Why a self-proclaimed "open-minded" critic is not

Date: 7 Jul 1995 08:54:58 GMT
Message-Id: <3tisp2$q8g@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
References: <3th0o7$33u@zip.eecs.umich.edu> <3thttn$61s@sundog.tiac.net>
Subject: Re: On bAlamuralikrishna the vidwan of controversy

In article <3thttn$61s@sundog.tiac.net> BRC Iyengar wrote:

I wrote this as a reply to somebody who was interested in my opinion. I thought it would be appropriate to post here.

brc iyengar

Let me warn you that whatever I say is my personal opinion and not in my capacity as the Critic of SRUTI, lest someone should write to the Chief Editor and say that `your critic' has said this and that about Balamurali's. True, I do write to other papers but that is a different matter. I note that you are a FAN of Balamurali; you have therefore reasons to be biased. Any adverse comment about B would certainly upset you; understandable. Just as we Critics are open minded, I expect you to be so in assessing or enjoying music. To say again that a few Nettors did not do a good job...mud slinging etc. is not fair. It is their opinion; forget it. I hope I will be able to help you in giving a `balanced assessment'. A Critic, as you know, is a necessary evil and criticism, an evil necessity. Hopefully I will post you sometime my article `on critics and criticism'.

Balamurali is a genius..... wait, wait. don't get excited! And a genius is more often eccentric and B is no exception. I have been listening to his music eversince he blossomed. He is also a Vaggeyakara, which means he has two facets in his art- Geyakara and Vak-kara. Let me first attack him as a Geyakara. The `composition of this unique musician' (about which I made some comments in one of the issues of Sruti:, are his compositions in 72 mela ragas. To compose songs in ragas like Kanakangi or Sucharitra, almost two ends of mela ragas, is no joke. His thillanas are exquisite; they bear a unique stamp. But there are many more of his compositions, majority of which have not taken off. Why? On the contrary, take the compositions of the Trinities; not one of them has failed. Mind you, they run into thousands. That makes the difference. I leave the rest for your interpretation.

And now as a performer. He has a tendency to go tangential. Note, it is again the genius that speaks. Nevertheless, it is off the beaten track. I mean it is away from what is referred to as Sampradaya. I hasten to add that I have my own interpretation of Sampradaya; let us not get bogged down in this. In short, his music is different. Let me be bold and say that he has a tendency to exaggerate simple things, bordering on showmanship not deliberately, though. In this exercise, he wastes time. This, I guess is a reflection of unspelt or unintended ego. Add to this his smile, which invokes laughter. Some of these mannerisms, however unrelated they are to music, are revolting both to the lay as well as the connoisseur. One can enjoy his music better, with closed eyes! His music is also eccentric. For instance, his way of rendering the piece, Nagumomu, which is so much linked with his personality is one thing; and just compare it with how the same piece is presented by late Musiri. Listen to both and find out yourself, in an unbiased critical way, the difference. Each may have his own individuality; but one has the edge over the other. Listen to it again; you will see that edge; its is a razors edge! Yet another example of his eccentricity is the way he announces and implements the ugly intermission in a serious concert. Is it not unworthy in a situation when rasikas have been driven to an emotional pitch? Also he takes the audience, perhaps unwittingly, for a ride. One more thing which is annoying to the audience is the way he presents his own compositions, one after another and seldom includes the works of Trinities, and even if he does, it is not significant. All these matters however unconcerned with his music, all the same have watered down the creativity he indeed, puts in.

Every essay he presents has a different face, like the other side of the moon. Whether it is a beautiful face or not, is for the rasikas to judge

He has very rich voice and unfortunately he is too aware of it! Unfortunatley again, he more often abuses it, particularly in the higher octaves (kalla Koral). His laya gnana is something extrordinary, but there are many slip-ups in his swarasthanas. His thirmanams in swarakalpana are mindboggling, but where does that lead to... how many can follow it... what is the purpose and aim. To me it is an exercise in futility. I can write more.

