Nikhil Banerjee and his interview ... - Page 4

Originally posted by: punjini

Chatbuster, NB HAS spoken about his hours of practice. Read the first part of his interview in which he describes how he was kicked and pushed! God, I can't imagine Ravi Shankar going through the same treatment!

as u corectly point out, he did. but what i found enlightening was basically the first para u had up there...how he chose to talk about his work. incidentally, ask two economists to talk abt their field and they'll give u different accts. tells u how they see their own field, what it means to them... Even on our thread, we saw how diff people described things. someone gave a very precise detail, almost making it out to be a drill. does not bring out the "love" and the "sadhana" when they do that, even if it is only a drill. my POV

incidentally, Pt Ravi Shankar talks a lot about being open and imbibing the best from the west... Wonder how folks viewed that...

About Ravi Shankar, I got a good insight in the other thread where his interview has been posted. He says that when he played classical, he did so in the most orthodox way, the way in which he had been trained. But when he played with Beatles or recorded for fusion albums, he just improvised as he played along, so there were 2 sides of him and he says people got confused. Those who heard him playing the improvised versions thought he had been corrupted.

Originally posted by: chatbuster

as u corectly point out, he did. but what i found enlightening was basically the first para u had up there...how he chose to talk about his work. incidentally, ask two economists to talk abt their field and they'll give u different accts. tells u how they see their own field, what it means to them... Even on our thread, we saw how diff people described things. someone gave a very precise detail, almost making it out to be a drill. does not bring out the "love" and the "sadhana" when they do that, even if it is only a drill. my POV

incidentally, Pt Ravi Shankar talks a lot about being open and imbibing the best from the west... Wonder how folks viewed that...

Yup ... isn't that the way how the story goes ? Two sides of the same coin. Same with economists ... same with musicians. Only thing that's noteworthy is the outright thought in making such a bold statement ....

I know what you're hinting at, ChatBuster but then that's how I've felt carnatic music to be so. Ofcourse it's impossible to pursue anything without a proper 'sadhana'..... however routine 'sadhana' often becomes a matter of habit .... and habits can end up without the 'feeling' behind the act ..... My simple POV is that carnatic is more like 'playing by the book' whereas hindustani delves more into experimentation ....

😊 😊

Originally posted by: affluent

This forum has not been interesting now a days. Please post the topics related to SRGMP EMET Atleast I am not interested in reading interviews and articles published in 1985.... Its OK if you refer those articles by posting the link to justify your views but starting a whole new topic with those articles is not right in the spirit of EMET as this place is meant for EMET discussions only...Just my opinion...

Oooops .... you're offended it seems. Don't worry ... everything passes my friend. Musical topics are anyway disappearing from the forum and pretty soon alll we will talk about is dresses and hair styles and performance. Going by your musical interests, I'm sure you watch EMET for the performances, hip shaking and stars, don't ya ? And your favourite musician of all time must be Leslie Lewis and Ishita Arun ... aren't they ?

😉 😉 😉

Originally posted by: simplyskud

Oooops .... you're offended it seems. Don't worry ... everything passes my friend. Musical topics are anyway disappearing from the forum and pretty soon alll we will talk about is dresses and hair styles and performance. Going by your musical interests, I'm sure you watch EMET for the performances, hip shaking and stars, don't ya ? And your favourite musician of all time must be Leslie Lewis and Ishita Arun ... aren't they ?

😉 😉 😉

Good one SS ji 😆

Skudbhai- Affluence is a very relative term! It can be applied too money, culture, brain, soul...You can't get all - isn't it? 😊

Right SoulSoup .... Interpreted in a different way it could mean a dearth of everything .... so atleast you're holding on to an id .... if nothing else !!!

😉 😉 😉

Originally posted by: punjini

About Ravi Shankar, I got a good insight in the other thread where his interview has been posted. He says that when he played classical, he did so in the most orthodox way, the way in which he had been trained. But when he played with Beatles or recorded for fusion albums, he just improvised as he played along, so there were 2 sides of him and he says people got confused. Those who heard him playing the improvised versions thought he had been corrupted.

interesting to hear about the "corruption" in RS's case when he tried to assimilate ideas from the west. gives one the feeling that at least in his case, orthodoxy and sticking to the tried and true wld have been better.

contrast that with Asha after she left OPN, and this i am picking up from the thread on OP Nayyar. apparently we find her remixes non-corrupting? if she is considered great even in a contemporary sense, isn't a lot of that greatness due to her ability to improvise with the times? seriously, wasn't her association with OPN really the highlight of her musical genius, as opposed to her professional career? somehow non-orthodoxy seems to prevail in this context when we want to praise her at the expense of OPN. some inconsistency anywhere?

now on to RDB. a lot of Asha's work after she left OPN was with RDB. i find RDB great, but then isn't a lot of his work also "corrupting" in an orthodox sense? after all, brilliant as he was, wasn't he the master when it came to blending in different strains?

