Fair enough Tim. Allow me to raise a few points, in fairness to Rajan's perspective on Rahman.
Some of my friends find Rahman's music catchy. Anthing catchy usually appeals to a broader audience, who may not be musically too discerning or demanding. This per se is not a weakness--but a state of acceptance and evaluation. Many are content with melodious notes and some acoustic progression which relies on relatively modest tonal changes rather than compositional and technical complexity, as well as virtuosity. Let us forget reduced rhythmic cycles, complex note changes, complex rhythms, etc. at this point. Basically they feel lifted, and do not feel compelled to approach the music or enter into it at another level. Nothing wrong with those inclinations. On the other hand we have pieces such as Imagine by Lennon, or River by Joni Mitchel, or for that matter voices like the Simon and Garfunkel duo, as well as Frida and Agneta of Abba--all of whom regaled masses yet at the pop level brought varying levels of acoustic complexity as well as choral finesse. But, Rajan is from a whole different breed and on an altogether other level in terms of music comprehension. He is also well informed on that topic and is regarded as such. A seach on him will bring up some interesting information. Also see http://www.parrikar.org/ Also see the archive named after his mother Vijaya Parrikar at http://www.sawf.org/library/ The Hindustani stacks are not to be scoffed at. So, Rajan is not wrong, although one may not be used to relatively blunt language. He was not being abusive here. Those who are very good at something--at least in the arts,and even scholars and serious aficionados who may not practice a form but write on it, usually do not mince words--although many among us are not used to things being said in the manner Rajan states it. Against the pantheon of musician and musicianship in India, Rahman would know where he stands. I believe that Rahman's improvisations, melodies, layering's and riffs came at a time when the Indian elites as well as the masses were wanting and yearning for a reworking of sounds to suit our hurried modernizing; one expressive outlet being a direct impact upon our acoustic palettes. Essentially a portending befitting our sense of modernity--but not necessarily every ones cup of tea or chicory as coffee. One cannot deny that he has delivered to the masses and also to hi-brow Indians. That is a fact. He has many admirers as does say, Shah Rukh Khan. Furthermore, in the hierarchy in Indian film music there has been for some time now Rahman first, followed by Shankar Mahadevan and Loy Mendonca. Our man Remo and others are also there somewhere give or take a notch or two. The earlier pitajis (or greats) are dead. So its will be Rahman for a while.. And Btw, I strongly insist that this is not an endorsement of anyone. I also wonder who anointed Rahman the Mozart of India. But that is something our boys and girls are very good at. It is a strange urge where we have to locate counterweights outside of India to those beloved Indians in India. Reminds me of a bizarre kind of Tuladan (where kings weighed themselves against gold, and other precious standards). venantius j pinto > From: Tim de Mello <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Goanet] Jai Ho Rehman > > Re: " It is astonishing that this noise-making mediocrity is hailed as a > "genius." > > A. R. Rahman has been described as the Mozart of India by some. > I am no expert in his field of music but I thought "Jai Ho" had a catchy > tune. > Also, > The music for Bombay Dreams was created by A. R. Rahman and I really > enjoyed the music in this stage production. > > I do not agree with Rajan's categorization of "noise-making mediocrity". > > Tim