Well, I can write much more. In anycase, wait for a feature article on B in Sruthi. It is on the cards. Incidentally, I wish to state that feature articles on leading musicians is time consuming. I may tell you, it takes over a year to complete one. Understand the work Sruthi does for you!

A word about the audience, which I find is relevent here. As at present,the reaction of an audience will somehow always be commensurate with the effect created, precisely because,it is subconcious. Thus, there are performances that release noisy and vociferous, yet meaningless and empty applause;it echos their own emptiness. And there are others to which the audence reacts less spontaneously, yet whose worth is not only immeasurably greater but their effect, immeasurtably deeper. It is defenitely wrong to draw conclusions from the effect made on an audience, i.e., from their volume of the applause, as to the real strength of the impression made by a work, let alone as to its quality.

Yet again, I am moved to write about music criticism and appreciation in spite of every desire not to engage in what is increasingly becoming an unproductive use of my time (and even more, the time of people who read RMIC). In my opinion, bAlamuraLe does not need anyone to defend him---his music is there for people to listen to and draw their own conclusions from.

However, we have an example here of BRC Iyengar making the most ridiculous statements prefaced with a comment that ... we Critics are open-minded .... His article is an example of why critics (or some of them) are most pointedly not open-minded. Laying claim to extra wisdom because of a lifetime of listening does not place Iyengar's statements beyond criticism---and I will proceed to do offer my opinions on Iyengar's biases here.

I am not going to quote each and every sentence in Iyengar's article; I suggest people read the original for reference. However, I will bring one common theme in his article to your attention. On all aspects of musical performance and composition where objective evaluation is possible, Iyengar admits (albeit grudgingly) bAlamuraLe's eminence. However (and as I expected and want you to note) Iyengar faults with bAlamuraLe on subjective aspects of music. If this alone is not a display of an attitude that is the anti-thesis of open-mindedness, I do not know what is.

Before others go on to claim Iyengar's right to his opinions, I will further clarify my position. I do not have anything against people trashing bAlamuraLe's music---I accept it as part of the subjectivity of music appreciation. However, I am against Iyengar's claims that his statements about bAlamuraLe and his music are somehow deserving of special consideration due to his (Iyengar's) status as an unbiased critic.

I also do not expect everyone to agree with my statements. But if you choose to respond to me (either by mail or post) please make sure that you do not bring in subjective opinions into the discussion---at least if you want a response from me. I promise to devote potentially unlimited time explaining my position on music appreciation (as many people who have contacted me by email will probably attest to) but I simply will not respond to knee-jerk, biased, subjective opinions that cannot be debated, analyzed, or critiqued.

Iyengar's points with my comments.

