This performance! It Invoked the deepest of the Perceptions of the Being and evoked the extremes of passions! A form of Oneness with the Time before the Birth of the Universe! An escape from the Shackles of Time and Space. Maybe Gravity pre-existed Matter, and there would be no Matter without Gravity. Sound exists because of the Gases. I exist because you do; aah! No! You and I are the two sides of the same screen that slices me into you and I or you into I and you. I am the seed, and I am the tree. I am the fire, and I am the smoke. I am the Timeless Emptiness, and I am the Infinite Universe.
Ironically, the “Voice of the Veena” is muffled through the use of the unnecessary pickup. I understand the temptation to use a pickup - to increase the sustenance of the note. Regardless, it completely changes the tonality of the instrument. It’s so unfortunate that most contemporary Veena players do not choose to respect the natural tonality of the Veena by eschewing the use of a pickup.
Why always shanmukhapriyas/ simhendramadhyamas/ pantuvaralis or other scalar 1D ragas, which are not carnatic itself in my opinion. Ragas are abstract in nature, they were born out of tunes, phrases, melodies and all those that are heard similar were put into a single basket, called raga X. All the organic ragas such as Sri, varali, natta, gowla, narayanagowla, kedaragowla, surutti, kalyani, huseni, mukhari, anandabhairavi, atana and so on are phrase based and no scale can define them. Thats why we have huge compositions which provide the sancharas of the ragas. It is after the theoretisation of music this all drama of saying these phrases are allowed, these are not allowed came. I mean a swara is a possibility between two swarasthanas, with an intrinsic quality called gamaka. Gamaka is not a bridge, its composite with a frequency between two swarasthanas and is unique to the raga and the phrase. After theoretisation, artificially scales were constructed, now how come they can beccome a raga. First of all the swaras that we speak in these ragas are not swaras, but swarasthanas because they are ffixed and dont contain gamaka to them. Now once we construct a scale it sounds like a western scale, so we put a shake or a jaru inspired or theft from organic ragas and put on those swarasthanas, so the definition of swara and gamaka are changed. Now if we change a swarasthana in these kinds of ragas from one varient to the other will that identity be there intact, no! The organic ragas sound wrong if we do this, but the synthetic ragas if we change a note it sounds right because it sounds like some other raga. All this drama of saying scales are ragas is a complete non-sense, And Swara is a unique possibility between two swarasthanas, with an intrinsic quality called gamaka, so there is a possibility of any of the varient coming in raga, and which comes is dependent upon the context of the phrase. That is actual carnatic music. This 1D thinking, wrong theoretization when put into implementation and say music/ scale is born or cleansing the ragas, we are losing our carnatic music's identity. It is as if we are listening to Hindustani or western scales up and down 40-50 times, because if we don't do that and show only a region of swaras, people may confuse with another raga, so to keep that intact we need to jump up and down the octave the whole time. Is that the music? We need to seriously rethink on what we are doing. It may be beautiful, but its not carnatic music anymore. All the older books mention the murchana which is not the scale but the swarasthana ranges which are allowed for that ragas and also had sancharis which were the identification markers of that raga. Now we are doing the inverse process, putting theory into implementation and calling them genius. Is the musical theory born out of the music or music born out of the theory. Theory comes from analysis, In the older days there was no analysis, that too this 1D ideations, but complex analysis which were beneficial. For instance take Dhanamma, Brindamma, did they insist on analysis, no! Then how did they achieve that genius sthana? Through the deep understanding of music and maintaining the values of the art form, not overdoing it and doing it the wrong way. I request all the rasikas and the concert conductors to not allow any artist so called carnatic artists to not render a synthetic raga for more than 10 min (atmost only 1 synthetic raga allowed per concert that too not exceeding 10 min). This is the only step that we could take to save our music. And due to the mentioned reasons carnatic music is so distinct from other forms of music, the idea of swara, swara sthana, gamaka being an instrinsic quality not smthng which can be put on, compositions teaching us the swaroopa therefore are long, not the scales. See how beautiful is it!
You carefully listen to the manodharma, you will see that the artist shows a region in the raga, example say sa, ri and ga, and then play the whole scale and then move to the other region do the same thing and so on, because if we only show sa, ri, ga it confuses us, because there may be any varient of other swaras. It appears to me as if she's going to change the raga, then again show the whole scale. This is best example for what I said previously!
