Talk:Carnatic music/Archive 2

message: Why is only ancient Tamil music mentioned in this line below?. Does it mean ancient music did not exist in other parts of South India. Ancient music is divided into  devotional songs, harvest songs and so on. Did this kind of singing exist only in Tamil country?
If the word Carnataka Sangitam refers to whole of south India, surely it must have been influenced by devotional songs from all over the south.
Please help me understand.
Dineshkannambadi
:: You are free to add other relevant articles about art forms that have facilitated Carnatic Music's growth in its early days.--Kris 20:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dineshkannabadi, Ancient tamil music is not just devotional, they are set to music including ragas and talas (with cymbols) and there are more than 9,000 tamil songs available from 700-900 AD. There were other devotional songs, boat songs, harvest songs, etc. in tamil too but they are not the ones it is talked about here. There were systematic mela systems in tamil. The recorded music history one can learn from Tamil goes back to 300 BC, the most wellknown is from Silappathikaram (200-400 AD), and of course later period from 700-900 AD. They are systematically set classical compositions. This is why Tamil music is mentioned and ought to be mentioned. If you have music literature, repertoir of classical songs set to ragas and other musical features from Kannada, Sanskrit, Telugu, before 1000 AD you should by all means mention them here. Much is known from Tamil and hence they are mentioned. Please don't take it as Tamil versus Kannada or Telugu or Sanskrit. It is important to reflect truthfully. --Aadal 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anciet music 

message: Hi all,
I mades some changes to the first article mentioned above and created the second one.  Please take a look.  The second article can do with some improvement.  Sarvagnya 23:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List_of_Carnatic_composers |List of Carnatic composers]] and [[Trinity_of_Carnatic_Music |The Trinity of Carnatic Music]] 

message: Extensive discussions took place earlier and with utter disregard to the facts, users Kris et al have deleted refrerences to Muthu Thandavar, Arunachala Kavi and Marimutha Pillai. They are known as Adi Trinity or Tamil Trinity. Refrences were provided and they were deleted too. Restored some of it now. Facts have to be stated in encyclopedia.
:Aadal, the real issue is that there is a dispute about whether music before Purandara Dasa can be called "Carnatic music".  There was a tradition of classical music (or "art music", to use the more correct term) in South India before Purandara Dasa, as the Sangitaratnakaraka and other mediaeval sources attest.  However, is it appropriate to call these composers "Carnatic" composers, or were they just part of the pre-Purandara Dasa tradition of South Indian classical music.  Is the term "Carnatic" actually used in a wider sense in academic literature, to encompass the pre-Purandara period?  If so, from what period can music be called "Carnatic"?  I don't know the answer, but it seems to me that establishing the meaning the term has in academic usage is probably the key to resolving this dispute.  -- Arvind 14:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arvind, the problem I see is that there is a serious lack of openness and fair academic debate to settle issues. I honestly question why Purandaradasa, who sang only namasakirtanas to be considered as a Carnatic composer and not Appar, Sambandar, and Sundarar? If modern form of carnatic music is to be emphasised, then Muthu Thandavar et al have to be rightfully mentioned. So, my questions are what are the 'carnatic compositions' of Purandaradasa, Kanakadasa, Vyasatirta ? Books written by such authorative authors as Prof. Sambamurthi et al clearly recognize Appar et al and Muthu Thandavar et al. I find that there is a strong anti-tamil and anti-telugu bias and a strong pro-Sanskrit and pro-kannada bias in the way the article is written. User Skris has made so many outrageous comments it is hard to know even where to start. If this user had not heard of Muthu Thandavar, do they become 'unknown' and their compositions and contributions are not to be mentioned in an encyclopedia? I contributed the first few lines on the Tala, including the citation of NS definitin, but they have removed my references from the ancient PanjaMarabu on the subtlety of Tala in Tamil. So is the policy to include sources only if they are found in Sanskrit or Kannada?. I cited a whole book of Carnatic compositions of Muthu Thandavar et al and the citation was removed (I've restored now). Any issue can be debated and the debates and dialogues are useful only if there is an opennes and a willingness to consider the points. --Aadal 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oothukadu Venkatasubbaiyar is considered a carnatic composer since he set his own kritis to classical music. Muthu Thandavar had nothing to do with classical music and his hymns were set to classical music by the flautist Tiruppambaram Swaminatha Pillai. The "we" in my previous message stands for those who accept the mainstream neutral view that holds only certain people as composers of classical music as distinct from ancient tamil music composers or composers of devotional hymns.--Kris 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: All the above has nothing to do with facts or with the mainstream views.--Kris 03:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Muthu Thandavar]]

