Date: 19 Jun 92 14:36:54 GMT
Message-ID: <krisna.708964614@cham>
References: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fidelity to compositions
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Lakshmikantan Ramakrishnan) writes:
Yes, in other compositions like those of TyAgarAja, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find out what the original version was. In such cases, one would have to rely on people belonging to his sisya parampAra to provide us unedited versions of the kritis (tall order?)
The musical tradition of thyAgarAja remains largely hearsay, even to this date. For example, there is a variation of about 60 years or so in the estimates which various scholars have made for the age of thyAgarAja. It is a matter of choosing the most plausible, when it comes to thyAgarAja's compositions. A few words about the thyAgarAja SeShya parampara---there is not just one parampara, but many. thyAgarAja did not teach all his compositions to all his pupils. It is thought that he did this so that each student would learn only those kRthes and rAgas which were most suited to their voices. He may also have taught slightly different versions of the same kRthe to different students, at different times.
One thing is worth keeping in mind---while most of thyAgarAja's compositions seem spontaneous, it will be silly to claim that he did not do some post-processing on his kRthes. thyAgarAja's command of the sa~kRth language (and or even thaelugu) was not perfect. There are indications of grammatical errors in his compositions. It is quite possible that he periodically revised his lyrics and taught the newer versions to his students. That might explain different SeShya paramparas following different versions of his kRthes.
Here is an example of sAhethya differences:
The first version is T.V.SangkaranArAyaNan's while the second is bAlamuraLekRShNa's. gOpura vAsa (living in the steeple) does not make sense, while kOvure vAsa (living in the place called kOvUr) is appropriate since the kRthe is in praise of the lord of kOvUr. But this does not seem to discourage anyone from using the first.
There are two questions that should be answered when talking about "extra" sanggathes.
This thread has focused on both questions in some detail, and the answers to the two questions are related to each other. It is clear that if a sanggathe is part of the manODharma of the performer, then there can be no such thing as an authentic set of sanggathes. On the other hand, if sanggathes are fixed and given, they are not part of the manODharma and it makes sense to talk about appropriate sanggathes for a composition.
What about completely different svara sequences for the same sAhethya? Here is another example from the thyAgarAja kRthe sanggEtha jnjAnamu Bakthe venA san mArgamu galadhAE in the rAga dhanyAsE. bAlamuraLekRShNa starts the sAhethya at the thAra-sThAye-Shadja while everyone else I have heard start at the maDhya-sThAye-gAnDhAra. Now which one is more authentic than the other? Does it even make sense to talk about authenticity? Are sAhethya svaras exempt from the strictures of the composer? We need to answer each of these questions.
L.Ramakrishnan mentioned the lack of support for the mood of the song in present day renditions of some of thyAgarAja's kRthes. Here is an example. bAlamuraLekRShNa sings the kRthe nenuvenA nAmadhaendhu nelvadhAE hare hare in the rAga navarasa kannadA in slow tempo and it is a very soothing experience to listen to it. Almost everyone else rips through the composition at break-neck speed. It is impossible to reconcile the beseeching mood of the lyrics with a let-me-get-out-of-here-fast tempo. Is changing the tempo of the kRthe part of the manODharma of a performer?
Musicians and musicologists do not agree completely on the authenticity of the (1) authorship (2) rAga (3) sAhethya and (4) svara of many compositions. When some conservative musicians lambasted eLayarAja for setting the song mare mare nennAE moraleda (in the film senDhu BIravE) to the rAga sAramathE (instead of the original kAmBOjE or cArukAEsE or whatever), he countered by saying that no one can prove to him that his version was not the authentic one---in fact, no one can prove that thyAgarAja even existed (much like bAlacandhar's claim that svAthe therunAL is a hoax perpetrated by the royal house of Travancore).
We have so far seen the questions, now for what I think the answers should be. We have no way of determining the "correct" versions of many kRthes. Instead of arguing about who is correct (and trying to support such arguments by appeal to authority and directness and distance of the lineage to thyAgarAja), one should treat the different versions as aspects of the manODharma of the performer. If you like the style, okay; if not, no one is forcing you to listen or pay to hear the artiste.
Expecting musicians to follow one and only one version of a set of sanggathes is crap. A sanggathe is part of the manODharma of the performer. So is AlApana and neraval and kalpana-svara. If we start fixing one of them, we should logically do the same for all. That done, we shall have sterile, constipated music to listen to. Anything that refuses or is made to refuse change (by fiat or otherwise) is well on the road to extinction (and examples from natural languages abound).
This also means that students should be allowed (and even encouraged) to improve on the sanggathes that they are taught. I find it disgusting to hear someone say that so-and-so is a great SeShya because he/she faithfully follows his/her guru, down to the last sanggathe. Such a performer is not for me, I'd rather listen to an experimenter who makes mistakes.
One argument that the sanggathe-stabilizers often cite is that the "great" composers themselves sang certain sanggathes and this grants those sanggathes special status. We must remember that composers are also musicians. In their role as composers, they provide skeletal forms for their compositions in terms of the rAga, thALa, sAhethya and svaras for the primary melodic line. In their role as musicians, they improvise on the compositions with sanggathes---however, they are simply doing what every competent musician is expected to do. The skeletal structure should be regarded as fixed, the sanggathes should be inspiration and reference for further development, nothing more.
There will always be the old hidebound conservative at every period of time that opposes anything novel on the grounds that no one in the past (especially the "great masters who knew all that there was to know") had done it before. Max Planck once said something to the effect that new theories in science gain acceptance not by winning over their opponents, but by hanging around long enough for the older generation to die and let a newer generation, unfettered by the biases of the past, grow up learning the new ideas. With time some of the young turks of today will become the reactionaries of tomorrow.
There _is_ one aspect of a composition regarding which I am a reactionary, and that concerns the sAhethya. Indian classical music has evolved from being pure music to being applied. Performers do not make meaningless noises (set to svaras) in their performances. The meaning of the lyrics of a composition are of utmost importance and I completely oppose any kind of mutilation or mispronunciation of the sAhethya of a kRthe, especially when such mutilation is justified on the pretext that it is needed to express "BAvam". Musicians who sing incorrect lyrics through ignorance of language are to be simply pitied and ridiculed, but those that mutilate a composition for "BAvam" or "bigu" should be tarred and feathered, and where applicable, flogged in public.
[ Indian Classical Music | Krishna Kunchithapadam ]
Last updated: Sun Jun 27 17:00:19 PDT 2004
URL: http://www.geocities.com/krishna_kunchith/rmic/rmic.1992.06.19.html