@bypassalgo6859 Arohana and Avarohana: Lets discuss whether its relavant or not. The first thing to understand is swara is a different body than a swara sthana. Swara sthana is merely a frequency and like you said there are different methods in which people in the history have classified these many swarasthanas should be there. According to some, there were 16, some even more I think nearly 30 and then after a point of time people agreed on having 12 swarasthanas. Now why should we agree it? It is not becuase its scientific and others are not, But the intervals between swarasthanas are neither small, nor large for the current/ modern musical form that we are trying to present and the swaras of the pre-existing ragas fit into those swarasthanas, nice and perfect. Now coming to swara, a swara may be any where in the range of two swarasthanas and is moving because of an intrinsic quality called gamaka. Gamaka is not a bridge or a connector but is an intrinsic property, becuase you can't seperate gamaka and swara and when you do that swara becomes a frequency. Some examples of swaras not being on the swara sthana are: ragam Gowla, the rishaba is called shuddha rishaba but is close shadja, therefore its not on the swarasthana but in the range between shadja and shudda rishaba. Similarly varali Madhyama, and begada madhyama, I can tell you almost all the organic ragas have this characteristic, and in thodi there are 15 different types of gandharas, in begada 9_10 types of madhyamas. So it clearly shows that swara is not swarasthana, but is a moving body, what causes that movement is gamaka, and gamaka is an intrinsic quality, for example if you say kampita gamaka whats a kampita gamaka, an oscillation? Now hows the oscillation, evenly spread, naturally dying, increasing frequency at the end or what? There's every possibility and all the ragas don't allow all the types, therefore gamaka is not an extrinsic property but is an intrinsic quality. Now what decides which varient of that swara would come is the raga. But how do we define a raga? Raga is collection of phrases. What are phrases? Phrases are melodies or tunes containing clusters of swaras. So which varient would come is in the context of raga and then in the context of phrase, because if you have only the ragas frame work the probability of a swara existing is so low, but in a phrase because of the adjacent swaras and the movement that probabitility of a swara increases or decreases, so it becomes obvious that which would come. So phrases are the fundamental entities of a raga not swaras, because phrases are static that is they don't get changed in ragas but swaras are probabilistic. In this discussion, could you mention the requirement of arohana and avarohana. I don't see its importance. Its relavance is only to say these swarasthana ranges contain some varients of swara that can occur and in others not. Phrases are delivered from compositions therefore compositions are large. For this reason the sangeetha sampradaya pradarshini and other books do have a contept of murchana which say which swarasthana ranges are swara-existent in a raga and which are not. And sancharis which give you a basic set of phrases which give the swaroopa of a raga, upon which you improvise. The artificial scales that are being are ragas or not? Answer is no! From the above discussion whats a raga, raga is a collection of phrases, which are similarly sounding melodies. When raagas were made people never analyzed all this. why are these phrases sounding similar? and other questions were unanswered. But after analysis was born, they figured out all the things above. Now, to make raga they chose a set of swarasthanas and call them swaras, but are they swaras, no they are not! Now does that sound carnatic, no! It sounds like some western scale, therefore we need to place some oscillations, jarus on the notes. Now we can't randomly place these movements on any swara we wish to. So what teaches that? The older ragas, you see how are the swaras moving and the movements are placed on these swarasthanas. And we don't have any sancharis (collection of phrases, because swarasthanas became swaras), therefore arohana and avarohana explain us how to make a phrase while moving up or coming down. So you know now, why did the arohana avarohana concept became important which was non-existent. Now atleast these scales have identitiy of their own, no! Change a swarasthana and it sounds like another raga and people think its that raga and they aplaud. Also if you show some of the swarasthanas and not others, the other swarasthanas maybe any combination right! So how do you keep the ragas identity intact, showing aall the swarasthanas, i.e., jumping up and down the scale that's it. In older ragas you don't have this problem, because they are made up of distinct clusters of swara possibilities (not swarasthanas), making it unique to that raga. So to recognize and enjoy the raga, you don't need to show all the swara possibilities. As simple as that. Therefore, when the first 30 sec phrase of begada is sung, people say aahaaa! By doing this what is the problem, swara became swarasthana, no identity, raga became a scale, complete 1D-zation and complete non-sense. Now if we have stopped there it would have been good! By doing this analysis we are cleansing the older ragas. Because older ragas had two types of gandharas, two madhyamas and different varients. Now because of this theoretization, we say no this is not correct and we remove all the phrases, so ragas become limited and eventually get exausted. This is the problem. We need to analyze the music, not give birth to music from some non-sense analysis is my point. Atleast there should be some logic while theoretization, there is no logic to this theory and is very problematic. And thank you for diving into this point-of-view!