message: At present we have the following as the leading para:
//Carnatic music developed gradually from the ancient musical traditions of India, upon which Samavedic learning had an important influence.[2] The Yajur-Veda, which mainly consists of sacrificial formulæ, mentions the vīna as an accompaniment to vocal recitations during the sacrifices.[citation needed] The concept of Sruti and Tala are based on the Vedic pitch/accent (also called sruti), and Vedic meter (called chandas).[citation needed] The Vedas are themselves called sruti, as they are recited in the pitch-based Vedic language.[citation needed] The chants evolved into two main notes with two accents forming the first concept of the tetrachord (four notes).[citation needed] Three more notes were added to the original tetrachord resulting in the first full scale of seven notes//
While I believe Sama Veda needs to be mentioned in this article on carnatic music, several statements above seem to paint a one-sided view. For example the claim that the concept of Sruti and Tala are based on Vedic pitch/accent. Concepts of Sruti and Tala are arrived at by many people independently and the statements paint a narrow one-sided view (POV). The lines following that amplify the same POV. If this should be there I would be modifying the text to include views about muththamiz (threesome nature of tamil known as literary-music-dance Tamil) and citations and quotations from 200 BCE to 1500 CE. Please don't get me wrong, I am in favour of a truthful account of the development of musical ideas, but it should be even-handed about the narration. Remember that the ancient Tamil was extolled as musical tamil (isai thamiz) and all those will have to be mentioned for balance! I suggest that you please tone down and mention the facts in a balanced manner from Sanskrit/Vedic and Tamil and where available from Telugu and Kannada and Malayalam. --Aadal 22:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you accept the assertion that the Samaveda is the foundation for Indian classical music, you need to also know how one is historically linked to the other. If you are really interested in knowing things, please read extensively on sruti (Vedic accent), chandas (Vedic meter) and the Vedic language itself. The vedic corpus is itself called sruti. Indeed there was no Carnatic or Hindustani music prior to the Islamic invasions. There was only an Indian Classical Music, and it is wrong to say that this early Indian classical music system substantially evolved out of Ancient Tamil Music or from Muthu Thandavar's works. All your findings should go to Ancient Tamil Music, which is distinct (although similar) to Carnatic--Kris 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Sruti/Shruti' in sanskrit means 'pitch'. Vedic language was a pitch based language, while classical sanskrit (later dialect) was not. Being heard is directly related to the pitch. In this sense Vedas are themselves called sruti/shruti. There is only one word called "sruti" in sanskrit, and it means 'pitch' both with reference to the vedic language, as also with the music. All the classical music terms which you have mentioned above, such as tala, sruti, arohana, avarohana, alapana, pallavi, niraval etc are based on classical music treatises that are common to both Hindustani and Carnatic Music. Indian classical music split into carnatic & hindustani in the 13th-14th centuries, and this is a fact to which I have provided multiple references in the main article (I can provide more and more references if necessary to support the NPOV). Edits done by you which not in conformity with mainstream views and which are not properly referenced, will be considered POV pushing. --Kris 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is denying that Carnatic music evolved over many centuries and was influenced by many different styles.  Infact, not just classical traditions but folk traditions also have influenced it.  That doesnt mean we start describing in detail all those traditional styles and infest it with terminologies from all those various styles that influenced it in an article that is dedicated to Carnatic music.  And how did you calculate the percentage(80%)??!!  Thats laughable.  For that matter even WCM has influenced Carnatic music in its own way.  Shakti sahita ganapatim shankaraadi sEvitam - Guruguha is a case in point.  The use of violin another.  That doesnt mean we stamp Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti all over the article.  Like I said, create an article dedicated to Ancient tamil music and write whatever you want.  Go ahead and call tamil music the mother of all musical traditions all over the world in that article.  I couldnt care less.  Stop infesting this article with your POV.  Infact, its blatant POV!!  For starters just do a google search and read what respected artists like L Subramaniam, Amjad Ali Khan et al have to say about the origins.  Your POV is as unbelievable as it is ridiculous.  Sarvagnya 04:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aadal, you say every language is based on pitch, which is totally incorrect, perhaps you are not familiar with linguistics. See Vedic_Sanskrit#Phonology, Pitch_accent, Tone_(linguistics), and svarita (remember svaras used in classical music?). This pitch accent has survived in classical music in the form of svaras, sruti, while chandas evolved into talas etc. I have also mentioned about Yajnavalkya Smriti which mentions all these terms and its relevance in classical music. Read each of these linked articles here to get some idea of what I am talking about. Vedic concepts being used in classical music today (including same words and their meanings) are not coincidental or something to do with spirituality. For someone who understands the stuff, the trail is there hard as rock, you only have to broaden your view to understand all related concepts--Kris 08:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont have the patience to teach you about languages, you have your own distorted views, but you have no right to make reversals in topics which you dont understand, merely because they contradict your distorted views. Vedic language itself is pitch based, not merely the chants. I am sorry, but you need more reading about stuff before acting smart. Dont call my edits POV when you dont know what it is.--Kris 19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: This site is as comprehensive as a site can get.  Please go through it.  Sarvagnya 04:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Indian classical music and Carnatic music. 

