Originally posted by: xobile
Well I was someone who said that classical training is not required to be a great playback singer. My guruji is pakka khayal gaayika from the patiyala gharana and she lists Kishore Kumar Saab as one of her favourite singers. Even Lataji said that Kishoreda was an amazing singer. In today's generation, KK, who sang tadap tadap from hum dil de chuke sanam, and sunidhi chauhan are both proving that there is space for 'self-trained' voices in playback singing. Yes, they can't do classical songs, but they have their own niche and they are very surila too.
So please don't discount non classical singers. If you do that, then you are using a very narrow definition of music, something that u have written against. Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion -these are not Hindustani or Carnatic singers but they have amazing vocal powers.
My guruji always says that vocal music has lots of subjects within it. Dhrupad, Khayal, Tarana, Thumri, Folk, Filmi, Sufi, Ghazal. Even within these there are so many subjects. And those are just a few if the Indian vocal styles - what about opera, rapping, pop, soul, yodelling from the west. My point is that you cannot say one form is better than the other. It is very hard to be a good singer in alll of these styles. Of course, becoming a filmi singer is easier than becoming a dhrupad singer. But being A GOOD filmi singer is just as difficult as becoming a dhrupad singer. Kishoreda may not know about the ragas, but he trained very hard and his sur was so good that he could hold his own even inthd presence of lata and asha. The emotion with which he conveyed a song and touched your soul was not an easy thing to do.
CID