In olden the teaching technique was, guru sings a phrase(through compostions, so teach compostions directly, don't explain all this non-sense), shishya sings it 20_30 times, analyze it and internalize it. So if you have a collection of 100 phrases given by different compositions, you have the ragas identity to an extent and then you can start finding other possibilities through exploration and give birth some new phrases and put them into new compositions through which the raga always evolves never is static. Brindamma, Dhanamma and all the stalwarts used to say music is something to sing not to discuss and understand it in a wrong sense through wrong interpretations. They said if a raga doesn't contain antara ganadhara, but if someones sings an antara gandhara, so immersed in the raga at an appropriate place and still make it sound like that raga, then why not antara gandhara shouldn't exist in that raga. That's called openess and that's art. But obviously we can't accept some random person singing a random swara which doesn't exist and naturally it sounds wrong, for that to sound right it should come naturally, not someone forcing it and for that to happen, the person should be in the deep states of the ragas, and for that you should internalize that raga so much, i.e., the person should have extreme humility towards music, learn so many compositions, practice it so much and dissolve himself or herself. See Hamir kalyani, it contains two madhyamas, how beautiful it sounds. I mean it could have been from the start itself or some genius's innovation!
Thank God! For letting us enjoy this mesmerizing music 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
This performance! It Invoked the deepest of the Perceptions of the Being and evoked the extremes of passions! A form of Oneness with the Time before the Birth of the Universe! An escape from the Shackles of Time and Space. Maybe Gravity pre-existed Matter, and there would be no Matter without Gravity. Sound exists because of the Gases. I exist because you do; aah! No! You and I are the two sides of the same screen that slices me into you and I or you into I and you. I am the seed, and I am the tree. I am the fire, and I am the smoke.
I am the Timeless Emptiness, and I am the Infinite Universe.
This is great free music,great Veena and great percussion, thankyou
Wonderful ! So many thanks for posting this.
Informative and absolutely delightful music. Thank you Vidushi Jayanthi Kumaresh
ഇതും.എന്റെ.ഇഷ്ട്ടരാഗം മാണ്
Thank you so much for brightening my day
🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
Crystal clear percussion, along with spellbinding recording. The mics look like the Lauten Audio LA-120? Aren't they?
I love raga shanmukapriya
Divine music...!
VEENA MEANS SAHT SARASWTI DEVI I AM ABLE TO VIUVALISE SRI DEVI WHILE LISTENG
MUSIC ON MUSCAL INS
INSTRAMENT।
Magic...🙏
Soulful 😌
Not even 100 🙏enough for your talent and memory sis. Oh my god, no words after listening to this. 🤗💙
Ironically, the “Voice of the Veena” is muffled through the use of the unnecessary pickup. I understand the temptation to use a pickup - to increase the sustenance of the note. Regardless, it completely changes the tonality of the instrument. It’s so unfortunate that most contemporary Veena players do not choose to respect the natural tonality of the Veena by eschewing the use of a pickup.
Agreed. We are losing beauty of the instrument.
