WHY RIYAAZ? - Page 3

Originally posted by: punjini

I've started enjoying your responses now. 😊 Barter economic system. 😆
Actually, music was not a hobby or a side activity as it is now. It would be the ONLY activity worth living for. It was a passion, a lifetime commitment. So a shishya who wanted that knowledge would be ready to do anything to learn from a guru. Washing clothes and cleaning wouldn't be a waste of time for the shishya because he would be bonding with the guru even at that time. The guru in turn would feel real affection for the student and this would lead to the process of passing down knowledge from one generation to another.

Fantastic response, Punjini-ji!👏

Please forgive me for speculating or interpretating on topics beyond my realm of intelligence.

I think what Annapurna Devi did by being very choosy with students shows that the student must have the correct and humble attitude in order to be able to learn music properly.

As far as her teaching few ragas within a great amount of time might show that mastering a raga takes a great deal and what she wanted to instill into her students is the highest level of perfectionism.

Yes, I would say it is boring to learn 2 ragas within 5 years. But, I am not and cannot compare to the qualities required for the true and ideal student.

Studying under a guru, like the gurukul system, means to unlearn everything and learn everything again like a clean slate. Real learning is humility. Even though it may be boring to learn the same stuff every day for a long time, your musically bona fide guru knows what is best for you, and will not lead your astray.

I've been following this exchange b/w punjini-ji, Kishore_bhakta-ji and cb with great interest. I don't intend to either enter the (shall-we-say) controversy, nor am I trying to take up one "side" of the argument or the other. I just want to pick up on some interesting threads that strike me as I read this exchange.

It seems to me that to some extent the gap between what punjini-ji & kb-ji say and what cb says illustrate what you might call a cultural gap of sorts. Art is an important part of any culture, I think we would all agree, but perhaps one of the things going on here (and I mean what's happened on SRGMP too) has to do with a cultural shift in the way our society approaches art (specifically in this case, music).

Traditionally, music was learned in a gurukula system. Music is 'gyaan' in our tradition. Like other forms of gyaan, it comes from a guru, and sishyas do seva of that guru while obtaining this gyaan. When we teach music or dance in India (I have never learned but accompanied cousins etc to their lessons)... what happens is that the teacher sings something, or dances a step and the students follow. You *copy* the teacher to learn.

The first thread I'd like to pick up from you guys' discussion is the issue of creativity. The question is what is creativity? Is it creating something *new* everyday? (I recall an HR interview, where he was talking about how his creative genius rested in his reinventing his songs - writing new styles of songs every so often).

If musical creativity is in fact about singing or writing something new everyday, then what is creative about our traditional teaching, which basically begins with *copying* your guru? Even the NI musical 'gharanas' could not survive where it not for this copying. So it would seem to me artistic/musical creativity in the Indian culture is a very different thing than what HR is talking about or what the Beatles (or Steve Jobs) did.

It's very interesting though to hear what the classical musicians say in their interviews about what music is supposed to do to the listener or what creativity is. For instance, TN Krishnan says that the goal is to create a feeling of peace in the listener. There was on the other thread a quote from (I think) Salamat Ali Khan, where he said classical music was not about learning or knowing the ragas; it was about singing *the same line over and over*, while conveying a new emotion, a new feeling in it each time.

In the HR view of creativity, the goal of music is to give the listener something new to listen to every day. I guess the assumption is if the listener hears the same thing over and over, he gets bored. The objective or meaning of music in this view is self-expression. (This also means you need your own style, your own leather jacket, 50clock shadow, your own topi).

But what our classical musicians say is that what is created is a feeling in the listener, and creativity is in creating something *new* in the *listener*. To be able to sing the same line over and over in a different way, to bring about a different state in the listener -- well how could you possibly do that day in and day out without riyaaz?

The *goal* of music in our traditions is to create a certain state of being. Perhaps it is that state of being itself that is conducive to 'gyaan'.

Just a thought...

I think a shishya has to first learn to copy his guru before he can even think of improvising. Even Pandit Jasraj shot down one of the mentors in SRGMP who said that it is important to sing in an original voice. "Everyone learns by first copying someone else," he said.

A shishya who is unable to copy the swaras being taught to him by his guru will neither be proficient nor creative.

Almost all those who learnt in the guru-shishya tradition and did riyaaz regularly have not suffered from curbing of creativity, be it Ravi Shankar or Vilayat Khan. How is it that Ravi Shankar could invent new ragas or that Vilayat Khan could improve the sitar instrument itself?