message: Much as I cant believe that someone has to actually make a case for Purandara Dasa's contributions to Carnatic music, I am doing just that for the benefit of User:Aadal.  I wonder if there has ever been a book printed about Carnatic music that doesnt recognise,  acknowledge and heap unbridled praise for the role played by Purandara Dasa.  Anyway,  here are just a few links.
Purandara Dasa and his Contribution to Carnatic music
Sri Thyagaraja's(no less) praise for Sri Purandara Dasa
Purandara's role in the theory of Carnatic music
Purandara Dasa - Thyagaraja's Adi Guru
And if you note, I dont think any of these sources are Kannadiga.  Sarvagnya 05:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contributions of Purandara Dasa to Carnatic Classical Music 

message: Krishna_Nee_Begane_Baaro is a good page to start from.
Haridasas of Karnataka] gives more info on compositions and works.
Dineshkannambadi
Dineshkannambadi, this is one of my most favorite songs, but I would greatly appreciate it if you can answer the following questions:
* Was it Sri Vyasaraya Tirtha who himslef set the song to yamunaa kalyaaNi or someone else did later? Could you please help with a citation?
*What are the other carnatic compositions (Kirtanas? Kritis? not Namasamkirtanas) that Sri Vyasatirta contributed? 
Thanks/--Aadal 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compositions by Vyasatirtha 

message: I have added a list of later Haridasas from the link Haridasas of Karnataka to the page on Carnatic composers. Going into this page and into the haridasa/yatidasa index gives one an opportunity to find the list of famous compositions and works of each saint.
Dineshkannambadi
:A comprehensive list of [Haridasa |Haridasas] and their compositions of Haridasas may be found at this site.  Sarvagnya 05:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compositions 

message: Added a reference that the solfege sa, ri, ga, ma, pa, da, ni, is from Narada Parivrajaka Upanishad and the Tamil terms known from pre 200 C.E. Added a small detail from the 7th century C.E. stone inscription in Kudumiyan Malai in Tamil Nadu with supporting document.--Aadal 01:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solfege and Kudumiyan Malai Inscription

