Pitch Correction: Musical Ethics - Page 9

The point was: Do we have to be necessarily proficient in an art to be creative?

Well said . . . we should do what we can to the best of our ability . . . to ease the situation.

No offense to anybody, peace . . .

Originally posted by: Iron

Nahi ..Rahul ko confuse karne ki koshish ki hai...let me see how succesful I am 😆

succeeded😆

we've now gone beyond riyaaz of basic raagas to generally putting in hard work in refining and honing in on one's craft. i'd have to be crazy to argue against the latter. most folks who succeed generally work hard, though reverse is not necessarily true. but the issue i had was with working through the same riyaaz day in and day out. that is where i thought we were getting into the realm of being too rigid- for folks who need that discipline perhaps it's the best way to improve, but certainly it need not work for others.

in school, we had folks who were very good at multiplication tables because that's what they did all day. did not add to their ability to solve advanced problems. in college, i can recall "muggus" who would spend all their time cramming up formulas on a daily basis, or later cramming up all the vocab words for gmat/ gre. they never did as well as some of the others who had a basic intelligence in such areas. i dont know what it is but too much structure has often been found to be limiting.

as for the various examples some folks have cited, basic question is this. can we be sure that their greatness stemmed solely from riyaaz and not from their inborn talent? a lot of folks do riyaaz everyday, but not everyone makes it. we might be just looking at a sample where the folks started with loads of talent and their riyaaz was the proverbial icing on the cake. given insufficient data, it is hard to derive any conclusions as to what was the deciding factor behind their success- but hard for me to believe it was just riyaaz.

Originally posted by: Iron

CB/ Surtaal not sure what the argment point was here Not every one can be Kishore. Even Kanchan devi did not learn music till she came to film line to act and sing. DUring early era of movie actor and actress sang their own songs (mostly as far as I know) . There is always a first time.It does not matter when it is. All u need is committment and dedication and appreciation to the field you are adopting. Yes age wise u never know how much time u have. But remember..karmadain wadika raste..ma phallesu kadachanna.

arre yaar, koi argument nahee. we're all doing our riyaaz in our own way, me in terms of writing my daily discourses on guni-jan type topics. yaar, aur kahaan be-jhijhak kholne ka mauka milta hai? kuch aye yaa nahee, bas lag jao 😉😆😆

btw, have fond memories when i think of "There is always a first time."😆

Baap Re Baap!

Wow... I am gone for a few days after typing this posting and I come back today seeing seventeen postings!!! Wow! Thank you everybody for contributing! 😊

There were so many responses, which I just did a brief skim through the whole thread. Of course, in a competition, pitch-correction would not be ethical.

My personal opinion on pitch correction in recorded music is that it depends on what the intent is. If you listen to Mukeshji's songs, you will come to the conclusion that he does have the tendency to go off-key. To some, they may sound like grace notes, and others will say that beyond that, there is some sweetness.

Udit Narayan, in more contemporary times, tends to go off-key more than any of the leading male playback singers. I remember in his first days, he used to slip few notes several times, yet he is loved by all due to his voice quality. If you listen to the title song of "Kaho Na Pyaar Hai," I did catch points where he went off-key, but you can't help but loving his ornamentation in "hai" when he sings the "kaho na pyaar hai.." the first time. You hardly hear any singers sing like that.

BUT..... and this is a big but!

I would use pitch correction on horrendous mistakes like "tivra ma" used instead of pancham. I recorded some Bengali bhajans last year and I wish I had pitch correction because I ended up missing that pancham in a song. I lost the tracks to those so I can't edit that. Likewise, I think pitch correction is beneficial to that. I would not advertise to the world that I am a flawless singer. Likewise, I certainly hope no sane music director would sell talent and claim stories that are not true.

About live singing, I have to say that Alkaji and Udit-ji tend to go besur on stage shows. I have recorded stage shows on DVD with both of them singing and Udit sounds very "stifled" on stage missing or hitting the notes flatly. Same with Alkaji. I have never ever ever heard Abhijeet or Kavitaji go off-key. In fact, when Kishore Kumar was alive and Abhijeet and Kishore Kumar sang their first song together "waadon ki shaam aayi," Kishore Kumar told Abhijeet that "tum bahut sur mein gaate ho." When I saw Abhijeet's stage shows, he is very much sur pakka that I am surprised. I admit that stage shows are difficult to sing, because you can't hear yourself too well.

For this, I applaud all of those singers on SRGMP who sang well on stage, and the some who were really excellent in sur!

