> > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:59:07 +0530 > From: Charudatt Prabhudesai <[email protected]> > To: post list <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Goanet] asain Greetings to Venantius (Venantius J Pinto) > > I am willing to be satisfied with that explanation, because a discussion > on Hindustani music can go interminably long. > venantius j pinto: True, very true. In any case I am not in that league, and hope to learn over time. But making analogies with thoughts and relationships is how I will respond here.
> Quote: because the Shankar / Jaikishan team just did not quite get it > right. > Due either to ignorance, carelessness, or rebelliousness, they twisted the > rag and threw in so much unrelated stuff that it became unrecognisable." I find it bit absolutist to charge the creative duo,Shankar-Jaikishan with > ignorance. There is in the semi-classical or classical based tradition of > music, particularly film music and other non classical traditions like > Gazhals, > bhavageets,etc. a tendency to deliberately mix ragas. The prime object is > to > 'concoct' a tune just a shade off-tangent.There are any number of > compositions > in the traditions referred to above where one is let into the mood of > certain raga > and then deliberately mislead away into a mixed-bag of notes. Pt. Abhisheki > has done > it in his compositions, Pt. Hridaynath Mangeshkar does it almost every time > he composes. Besides, ragas are based on something called Thaat' Many ragas > in one group may resemble, and sometimes they may be from different thaats > yet > resemble like in the case of Tchaaya-nut,Jayjaywanti,Des, Kedar > and the like. > venantius j pinto: The quote is from the site, which my friend Vaishali helped me out with, and also made it clear to me that she does not pretend to know Hindustani. All your points are well taken. Further down allow me to give examples related to art/design--style, etc. But before that there are three points made above: "ignorance, carelessness, or rebelliousness" As the years go by more things are revealed of the processes, learning methodologies, interactions with fellow musicians of our Film Music directors. Again all your points are well taken, and perhaps the language on that site brought to your mind the range you present in comprehending Hindustani music. Yet, in any case there will always be classifications. So although the intent is to shape a tune, others who are often equally good or sometimes even better--are placing the tune in a category. That's all, in my reading. Of course this may be done in a few of ways, including less bluntly/ stridently/ perhaps with less angst (although not in this case). To those who know a lot, and can make distinctions--Its a whole other thing (terms of comprehension as well as identity shaping) than to those who are attempting in pinning things down while develop an understanding of the forms--and they are many. Subsequently variations, subtleties, nuances--will enter their domains. To my attempting an extrapolated analogy, here: My paintings are essentially drawings to me and also within contemporaneity, but many artists balk at me placing them in that category. For them they cannot be drawings. What many see as calligraphy I see as drawing (in my case, and intent) and these are only broad categories. Here too, as in my case--the intent is perhaps not to "concoct"--other than when I illustrate--which more often than not is a painting/drawing/print--although done to illustrate a topic--the subject having been internalized and which externalizes as artistic labor. But I am fine with it being referred to as an illustration. In fact my entire formal training happens in Design. Now could that be the reason for my seeing things the way I do and I mean strictly with the visual arts. When it comes to methodologies of seeking, using and the application of materials its a whole other things. Another example: Years ago while at FIT, I wanted a student to get a better grip on drawing the hand. He said it was his style, the poor drawing to which I responded that he was messing himself up. His work had not developed into a style, it was someways off from getting there, and it would be helpful to him if he did a few studies of the hand (I would help)-- then see if he felt propelled towards the style he thought he was seeing, and whether it was valid (to him). In any case, he could continue attempting to fashion a style (a bane of illustration) and it would become quite automatic (considering the reality of getting ready for the market which was Toy Design), once he had that armature under his belt--in his grasp. Of course this is not true of everyone, including forms of art out of mainstream education. Sometimes Classical singers like Pt. Kumar Gandharva (whom the puritans may > not accept as a strict classicist!) oddly brought in an un-prescribed note > into > the raga. There is a story how once he sang a note that HAD TO BE AVOIDED > (varjit) > while singingthe particular raga he was singing. After the performance a > critic is > supposed to have asked why he had done that. He replied' "You see, that > note was > hanging there right above my head imploring me to include her". > > > Charudatta Prabhudesai > > venantius j pinto: The latter part of your summation (includes earlier section) is deserving of people who see a synthesis between most things, and tread a quieter (perhaps more egalitarian) path. Thanks for sharing. But when the point comes up classifying a person, or a piece, or their oeuvre--by the many knowledgeable--it will be done as per the criteria set in place, imbued as well as their personal nuances, which are spelled out. Again done and said in various manners, the impact of which propels our minds.