thankyou so much for the article 👏 👏 enjoyed reading it ...regarding the bold letters in the article you were talking about its been going on for ages and i am sure it will go on forever ..... someone who always listens to carnatic and not aware of the hindusthani style will be defensive and those listen to hindusthani and have no knowledge about carnatic music might say ah ah that is it ....i think this thread should be about the great musician than turning it into another debate of what he said ...i think its better to open another thread and discuss ....if i may i want to open another thread on this particular topic and we can discuss and get to know each others views on this matter as i am very interested to know what others think about it ....i am a south Indian and currently learning Hindusthani classical style(just a beginner) 😊

i found an interesting article in net by Neha Vishwanadhan ....would like to share wth you 😊


Note - This isn't a technical note on Indian Classical Music, but perhaps a reflection on growing up with multiple cultures and identities with respect to Classical music. It also has something to do with my perception of the Hindustani vs Carnatic mud fests that I see frequently on the net. :)
----


As a chotu kid, I was equally fascinated by Hindustani and Carnatic classical. Carnatic was familiar, and somehow whenever I heard Carnatic I could automatically smell coffee, jaangri and even vibhuti. And in all honesty, most often I never understand what the songs were about. Not knowing Telugu, and not understanding Sanskrit were definite disadvantages. And being at an age where metaphors don't really excite the mind doesn't help either!

Carnatic music associations were typically with early morning hours. I could even polish my school shoes to the tune of Kalyani. On the other hand, Hindustani was more languid. More accessible. It was in a language that I understood. Even now, I feel like the horde of cousins learning Carnatic music has no idea about the 'lyrics' of the song. They are so caught up in the beat cycles, and aroham and avarohanam, that the essence of the song escapes them.

The echo of my Grandmother's voice even as I write this, Ayye. Idu enne azaraan? on hearing Pandit Jasraj. (Trans: Ayye. Why is he crying>)

The accessibility of Hindustani is not just with respect to language, which often tends to be earthy, but has something to do with themes of music. Carnatic themes are typically devotional. They are about divinity. It could range from dvaita to advaita, and yet it always comes back to being holy. Hindustani on the other hand talks about colours, seasons, sex, passion, romance between mortals, and what not. Both of them are equally intense, but the theme of 'Divine' can be a bit repetitive, in terms of the content of songs. Both are intense, passionate and involved, and yet Hindustani has that space to offer for a different kind of intensity, one that goes beyond the idea of holiness or faith. I know of course that this can contested. One has Bharathiyaar songs which go into Nationalism and Patriotism, but compared to the larger treasure of Carnatic songs, how many of us tune to Bharathiyaar's songs?

A personal observation is that a lot of Hindustani enthusiasts do not dismiss Carnatic music. The ones who find Carnatic 'boring, repetitive and strict' (the common accusations) are the ones who probably don't understand Hindustani music either. Hindustani music isn't just about a bunch of raagas, but is an amalgamation of genres and styles. From bhajans, shloka renderings, taranas, ghazals and qawwalis, it has a wide range, and for that reason, the emphasis is on rendering the song as a whole, and not just about the structure. Even in instrumental, the way the instrument is played, as opposed to just playing by the book becomes important. In a crude way, Hindustani music does recognize that there is a difference between technique and intensity of the performer or the Bhaava.

In Carnatic, technique is definitely more venerated than Bhaava. This is abundantly clear, even in the way music is taught in the two forms. Hindustani teaching plunges into songs, and tends to explore raagas a lot. Carnatic music students will remember the endless and painful hours of practicing Sarali and Janda varisai. :D

This has a lot to do with the evolution of both forms of classical music. While Carnatic survived on coterie, upper-caste production, Hindustani was freely borrowed by other castes and religions. I guess Hindustani had to become fluid to retain its sanity. Till some point in time (around the 12th century or so) there seems to be hardly any difference, and it's only after that one even hears of different schools. Even now, the raagas that have a lot of Carnatic influence are termed as 'Mangala' ragas in Hindustani, in the sense that while they are fit into a time slot, they can still be played any time of the day.

For every North Indian who makes a face when he or she hears Carnatic music, there is a South Indian who thinks Hindustani music is not even classical! Perhaps then the central idea is not to compare the two forms of classical, but to be able to respect each of them for the intensity and the inbuilt ideology they have.

For one, while Carnatic music in Madras reminds me of streams of Mylapore mamas and mamis, Hindustani brings strong images of something as secular as Jahaan-e-Khusrau in the shadow of Humanyun's Tomb. And yet, D K Pattamal's voice gently evokes a tender memory of Madurai. I guess being a Cultural mongrel means one can howl in just about any raaga?




http://nehasri.blogspot.com/2005/03/some-notes.html