message: I was reviewing the 3rr report but William M Connoly got there just before me; but looking through the confusing edits and stuff I decided that this page could do with protection. The above talk looks promising so maybe it need only be for a day or two. It might help force discussion, or at least start some off. --Robdurbar 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect

message: The way I see it, the "History" section is fairly balaced, though
a) Many important and authoritative texts(and their authors) between the NS and SR and after SR need to be mentioned.
b) The reference to ATM's role in the evolution of CM seems out of place and needs to be reworded and stiched into the article more seamlessly.
As for Aadal's specious case for rendering this an article about ATM rather than CM, let me repeat again what I have already said, in different words though.
*That the Sama Veda, NS, SR, CP etc., have played a direct and defining role in shaping CM is the view that is held by experts across the world.  It is not something that myself or Kris is making up on the fly.  I can cite many authors and books which bear testimony to this and almost all of these authors dont even make a mention of ATM's influence.  And even when they do, it is not anything more than a passing reference.
::Read the article cited by Arvind, written by Dr. N. Ramanathan, Professor of Musicology. What you say is not true. The citations of Samaveda, NS, SR etc. are to discuss the musical ideas. If it is a direct and defining role, as you claim, why don't you show a live tradition of 100-200 songs from such a late period as from SR (not to speak of NS etc.). It is not uncommon to find that the authors of Sanskrit works don't quote much from non-sanksrit works. But do read Sangita Chudamani, a sanskrit work on music prior to SR, which shows the borrowings from Tamil. But such examples are rare, though here it proves the point of borrowing. Many things in SR are from diverse sources. 
 
*There is probably no book about CM or its evolution that does not speak of NS or SR or CP etc.,.   But there are any number of authors who make zero mention of all the tamil texts you have named.  Forget books, even a cursory google search for all the books Aadal has named above should be sufficient for anyone to decide their worth as far as CM is concerned.  Most of the tamil books named above by Aadal do not even have a single google hit to their name!!
::See above. Google doesn't contain everything yet. The point of Skris is nothing was written in Tamil on Music, not nothing on Google. Extensive quotations from those works are used in the commentaries, but many works are lost now or known only in fragmented pieces. Systematic destruction of Tamil books by burning and other ways are well known. Here in Wikipedia, in this Carnatic Music article, I can show systematic deletions of Tamil have occured. Even in the title of Carnatic music page, among the indic scripts, Tamil had been deleted, not once, but repeatedly. 
*Even the citation of L Subramaniam provided somewhere in the article should be sufficient for anyone to know what mainstream view is.  L Subramaniam is a Tamil himself and he doesnt even make a passing reference to any of the books Aadal has named or MT or the so called Adi trinity.
::This point about mainstream view is brought up so many times. The aim of an encyclopedia is to represent factual material. It (WP) is an open medium, unlike a newspaper chain or some old-world-special interest-driven publishing medium. For example, the so-called mainstream view of the discovery of Telephone is - Alexander Graham Bell invented it. I've read in a few books that directly contradict it with great substance. The WP says the following://The identity of the inventor of the electric telephone remains in dispute. Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray, amongst others, have all been credited with the invention.// Just an example. Jagadish Chandra Bose demonstrated wireless transmission, in fact in Royal Society in UK, before Marconi -another example. So, I don't buy your argument of mainstream, if one such exists. Here about Carnatic Music read Dr. D. Ramanathan's article. There are many theses that dispute what you call mainstream. Dr. V.P.K. Sundaram had written a 3-volume encyclopedia on Music (in Tamil) and you will find more information there.
*Even a google search for "Adi Trinity" should prima facie demonstrate the specious nature of Aadal's claims.  Sarvagnya 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said Google is not the basis. Google the words Tamil Trinity and see what you get. They are known as Tamil Trinity and Adi Trinity.--Aadal 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Google_test#Validity_of_the_Google_test. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree Google is not "perfect", it is a fair indicator of mainstream views, other things being equal. Google's validity needs to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. In our case, the concept of Carnatic Trinity and the broad history of carnatic music is widely documented online. Nowhere (in an article about Silappathikaram) can you find Silappathikaram being called a work that proved foundational Carnatic Music. The article on validity of google test talks about sundry circumstances where google can be inconclusive or unreliable, but almost all of those circumstances are not applicable for our case. Google is not perfect, will never be perfect, but it is not totally unreliable either.-- ॐ Kris 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balanced/NPOV - II