I read an interesting anecdote about Annapurna Devi recently. One journalist asked her if he could witness her riyaaz. She said a flat NO and said "Riyaaz is an extremely private matter, like having a bath".

great posts punjini ji and KB ji....
👏 👏 👏

Originally posted by: punjini

I think a shishya has to first learn to copy his guru before he can even think of improvising. Even Pandit Jasraj shot down one of the mentors in SRGMP who said that it is important to sing in an original voice. "Everyone learns by first copying someone else," he said.

A shishya who is unable to copy the swaras being taught to him by his guru will neither be proficient nor creative.

Almost all those who learnt in the guru-shishya tradition and did riyaaz regularly have not suffered from curbing of creativity, be it Ravi Shankar or Vilayat Khan. How is it that Ravi Shankar could invent new ragas or that Vilayat Khan could improve the sitar instrument itself?

Punjini-ji - this is exactly what I am picking up from the discussion. In our tradition, we would say that it is *by* copying that one learns to be creative.

Whereas, the Western culture would not understand that sentiment. What the Western culture sees as "creativity" is different.

I am not saying one is superior to the other per se, although as an Indian, of course, I prefer my culture. The fact is that my experience tells me that what the music industry seems to assume these days is wrong. When it comes to classical or even semi-classical music, a lot of us do not get bored of listening to the same thing over and over... after all we are still singing, discussing, posting the lyrics and links for some of those semi-classical songs... and I for one don't tire of classical music. I can listen to the same songs over and over. If there any limitation, it is my ability to absorbing all the complexity in that music.

Novelty for the sake of novelty is NOT, per se, creativity.

Classical music as we call it is "Shastriya Sangeet" that which is derived from our Shastras. Our music is a way of devotion.

Our music comes from Sama veda chanting. Someone mentioned the importance of choosing the right Guru to learn from. Absolutely true but more importantly the Guru should find you worthy of a student. That is why they have "Ganda bandhan" after a certain stage of teaching when the Guru feels comfortable that the tradition is safe with you.

Guru itself comprises two Syllables "Gu" and "Ru" meaning dispeller of darkness.

I started learning Tabla when I was 5 yrs old and my Guruji did not teach me any taals. He only made me and my friends get the basic bols/alphabets right. I was too young to care that he did not teach me any Taals, so I focussed on reciting back whatever he taught and that involved quite intensive Riyaaz as he was very particular.

Riyaaz to me is playing/ reciting the phrases as many times so that they are ingrained in you. There comes a point when you start feeling at ease and start trying to incorporate variations.

Specially in Tabala, we have phrases that are called: Kayada (an order), then Palta (variation), Tihai (Conclusion). Then there are phrases called Uthans, Peskaar, Bols, Gats, Chakradaars, Tukdas, Mukhdas, Parans which are very structured and pre-defined. But we have the freedom to compose if we can adhere to the metre.
No intention of boring you with technicalities.

How soon can this be done?? We have a finite life time, as somebody said.

It depends upon how much riyaaz one puts in and gains the understanding.

If one does not have the basic understanding of how the Kaidas and Paltas are formulated you can be as creative as you want to be but cannot cut it.

Similarly if you do not have the basic understanding of how a Rag is structued and what its significance is and the best time to render it, you can be as creative as you want to be but falter each time.

Unknowingly if you tried to compose "Eena Meena Deeka" in Darbari, you just cannot get the emotion.

Let me stop now and see if somebody reads the post.

Wow Surtaal-ji, please tell us the details. It helps those of us who are listen-only understand your experience.

There is one question I have for you. How do you feel shastriya sangeet can help one attain 'gyaan'. Or to put it another way, how does a shishya know he has attained 'gyaan'? Can you speak a little about this?

Originally posted by: sangeetaa

Punjini-ji - this is exactly what I am picking up from the discussion. In our tradition, we would say that it is *by* copying that one learns to be creative.

Whereas, the Western culture would not understand that sentiment. What the Western culture sees as "creativity" is different.

I am not saying one is superior to the other per se, although as an Indian, of course, I prefer my culture. The fact is that my experience tells me that what the music industry seems to assume these days is wrong. When it comes to classical or even semi-classical music, a lot of us do not get bored of listening to the same thing over and over... after all we are still singing, discussing, posting the lyrics and links for some of those semi-classical songs... and I for one don't tire of classical music. I can listen to the same songs over and over. If there any limitation, it is my ability to absorbing all the complexity in that music.

Novelty for the sake of novelty is NOT, per se, creativity.

I beg to differ Sangeetaji. Even in the west, I am sure voice training is very important for a singer, which means repetitive singing from a song book, practising and I am sure that instrumentalists also keep practising the same notes over and over again. What do they call "riyaaz"? Would someone enlighten?