• Many of bAlamuraLe's compositions have not taken off, while not one of the compositions of the Trinity has failed.
  In the first place, the statement about the compositions of the Trinity is plain wrong. There is considerable debate about what even constitutes an authentic composition of the Trinity. dhEkShethar's compositions had to wait for the early part of this century to gain popularity. And it is silly to claim that all of SyAmA SAsthre's compositions are all well-known in any reasonable sense of the word.
  I do not doubt that some of the compositions of the Trinity are so popular that standards of popularity can be defined based on them. However every composer, pre- and post-Trinity, has his/her share of well-known and unknown compositions.
  The position of the Trinity is rather special in karNataka music. thyAgarAja, dhEkShethar, and SyAmA SAsthre have gained a special status in musical history for a number of reasons---primary among them for their musical scholarship, but also through chance. Anyone familiar with history know how much a select few can be glorified, and how many can be almost completely obliterated from our collective memories for reasons that have nothing to do with merit alone.
  Let us also keep in mind that bAlamuraLe's compositions are relatively new, certainly newer than those of the Trinity. To expect the same or a comparable level of popularity for his compositions is being stupid.
  Popularity of a composition often has nothing to do with the inherent merits of the composition. The mistaken belief that anything which survives does so only because of its unquestionable superiority (and by contrast, that which does not survive perished because of its inherent defects) is at the root of much unnecessary controversy in music, especially karNataka music. Before anyone quotes natural selection at me, let me point out that no respectable evolutionary biologist today will grant primacy or an exalted role to adaptive selection---a complex and fascinating interplay between inherent merits and historical contingency determines the final result of almost any outcome in almost any walk of life (with the possible exception of a rigorously objective endeavor like science, even which is not immune to personalities). Music is no exception. Venerating the Trinity as inerrant gods is really insulting them, their antecedents, their contemporaries, their successors, and music as a whole.
  Finally, the statement about the lack of popularity of some of bAlamuraLe's compositions flies directly in the face of Iyengar's concluding remarks asking people not to evaluate performers based on the response of the audience. To wit, the loud but empty applause of many is not necessarily better than the subdued but considered appreciation of a few. Sadly, open-minded critic Iyengar has failed to apply his own admonitions to himself. The failure (if one can call it that) of some of bAlamuraLe's compositions to take-off is no indication of bAlamuraLe's talent as a composer or of the merits or defects of his compositions, either the ones that did succeed and the ones that failed.
  Ironically, it is bAlamuraLe himself who has worked hard to popularize many of the unknown compositions of the Trinity. More on this later.
  
• Some of bAlamuraLe's mannerisms are revolting to the listener.
  Instead I find this remark revolting. This statement alone blows away any credibility that Iyengar can lay claim to as an unbiased commentator. If this is the open-mindedness of a critic, then such critics should be [insert your favorite method of censure here].
  Am I justified in saying that m.d.rAmanAThan's squint eye is a blemish on his music. Am I justified in saying that semmanggude's dribbling reflects on his musical knowledge. Can I even get away with such pronouncements on a public forum without being flamed by people who respect the music of rAmanAThan and semmanggude. Iyengar's remark about bAlamuraLe's smile is a cheap insult---plain and simple.
  
• bAlamuraLe deviates from sampradhAya. His renditions of many kRthes carry the stamp of his personality and differ from that of other musicians.
  Exactly the same statements can be inserted into a glowing tribute to bAlamuraLe without change.
  What is wrong with a musician interpreting a composition in a way that is uniquely his or hers. In fact, people often make the same remarks about many other musicians (e.g. no one can sing nanu pAlempa like mahArAjapuram veSvanATha Iyar, or that GNB has placed his mark on this or that kRthe). I guess this is okay because these musicians are dead or belong to that hoary past that some people are so fond of looking up to.
  He who ignores history is a fool, and will put his foot into his mouth. When purandhara dhAsa (venerated as the pethAmaha of karNataka music) was composing his gEthas and padhas, he was deviating from sampradhAya. thyAgarAja was about as deviant from sampradhAya as one could get---once again the forces of history have all but obliterated the legacies of the musicians who preceded him, not because he was better than them, or he made them redundant. thyAgarAja was an innovator who was almost single-handedly responsible for the current popularity of rAgas like kalyANE and KaraharapreyA. That a musician deviates from sampradhAya is in itself not a statement about the quality of the music. It is in the nature of music to evolve, and such evolution occurs by going beyond contemporary practice. It is the blind devotion to tradition that must be criticized by discerning rasekas and music critics.
  I have said this before, and will continue to say it as long as there are people willing to listen. The innovations and heresies of each generation become the accepted tradition and dogma of the succeeding generation. This is the truth. People who do not see this are blind. If a musician can earn his/her deserved accolades only after he/she has been dead and gone, then I am sorry for the sad state of our music and our tradition.
  Persisting with this attitude will ensure the marginalization and destruction of one of the few few things that an Indian could legitimately and proudly claim as the product of his/her culture---its music. One simply has to watch the constant bickerings among the critics, and increasing elitism and sectarianism in music go hand in hand with a growing disaffection with classical music among most people, especially the younger generation.
  
