Date: 31 Dec 1994 21:01:58 GMT
Message-ID: <3e4gs6$bh0@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
References: <3e2mif$rav@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu>
Subject: Re: Semmangudi and carnatic Music
In article <3e2mif$rav@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu> manga911@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Srikanth Mangalam) says:
[ ... ]
I truly agree that Semmangudi is a phenomenon, a living God, one who represents Carnatic Music from A to Z. After more than 22 years of listening to carnatic Music, I have come to this conclusion that there isn't anyone who has provided more happiness in the spiritual sense than he.
[ ... ]
But then starts to drool mindlessly:
Unlike most of the recent musicians who thrive on displaying their technical virtuosities (ostentatious on many occasions), Semmangudi has carried this wonderful gift displaying simplicity and frugality.
[ ... ]
And finally flips his lid:
During Balamurali's heydays, Semmangudi had once remarked that instead of trying to create new ragas one could do better of by singing a better Kedaragowla or Mukhari. So much truth in that.
[ ... ]
I have time and again refrained from getting into discussions about the relative worth of musicians. This time, I think I will offer my personal opinion on the recent crappy comments that anyone with a net access thinks they can make and get away with.
In this posting, I am going to be deliberately rude and inflammatory, for the sole purpose of making a point. I will ad-hoc classify people reading this post into 4 types:
I am directing this posting at people of categories (3) and (4). And yes, because these are the specific types of people who need to be told in no uncertain terms how stupid their ideas are, I am going to be deliberately provocative. If you are a sensitive, kind, caring person who will be easily offended then stop reading right away.
I have no problems with people proclaiming that Semmangudi is a living God of Carnatic music---this is their opinion and they have every right to voice their opinions, however far-fetched and silly these opinions may seem to others.
However, these idolaters do not stop at such subjective and unprovable praise. They drag in the names of other musicians, whose music they do not appreciate, and make comparisons and point out why these newer and more innovative artistes are trying to corrupt tradition. Anyone who does not sing like Semmangudi does (I am thankful that the number of such Semmangudi-copycats is minuscule, Carnatic music would become intolerable otherwise) or like Semmangudi did (which is no justification for imitation of style or approach, however good some people think this music may have been) immediately comes for intense (and totally irrational) criticism from these fanatics. Of course, they cannot provide any rational, objective reasons as to why someone's music is good or bad or mediocre. Instead, they start using flowery language and (inappropriate) metaphors to extol the virtues of their idols and reverse the (silly) implications of the praises to deride and trivialize the abilities of those who do not find their favor.
What is there to prevent me from claiming that Semmangudi is a doddering, old, mucous and saliva dripping, musical burn-out who should shut up his mouth, stop singing and stop giving Carnatic music the bad name of being an elitist activity where abysmal quality and unpleasing performances are considered to be great (and by idolaters, the only) examples of tradition, worthy of emulation simply because the performer happens to be old? There is nothing to prevent me from saying the above statement which I think is true and deserves to be said. And I am making the statement in the form of a rhetorical question. Simple decency and the knowledge that my statements are subjective opinions prevented me from saying the above before in a public forum, but since we seem to be in a bash-that-musical-renegade free-for-all here, I will speak my mind.
Showing respect for the elderly is okay, as long as you respect just their age (for whatever reason). Claiming that the music of Semmangudi is great because he is old is bullshit. Conversely, claiming that the experiments of Balamurali or Vijay Siva are disrespectful to tradition because these artistes are young (in a relative or absolute sense) is still greater and stinkier bullshit.
What if Balamurali creates new ragas? If one (and their musical heroes) are ignoramuses and unimaginative enough not to appreciate or understand his music, one should SHUT UP and stop listening to him. Balamurali not only sings new ragas, but also sings Kedaragaula and Mukhari far better than Semmangudi ever did or can ever dream of doing---now I challenge anyone reading this statement to PROVE to me that I am wrong; of course no one can since I have made a statement that goes outside the purvey of logic, as do all subjective statements of opinion.
Any sane person should realize that musical appreciation is completely subjective. It is impossible to ever come up with universally acceptable OBJECTIVE CRITERIA for evaluating the quality of a performance or an artiste. When this is the case, a person is completely free to make statements of the form:
The above are very subjective opinions, but nonetheless, they are valid statements of personal judgement.
However, I think the following kinds of statements are totally uncalled for:
In my experience, many of those who have complained that they do not like Balamurali's music have turned out to be surprisingly ignorant of even the basics of Carnatic music. The dislike of these types of people is not difficult to understand. These people almost always identify ragas by the composition, not by the raga, which in my opinion is not identifying a raga at all. When they come across a composition that they have never heard before or a new raga, their ignorance of some of the most fundamental aspects of music and the shallowness of their much-touted expertise is laid bare for all to see---and they try to redeem themselves by claiming that the novelty of the artiste is disrespectful of tradition, unmusical and not worthy of appreciation. In other words, my ignorance is not my fault, but the fault of the musician. Can you say sour grapes? I cannot find any sillier or more reprehensible kinds of statements about music.
In an article that I wrote a long time ago on the notion of fidelity in compositions, I said the following:
There will always be the old hidebound conservative at every period of time who opposes anything novel on the grounds that no one in the past (especially the great masters who knew all that there was to know) had done it before. Max Planck once said something to the effect that new theories in science gain acceptance not by winning over their opponents, but by hanging around long enough for the older generation to die and letting a newer generation, unfettered by the biases of the past, grow up learning the new ideas. With time some of the young turks of today will become the reactionaries of tomorrow.
I think that the above statement is relevant to the current spate of unproductive discussions about why a musician is a living God while others are not worth the attention of rasikas (what temerity and presumptuousness to suggest what a artiste should or should not do).
[ Indian Classical Music | Krishna Kunchithapadam ]
Last updated: Sun Jun 27 17:00:19 PDT 2004
URL: http://geocities.datacellar.net/krishna_kunchith/rmic/rmic.1994.12.31.html