Someone requested for my esraj recording. (the instrument on my hand is an esraj. It sounds like a sarangi.) Please PM me and I'll give you a recent recording of me with the esraj.

Also... rest assured everyone, I'll post another musical ethical topic on Friday

😊

Originally posted by: chatbuster

we've now gone beyond riyaaz of basic raagas to generally putting in hard work in refining and honing in on one's craft. i'd have to be crazy to argue against the latter. most folks who succeed generally work hard, though reverse is not necessarily true. but the issue i had was with working through the same riyaaz day in and day out. that is where i thought we were getting into the realm of being too rigid- for folks who need that discipline perhaps it's the best way to improve, but certainly it need not work for others.

in school, we had folks who were very good at multiplication tables because that's what they did all day. did not add to their ability to solve advanced problems. in college, i can recall "muggus" who would spend all their time cramming up formulas on a daily basis, or later cramming up all the vocab words for gmat/ gre. they never did as well as some of the others who had a basic intelligence in such areas. i dont know what it is but too much structure has often been found to be limiting.

as for the various examples some folks have cited, basic question is this. can we be sure that their greatness stemmed solely from riyaaz and not from their inborn talent? a lot of folks do riyaaz everyday, but not everyone makes it. we might be just looking at a sample where the folks started with loads of talent and their riyaaz was the proverbial icing on the cake. given insufficient data, it is hard to derive any conclusions as to what was the deciding factor behind their success- but hard for me to believe it was just riyaaz.

You seem to have the impression that riyaaz just means memorising a song or raga. You also said elsewhere or made the assumption that riyaaz stifles creativity.

It's not that way at all. Riyaaz helps in keeping the vocals in tip-top condition so that there are less chances of slipping a note and it also enhances lung power. One could compare it to the practise that sportsmen put in before matches. Now, a player could theoretically go in and play without practice, yet give good results if he is talented. However, if he has put in hours and hours of practice, he is less likely to make mistakes, and will be in control of the game. Of course, riyaaz cannot make up for talent, and if that is your point, you are right.

What happens with riyaaz is that the singer will be in control and in fact can be as creative as he wants. Which is why classical singers always sing a raga in different ways each time. One rendering of a raga will not be the same as another, simply because the singer, with his riyaaz has the confidence to try different interpretations of the raga. He can hold a note longer or go to a higher pitch simply because of riyaaz.

In SRGMP itself, I found that many singers improved their singing over the episodes. Those whom I had written off actually came back to perform better in the later episodes. It could have been due to riyaaz.

Originally posted by: Iron

I know where u are coming from. Rahul. But see this is different. Math is one thing..although it is all practice too. Yes some have better grasping power and do not need to do lot of mattha pacchi to grasp it where as some are that depend too much on bookish knowledges like book worm and they need to ratta fiy all formulas inteading of grasping and understanding it. I had a friend so much in rattafication that she used to tell me she even remembers when the page turns in her notebook. as used to be surprised that I still get better marks then her.

We are quoting different things. Music is an art which needs to be rehearsed everyday. You will not memorize same stuff or formula everyday for Math. U will follow it and lo we are done. But in music u need to polish your self in same raaga too. Lata ji still need to riyaaz every day...she knows her music in and out still has to riyaaz. Asha tai has to riyaaz every morning. They will not forget it bt riyaaz in this profession is a requirement. More you do better you get. Has Lata's voice gone old....She can still sing for a teenager in same naughty way.


I donot learn music and have never learnt it so my toughts could be totally wrong but this is what I have understood
Music is more practical in other sense. therefore making it compulsory for riyaz .... I THINK

i realize that math and arts are different in many respects. was just pointing out that too much of disciplined training need not by itself beget good results. i think the problem here is we are slowly starting to lump together everything into riyaaz, starting first from riyaaz of only the raagas. it is now starting to be a catch-all for hard work. and as said before, i'd not argue against that.

to take another example from arts, i dont think that an advanced artist has to be painting or practising every day to be very good and creative. after a certain point, the mechanics of oil or color handling are nailed down, the mechanics of how to hold instruments or sing are tuned in. an artist, good if they are, can get back and produce really exemplary work even if they've not painted or practised for years..., same as a writer who's not looked at sentences or words in ages. When someone like Lata or Asha are doing their riyaaz, perhaps all they are really doing is "voice-maintenance" work, the kind of tune-up, reading or upkeep that is necessary in any field. To think that creativity stems from that is a bit of a stretch for me.

Originally posted by: punjini

You seem to have the impression that riyaaz just means memorising a song or raga. You also said elsewhere or made the assumption that riyaaz stifles creativity.