• bAlamuraLe introduces an intermission into his concerts.
  Maybe Iyengar has an iron bladder, but I appreciate the chance to stretch my legs, relax, and visit the restrooms during an extended concert. Perhaps bAlamuraLe wishes to do the same or is at least sympathetic to the concerns of his audience. Statements about the break in a raseka's emotional pitch is plain nonsense. Perhaps an intermission is a break in the emotional pitch of one particular raseka named Iyengar is the proper way to describe this biased opinion.
  
• bAlamuraLe takes his audience for a ride. He annoyingly presents his compositions, and not those of the Trinity.
  Perhaps Iyengar expects the musical world to divine bAlamuraLe's compositions or perhaps he expects only bAlamuraLe's students to sing these compositions. The above remark does not square with the previous comment about the lack of popularity of some of bAlamuraLe's compositions. Apparently, the fair playing ground for Iyengar is to have a performer not sing his compositions on stage and yet expect all of them to become popular in a few years.
  It is also incorrect to say that bAlamuraLe does not sing the compositions of the Trinity. bAlamuraLe has not only popularized some of the relatively rare works of the Trinity, he has also paid careful attention to tracking authentic versions of the sAhethya of many kRthes and the lakShaNas of many rAgas. Saying that bAlamuraLe does not sing enough of the Trinity's compositions once again betrays a biased close-minded subjective opinion.
  
• bAlamuraLe's technical displays are pointless.
  Is it not one of the jobs of a music critic to explain technicalities to an audience and educate them. Perhaps there are more people than Iyengar imagines who listen to bAlamuraLe in particular for his attention to structure and patterns, as for his attention to pronunciation and rAga.
  

Once again I will point out the style used by Iyengar (and used by many other critics of music)---this style is not restricted to criticising just bAlamuraLe's music. If the critic cannot fault the technical aspects of a musician's performance, they will claim that the wizardry is in fact sterile, without BAva, pointless, futile and so on. These are all subjective opinions. In making these the critic is no more qualified than a lay listener. It is also easy to make such accusations because there is no way someone can objectively evaluate to what extent these remarks are true, or learn anything of value from them (all they learn is to continue to blindly propagate the myth that a musician's technical prowess is without BAva). If I thoroughly questioned Iyengar as to why bAlamuraLe's technical displays are pointless he will hedge his way about before finally coming down to the statement that it seems pointless to _him_. This is not objectivity, this is not open-minded criticism; and the badge of critic-for-Sruti does not alter it one bit.

As I said at the outset, my purpose in writing this essay was not to defend bAlamuraLe---unlike some others I have absolutely no training in music and cannot claim years of experience, personal acquaintance with any musician of note (including bAlamuraLe), or scholarship of any kind; in short I am not qualified to defend (or criticize) any musician any more than any other lay raseka.

My point in writing this essay was to point out how someone (like Iyengar) abuses their position as a critic for a magazine and foists a load of ridiculous, biased opinions on an audience (and has the cheek to claim that they are being open-minded).

You can replace the word bAlamuraLe in the above essay with the word SAEShagOpAlan or the word yAEsudhAs or the word unnekRShNan and all my remarks will apply in both the broad and the specific sense. My essay is not a defense of bAlamuraLe (or any specific musician) but a plea for a better understanding of musical history, the role of contingency in the ascendency (or demise) of the figures in this rich history, and an appreciation of the distinctions between subjective and objective standards of criticism.

Let us learn to respect each musician for their strengths and weaknesses. And when we do criticize them, let us learn to be meticulous in identifying our opinions as subjective when they actually are.

[ Indian Classical Music | Krishna Kunchithapadam ]

Last updated: Sun Jun 27 17:00:19 PDT 2004
URL: http://geocities.datacellar.net/krishna_kunchith/rmic/rmic.1995.07.07.html