message: I was away on a week-long wikivacation and find that some of you have posted messages in my talk page regarding the ongoing dispute here. May I suggest third-party mediation? Please recruit mediators who are acceptable to both parties and be amenable to mediation. That's the only way out. Please keep in mind that mediation is not the same as arbitration, the former helps the parties to arrive at a consensus while the latter is admin intervention. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I don't have any interest one way or the other in Carnatic music, I have a slightly pro-Tamil POV in general. With that it may be difficult for me to mediate. Let there be more neutral mediators. I'll step in wherever I can. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sundar, thanks for your response. I believe that among the mediators, there should be at least one knowledgeable person in music (preferably Indian classical music or CM), one knowledgeable in Sanskrit and Tamil (need not be a great expert), and one person who doesn't understand Sanskrit or Tamil but who understands the logic and validity of arguments. --Aadal 14:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sundar, it is so nice of you to declare your general pro-tamil POV, however light it may be, and therefore refuse to mediate. It should serve as an example to all editors and admins.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation? 

message: Raveen, I've provided the references and have removed the ref stub. --Aadal 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the references, it is no longer based on personal websites or blogs. It is a credible source. If others have other credible sources to refute it this point of view then they can add it under it as I have mentioned before. I would also request you to rename the subsection  as Ancient South Indian music to be inclusive so that future editors can add ancient Kannada and Telugu information when they become available. Also please look for information on Ancient folk traditions of South India as another subsection because Ancient South Indian music alludes to another elitist classical tradition. Good work. Thanks RaveenS 16:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: May I urge both parties to approach the problem in the spirit that I suggested here? Please mention only what you agree with the other party, let's come to disagreements later. Please make it a numbered list - no descriptions and no disagreements. Once we have the list of concessions that either side is ready to make, we can arrive at a consensus draft without compromising on the basic principles. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parthi has made a good start by giving all points that he agrees with in the others' views. Please reciprocate the same without commenting on his points now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, if both parties agree, we can even move the legacy of acrimonious discussions to an archive page and try out a new draft based on just the agreed upon points. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sundar, this is certainly one of the best methods to arrive at a consensus, and I've mentioned not once but umpteen times what I agree with others. In my very first response after the page was protected I had spelled out the points (see Balanced/Neutral POV section). One concern is -one or two editors should not decide that some content is not to be included when that content is based on well supported facts and evidences and they should not have some kind of exclusive right to decide that it is not relevant. When there is a difference of opinion, multiple views must be presented with appropriate wording. The whole trouble is because one or two editors feel that some content should not be there (kind of slef-assumed censoring).--Aadal 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aadal, in the interest of clarity and self-containment, add your points of agreement as a numbered list below. We'll first collect all points of agreement. Later, we'll definitely address the issue of alleged censorship. If needed, we can seek third-party opinion. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: - Parthi talk/contribs 09:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Answers to the above are already provided in detail in the talk pages. Would you please read the discussions? Thanks.--Aadal 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, let's not go about discussing things now. I'm on limited internet connection now and will come back on Monday. Please do not discuss anything that'll vitiate the atmosphere. Everyone can take a refreshing break from this article till then. :) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start from a clean slate 

