From: divaka@vccsouth28.its.rpi.edu (Ajay Divakaran)
Subject: Re: Very informative book on Indian Classical Music
Reply-To: divaka@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:19:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.202648.49684@watson.ibm.com>, ds@tejas.watson.ibm.com (Dinkar Sitaram) writes:
|> In article <5_6yhqd@rpi.edu>, divaka@vccsouth29.its.rpi.edu (Ajay
|> Divakaran) writes:
|> |>                                                                         It
|> |> is correctly pointed out that Hindustani and Carnatic music are listened to
|> |> by a tiny elite minority.
|> This is true if you define "listening to music" as "going to concerts". 
|> However, at
|> least in the South, Carnatic music is everywhere.  For example, weddings
|> always have
|> Carnatic music; so do most religious functions.  Without denying the
|> importance of
|> the music that people listen to for entertainment, I would say that
|> Carnatic music
|> is woven into the fabric of life in the South, just like RabindraSangeet
|> in Bengal.
|> 
|> |>                                Even modern day ghazals are described as 
|> |> (What follows is not an exact quote)
|> |> "crooning to the background of violins in which the beginnings of harmony
|> |> can be heard" !!!!! I found the deadpan anthropological description of the
|> |> music funny at times.
|> Since you recommend the book so highly, do you think that is an accurate
|> description
|> of ghazals?  I am not a fan of ghazals, but, even so, I find this description
|> somewhat supercilious.  Also, do you think a "deadpan anthropological
|> description"
|> of Indian music belongs anywhere else other than a bedpan?
|> 
|> Dinkar Sitaram
            
              I seem to have stirred up controversy without meaning to. Let me
rephrase what I think the encyclopaedia said. Hindustani and Carnatic music
are actively patronised (by concert going, listening on the radio, buying
cassettes, records etc) by an elite minority. While these forms of music
influence folk music and are in turn influenced by it, folk music never
attains the sophistication and complexity of Carnatic and Hindustani
recitals. It is this folk music that is an integral part of rural India which
is where most Indians live. Clearly the boundary between folk and popular
music and classical
music is not clear cut and opinions on it are bound to differ. In my opinion,
patronage of Indian classical music is by and large confined to certain urban
classes. I am sure there are exceptions. In urban areas also, film music
and other
light music far exceed classical music in popularity. I do not consider this
a reflection on the quality of the music. The reasons for this difference in 
popularity  are quite complex and cannot be described in just a few words. 
        On Carnatic music being woven into the fabric of the South, I would
only say that only the basic elements of Carnatic music can make such a claim.
I dont think complicated Pallavis and other sophisticated forms are integral
to the South Indian common man's life. I know I am treading on dangerous
ground here so this is my last word on this subject. I have no desire to
stir up controversy. 
  On ghazals.
         As I said earlier, that was not an exact quote so perhaps I did the
original some injustice. In any case, I am a great fan of Talat Mehmood and I
think that the description fits his ghazals. Perhaps taken out of context the
quote gives offence, but in the context of the evolution of the ghazal as a
musical form, it makes perfect sense. You have to understand that the book has
been written for the Western reader. This description, while factual, also
shows the inadequacy of words in general and western terminology and biases
in particular in describing Indian music. The pedantry of this description is
what amused me. It reminded of Seth Govind Das's sanctimonious description
of a bikini bathing suit in a Hindi essay about a trip to Greece. I can 
imagine for example what my Carnatic music loving grandfather would have
said if he had heard Guns and Roses.
  I just 
found this description very funny. It may sound supercilious, but it is only
an opinion. I am sure Indian readers can form their own judgements after
reading the book. There is much more to the book than my two paragraph
description. 
              The deadpan anthropological style does not particularly bother me.
Perhaps I should better described it as a pedantic, scholarly, heavy and
factual style. Nowhere does the book condescend to  Indian music but it
also eschews hyperbolic admiration. That is why I described it as anthropological but that was probably an unfortunate choice.  If I gave the
impression that the book talks about weird customs of Indian barbarians, the
fault is entirely mine. The section has been written by reputed scholars
of Indian music. 
                   This is my last word on the subject. Dinkar Sitaram,
if you wish we can continue the discussion over email.
                                  Regards
                                                          ajay