It's not that way at all. Riyaaz helps in keeping the vocals in tip-top condition so that there are less chances of slipping a note and it also enhances lung power. One could compare it to the practise that sportsmen put in before matches. Now, a player could theoretically go in and play without practice, yet give good results if he is talented. However, if he has put in hours and hours of practice, he is less likely to make mistakes, and will be in control of the game. Of course, riyaaz cannot make up for talent, and if that is your point, you are right.

What happens with riyaaz is that the singer will be in control and in fact can be as creative as he wants. Which is why classical singers always sing a raga in different ways each time. One rendering of a raga will not be the same as another, simply because the singer, with his riyaaz has the confidence to try different interpretations of the raga. He can hold a note longer or go to a higher pitch simply because of riyaaz.

In SRGMP itself, I found that many singers improved their singing over the episodes. Those whom I had written off actually came back to perform better in the later episodes. It could have been due to riyaaz.

PunjiniG, your points are well-taken but do not necesarily represent some of what i am saying. the point has always been about too much riyaaz, not just riyaaz. i recognize the need for someone to get to a certain level before we can even start to be creative, and without riyaaz in at least one's formative years, we cant even get there. but after a certain point?

in any case, there is a very subtle thing that is happening when you talk of riyaaz. are you talking about the same routine day in day out, year in year out? i cant see how practising the same drill necessarily leads to creativity. it should certainly make you more technically proficient. maybe that leads to confidence to try out new things and to try one's hand at being creative, but that's a long-way of getting there.

as for the example from sports, am fine with with it as long as we will all be open to examples being taken from the non-artistic fields? btw, unless a sportsman goes out and tries new things, they will at most be getting more proficient at their game, not necessarily very creative in how they approach it... Even the sportsman has to learn new flicks, new shots, else their game stagnates.

as for the rest of it, dont really see the need for now to add anything...

Originally posted by: chatbuster

. . . to take another example from arts, i dont think that an advanced artist has to be painting or practising every day to be very good and creative. after a certain point, the mechanics of oil or color handling are nailed down, the mechanics of how to hold instruments or sing are tuned in. an artist, good if they are, can get back and produce really exemplary work even if they've not painted or practised for years..., same as a writer who's not looked at sentences or words in ages. When someone like Lata or Asha are doing their riyaaz, perhaps all they are really doing is "voice-maintenance" work, the kind of tune-up, reading or upkeep that is necessary in any field. To think that creativity stems from that is a bit of a stretch for me.

I am beginning to see why it is difficult for you to comprehend
that Riyaaz is so important. I would like you to try this exercise for 3 weeks. Record your voice just singing one octave in ascending and descending order on Day 1

Sa Re Ga Ma(teevra) Pa Dha Ni Sa
Sa Ni Dha Pa Ma(teevra) Ga RA Sa
There is a reason why Ma is teevra which I will
tell you later if accept to do this.

Now practise everyday for 1 Hr in the morning
without interruption at whatever time that is convenient to you
for 3 weeks and record your voice.

Do not practice for 3 more weeks and then record your voice and
you will know the difference. We will all live for 8 weeks
to listen to your recordings, I will guarantee that.

Originally posted by: Surtaal

I am beginning to see why it is difficult for you to comprehend
that Riyaaz is so important. I would like you to try this exercise for 3 weeks. Record your voice just singing one octave in ascending and descending order on Day 1

Sa Re Ga Ma(teevra) Pa Dha Ni Sa
Sa Ni Dha Pa Ma(teevra) Ga RA Sa
There is a reason why Ma is teevra which I will
tell you later if accept to do this.

Now practise everyday for 1 Hr in the morning
without interruption at whatever time that is convenient to you
for 3 weeks and record your voice.

Do not practice for 3 more weeks and then record your voice and
you will know the difference. We will all live for 8 weeks
to listen to your recordings, I will guarantee that.

yaar, i appreciate the chip-shot. after all the other points that have been raised, we hone in on one specific thing. i'd rather not repeat it all here, just go back and do read some of it. am also not sure how the recommendation you had for the riyaaz schedule would help me get more creative.

with that established, shld i now turn around and explain why i think issues relating to creativity are so hard for some to "comprehend"? remember, creativity is not something that can be gotten back within 3 weeks of practice. even a writer who has not written for ages might need a bit of time and practice to get back into groove, ditto for a painter. but get back into the groove they will, if they were any good to start with. with voice, fine, aging also comes into play. but something that you can get back with a bit of practice would surely not qualify as a work of creativity now, wld it? on second thoughts, maybe this might be too hard to comprehend?