection at the cost of unappealing sounds that the tonal qualities of wood do well avoid.] So much for the critic who cannot forgive anything less than total perfection! 

In summary, critics and criticisms are necessary ingredients in art and therefore in Carnatic music. Both the artist and art form can gain from their contributions, and it is entirely in the hands of the critic to rise up to that challenge of uplifting. To challenge the critic to meet this lofty objective is not only the onus of the artist but also of the listening public who must not hesitate to either praise a fair review or to express dissent towards an unfair one. Indeed, the vedic prayer of the teacher and the taught 

“Tejaswinaavadheethamasthu, maa vidwishaavahai” 

(May we become enlightened, may we not wrangle) 

is one that both critic and artist will do well to adopt in their quest for greater enjoyment in the field of creative arts. 

Note: This author 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.

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, moodah 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 grhabhedam 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.