Good one
Why always shanmukhapriyas/ simhendramadhyamas/ pantuvaralis or other scalar 1D ragas, which are not carnatic itself in my opinion. Ragas are abstract in nature, they were born out of tunes, phrases, melodies and all those that are heard similar were put into a single basket, called raga X. All the organic ragas such as Sri, varali, natta, gowla, narayanagowla, kedaragowla, surutti, kalyani, huseni, mukhari, anandabhairavi, atana and so on are phrase based and no scale can define them. Thats why we have huge compositions which provide the sancharas of the ragas. It is after the theoretisation of music this all drama of saying these phrases are allowed, these are not allowed came. I mean a swara is a possibility between two swarasthanas, with an intrinsic quality called gamaka. Gamaka is not a bridge, its composite with a frequency between two swarasthanas and is unique to the raga and the phrase. After theoretisation, artificially scales were constructed, now how come they can beccome a raga. First of all the swaras that we speak in these ragas are not swaras, but swarasthanas because they are ffixed and dont contain gamaka to them. Now once we construct a scale it sounds like a western scale, so we put a shake or a jaru inspired or theft from organic ragas and put on those swarasthanas, so the definition of swara and gamaka are changed. Now if we change a swarasthana in these kinds of ragas from one varient to the other will that identity be there intact, no! The organic ragas sound wrong if we do this, but the synthetic ragas if we change a note it sounds right because it sounds like some other raga. All this drama of saying scales are ragas is a complete non-sense, And Swara is a unique possibility between two swarasthanas, with an intrinsic quality called gamaka, so there is a possibility of any of the varient coming in raga, and which comes is dependent upon the context of the phrase. That is actual carnatic music. This 1D thinking, wrong theoretization when put into implementation and say music/ scale is born or cleansing the ragas, we are losing our carnatic music's identity. It is as if we are listening to Hindustani or western scales up and down 40-50 times, because if we don't do that and show only a region of swaras, people may confuse with another raga, so to keep that intact we need to jump up and down the octave the whole time. Is that the music? We need to seriously rethink on what we are doing. It may be beautiful, but its not carnatic music anymore. All the older books mention the murchana which is not the scale but the swarasthana ranges which are allowed for that ragas and also had sancharis which were the identification markers of that raga. Now we are doing the inverse process, putting theory into implementation and calling them genius. Is the musical theory born out of the music or music born out of the theory. Theory comes from analysis, In the older days there was no analysis, that too this 1D ideations, but complex analysis which were beneficial. For instance take Dhanamma, Brindamma, did they insist on analysis, no! Then how did they achieve that genius sthana? Through the deep understanding of music and maintaining the values of the art form, not overdoing it and doing it the wrong way. I request all the rasikas and the concert conductors to not allow any artist so called carnatic artists to not render a synthetic raga for more than 10 min (atmost only 1 synthetic raga allowed per concert that too not exceeding 10 min). This is the only step that we could take to save our music. And due to the mentioned reasons carnatic music is so distinct from other forms of music, the idea of swara, swara sthana, gamaka being an instrinsic quality not smthng which can be put on, compositions teaching us the swaroopa therefore are long, not the scales. See how beautiful is it!
You carefully listen to the manodharma, you will see that the artist shows a region in the raga, example say sa, ri and ga, and then play the whole scale and then move to the other region do the same thing and so on, because if we only show sa, ri, ga it confuses us, because there may be any varient of other swaras. It appears to me as if she's going to change the raga, then again show the whole scale. This is best example for what I said previously!
@bypassalgo6859
Arohana and Avarohana: Lets discuss whether its relavant or not. The first thing to understand is swara is a different body than a swara sthana. Swara sthana is merely a frequency and like you said there are different methods in which people in the history have classified these many swarasthanas should be there. According to some, there were 16, some even more I think nearly 30 and then after a point of time people agreed on having 12 swarasthanas. Now why should we agree it? It is not becuase its scientific and others are not, But the intervals between swarasthanas are neither small, nor large for the current/ modern musical form that we are trying to present and the swaras of the pre-existing ragas fit into those swarasthanas, nice and perfect. Now coming to swara, a swara may be any where in the range of two swarasthanas and is moving because of an intrinsic quality called gamaka. Gamaka is not a bridge or a connector but is an intrinsic property, becuase you can't seperate gamaka and swara and when you do that swara becomes a frequency. Some examples of swaras not being on the swara sthana are: ragam Gowla, the rishaba is called shuddha rishaba but is close shadja, therefore its not on the swarasthana but in the range between shadja and shudda rishaba. Similarly varali Madhyama, and begada madhyama, I can tell you almost all the organic ragas have this characteristic, and in thodi there are 15 different types of gandharas, in begada 9_10 types of madhyamas. So it clearly shows that swara is not swarasthana, but is a moving body, what causes that movement is gamaka, and gamaka is an intrinsic quality, for example if you say kampita gamaka whats a kampita gamaka, an oscillation? Now hows the oscillation, evenly spread, naturally dying, increasing frequency at the end or what? There's every possibility and all the ragas don't allow all the types, therefore gamaka is not an extrinsic property but is an intrinsic quality. Now what decides which varient of that swara would come is the raga. But how do we define a raga? Raga is collection of phrases. What are phrases? Phrases are melodies or tunes containing clusters of swaras. So which varient would come is in the context of raga and then in the context of phrase, because if you have only the ragas frame work the probability of a swara existing is so low, but in a phrase because of the adjacent swaras and the movement that probabitility of a swara increases or decreases, so it becomes obvious that which would come. So phrases are the fundamental entities of a raga not swaras, because phrases are static that is they don't get changed in ragas but swaras are probabilistic. In this discussion, could you mention the requirement of arohana and avarohana. I don't see its importance. Its relavance is only to say these swarasthana ranges contain some varients of swara that can occur and in others not. Phrases are delivered from compositions therefore compositions are large. For this reason the sangeetha sampradaya pradarshini and other books do have a contept of murchana which say which swarasthana ranges are swara-existent in a raga and which are not. And sancharis which give you a basic set of phrases which give the swaroopa of a raga, upon which you improvise.
