Dearth of Music Directors, not Singers - Page 11

Originally posted by: Ethnos

I am against this blanket sort of conclusion that the present generation likes to listen to only foot-tapping music and nothing else. I have been doing quite a bit of studies on the gen Y, as part of my research (read as daily bread)and they do listen to a LOT of retro. There are times and a specific context when they do. But, yes they do indeed! So, to say that 'MDs are selling the kind of music, which is appreciated by the youth today,' is not totally right. There IS scope for providing soulful music too.

And another thing. Rhythm without melody is just a plain set of beats that don't say or do much. Yes, it can result in some foot-tapping. Nothing else. And in any case the earliest forms of music began only with rhythms and beats - tom-toms, drums, even beating of dried leather. But, music has evolved since then. There came tunes and there came melody. Music was not listened to only for getting one's adrenalin high (like the war-bugles, bull-fights and other fights, or spreading the message of victory or death and so on). People began consuming music as a higher form of art.

To relegate melody to the background is like relegating progressive development and favouring a retrogression of sorts!

Who said the blanket conclusion that people like only foot tapping music..... I said that they like both sorts and both sorts should co-exist😕

Originally posted by: jhsurti

Whew!!! This is becoming a war of sorts.

I remember someone asking Pt. Ravishankar as to how he would DEFINE music. Expecting a long complicated answer, the poser of the question was amazed at the short simple answer by the maestro: "What is pleasing to ears is music; rest all is noise."

Thats his definition of music..... 😃..... I would say "Soulful music is the one that is pleasing to ears..... " Here pleasing to ears means which goes to ur heart and relaxes u...... and "Music means arrangement of notes that form a rhythm which is pleasent (not to ears) and people enjoy it"...... With the definition Pandit Ravishankarji gave some of the western music like rock, pop, the bhangda etc are not music at all.....

Something about all MD's going on sabbatical and making movies without them - will it be fine with us? Movies without songs also require music. The background score. And it is not easy. In the earlier times majority of the movies made without songs had a score by Salilda. Perhaps other MD's were not comfortable with background scores only. I don't know their reasons but usually a movie without songs meant that the score was by Salilda.

I agree the movies without songs can be good but but but all the movies without music would be boring.... some films come without music too mostly from Ramgopal varma but are watchable..... 😊

About the permutations and combinations, well there are still many possible. Each note can have anything from low octave Sa to high octave Ni including the komal and tivra swars. How many notes in all? Now a song will have how many notes? More than couple hundreds. Much more I think. So go calculate the combinations and permutations....

I did nt say there is not possible..... I said that they have to have 999 compositions in mind and bring something new..... its more creative than having 50 old compositions and making something new😊

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

Who said the blanket conclusion that people like only foot tapping music..... I said that they like both sorts and both sorts should co-exist😕

Originally posted by: Ethnos

I was referring to one of your earlier posts that said that youngsters like to listen to only foot-tapping music and not 'Guru-Dutt kind of movie songs'. And I was also responding to a statement someone made about rhythm being more important than melody.

Okk I will just correct u for my statement..... I did nt say youngsters listen only to foot tapping music.... I said youngersters can not dance to the guru dutt movie songs.... however they enjoy those to in particular times like while studying and all.....😊

Originally posted by: kabhi_21

Looks like logical thinking and language has been thrown out of the window! Ravi Shankar said music is something which is pleasing to the ears. How does that definition exclude rock, pop and bhangra? 😕

And what is meant by "rhythm which is pleasant (not to the ears)"? Which part of the body is it pleasing then?

Why this long winded explanation involving ears and heart in "Pleasing to your ears means which goes to your heart and relaxes you".

Absolutely pointless discussing with people who talk like this! There should be some minimum standards maintained by those who want to debate.

Edited by punjini - 18 years ago

Originally posted by: punjini

True. Grasping the meaning out of a seemingly simple statement is not everyone's cup of tea.

Originally posted by: punjini

Rock, pop, bhangda and most foot tapping songs are enjoyed but not listened.... people just groove to the tunes even if they dont know or dont get the lyrics of the song.....

this may not be pleasent to ears when u just hear to them.... but it would be ideal when u dance.... because when u dance u just groove to tunes.... but when u listen, ur ears are searching for meaning of lyrics and melody..... whether it is indian classical or western classical....... this may not be pleasing to ears meaning when u understand the song.... but still its music

while the songs like the titanic songs or indian classical and slow paced and even few fast paced romantic songs are like u can hear them for relaxation, which I think Pandit Ravishankar referred as pleasent to ears because u can listen to it and sit back relaxing.... as it goes to ur heart...

@Jsruti : thanks for telling that its not everyone's cup of tea and u did nt understand it😉