The artificial scales that are being are ragas or not? Answer is no! From the above discussion whats a raga, raga is a collection of phrases, which are similarly sounding melodies. When raagas were made people never analyzed all this. why are these phrases sounding similar? and other questions were unanswered. But after analysis was born, they figured out all the things above. Now, to make raga they chose a set of swarasthanas and call them swaras, but are they swaras, no they are not! Now does that sound carnatic, no! It sounds like some western scale, therefore we need to place some oscillations, jarus on the notes. Now we can't randomly place these movements on any swara we wish to. So what teaches that? The older ragas, you see how are the swaras moving and the movements are placed on these swarasthanas. And we don't have any sancharis (collection of phrases, because swarasthanas became swaras), therefore arohana and avarohana explain us how to make a phrase while moving up or coming down. So you know now, why did the arohana avarohana concept became important which was non-existent. Now atleast these scales have identitiy of their own, no! Change a swarasthana and it sounds like another raga and people think its that raga and they aplaud. Also if you show some of the swarasthanas and not others, the other swarasthanas maybe any combination right! So how do you keep the ragas identity intact, showing aall the swarasthanas, i.e., jumping up and down the scale that's it. In older ragas you don't have this problem, because they are made up of distinct clusters of swara possibilities (not swarasthanas), making it unique to that raga. So to recognize and enjoy the raga, you don't need to show all the swara possibilities. As simple as that. Therefore, when the first 30 sec phrase of begada is sung, people say aahaaa!
By doing this what is the problem, swara became swarasthana, no identity, raga became a scale, complete 1D-zation and complete non-sense. Now if we have stopped there it would have been good! By doing this analysis we are cleansing the older ragas. Because older ragas had two types of gandharas, two madhyamas and different varients. Now because of this theoretization, we say no this is not correct and we remove all the phrases, so ragas become limited and eventually get exausted. This is the problem. We need to analyze the music, not give birth to music from some non-sense analysis is my point. Atleast there should be some logic while theoretization, there is no logic to this theory and is very problematic. And thank you for diving into this point-of-view!
In olden the teaching technique was, guru sings a phrase(through compostions, so teach compostions directly, don't explain all this non-sense), shishya sings it 20_30 times, analyze it and internalize it. So if you have a collection of 100 phrases given by different compositions, you have the ragas identity to an extent and then you can start finding other possibilities through exploration and give birth some new phrases and put them into new compositions through which the raga always evolves never is static. Brindamma, Dhanamma and all the stalwarts used to say music is something to sing not to discuss and understand it in a wrong sense through wrong interpretations. They said if a raga doesn't contain antara ganadhara, but if someones sings an antara gandhara, so immersed in the raga at an appropriate place and still make it sound like that raga, then why not antara gandhara shouldn't exist in that raga. That's called openess and that's art. But obviously we can't accept some random person singing a random swara which doesn't exist and naturally it sounds wrong, for that to sound right it should come naturally, not someone forcing it and for that to happen, the person should be in the deep states of the ragas, and for that you should internalize that raga so much, i.e., the person should have extreme humility towards music, learn so many compositions, practice it so much and dissolve himself or herself. See Hamir kalyani, it contains two madhyamas, how beautiful it sounds. I mean it could have been from the start itself or some genius's innovation!
@@krishnachaitanya3080 Appreciate your 1-D harangue... Thank you..
I agree with you