message: From among the views of the parties expressing counter opinion, Skris agrees with ...
# Mentioning the tamil trinity, not as a trinity but with individual names (since they are not known elsewhere as a trinity, and also not to give a linguistic tint to what is essentially an art form spanning atleast 5-6 major languages)
#Mentioning any other ancient tamil composers like appar, sambandhar etc in a line or two, but not dwelling too much on them since their music is not carnatic music (as opposed to recent tamil composers such as Gopalakrishna Bharathi, Oothukadu Venkatasubbier, Papanasam Sivan, Periasami Thooran etc who are pucca carnatic composers).
#Mentioning silappathikaram etc merely for perspective since these partly formed the environment and not the source for carnatic music's development.
#Mentioning any (and all known) ancient archaeological or literary evidence anywhere that directly mention the same terms used in caranatic music today like ragas, sruti, talas, svaras etc, and which therefore represent the stem/trunk of the carnatic music tree of history. These include such finds as the inscriptions in Kudumiyan malai etc.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skris

message: From among the views of the parties expressing counter opinion, Sarvagnya agrees with ...
#Kudumiyan Malai inscription is an important one and should be mentioned(but not under general history of CM, rather a section dedicated to mentioning inscriptions/sculptures etc., from across India(atleast SI))
#Tamil trinity can be mentioned in the manner that Kris has described.(See more comments in edit mode)  Sarvagnya 16:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarvagnya

message: From among the views of the parties expressing counter opinion, Aadal agrees with ...
(I've provided some statements within brackets to give perspective and I'm aware that some or all of them are points not in agreement with others)
# Sama Veda is an important and ancient development (in the history of music)
# NS, Brhaddesi, SR and CP are important sanskrit works on music theory (I feel that Naradiya Siksha which is earlier than NS, Ramamatya's Swaramelakalanidhi and several other works such as Silapathikaram, Panjamarabu and other tamil works, Thevaram music, pann system are important contributing factors for the development south indian classical music and important for understanding the development of south indian classical music; Just as NS, BrhD, SR are not CM per se, the Tamil works, including pann-based music is not CM per se. But without all these there is no CM ).
# Tamil Trinity composers have to be mentioned (in agreement with Parthi), but not for the reasons cited by Parthi in my view.
# In agreement with Parthi (though he is not one of those expressing counter opinion) that ATM is to be discussed in History section (and this applies to other works like NS, SR etc. too.).
--Aadal 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aadal

message: From among the views of the parties expressing counter opinion, Parthi agrees with ...
# that Ancient Tamil music (ATM) or the music mentioned in Cilappatikaram on their own do not represent the current form of Carnatic music
# that there are numerous influence from the various cultures of India and South India that shaped the evolution of Carnatic music
# that Carnatic music slowly evolved and continues to evolve absorbing various music systems including Ancient Tamil music, Kannada music, Telugu music etc
# that the mention of ATM and the musical mentions found in the Tamil literature (Cilappatikaram et al) is only appropriate in the History section insofar as to highlight the similarities between the ATM system and the Carnatic music system
# that any deeper details of the similarities (details on the solfage etc) or the contributions of the Saiva saints etc may only be appropriate in the Ancient Tamil music article
# that the contributions of the Tamil Trinity composers need to be mentioned in the Composers section to balance the details mentioned regarding the early Dasa composers in Kannada and Telugu.
:- Parthi talk/contribs 09:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parthi

message: # Parthi #5 Ncmvocalist 08:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Others agree with...

message: # Sarvagnya #2 - please provide enough evidence that the compositions of the composers you've referred to (have been and/or) are being rendered in the Carnatic circuit today.
# Aadal #3 - please state your reasons
# Srkris #2 - please elaborate. If possible, specify what exactly would be mentioned 'for perspective' rather than for origin, just to be clear.
::*Answers to the above are already provided in detail in the talk pages. Would you please read the discussions? Thanks.--Aadal 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, let's not go about discussing things now. I'm on limited internet connection now and will come back on Monday. Please do not discuss anything that'll vitiate the atmosphere. Everyone can take a refreshing break from this article till then. :) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further details required by others, on...

message: I'm fully behind Sundar's attempt to start on a clean slate and the statements made by all the people who have been vigorously discussing is a good starting point. I want to wait as Sundar had suggested. I'll not be available for detailed discussions until November 2nd. I thought I should offer two clarifications: (1) The ancient Tamil work on music which I refered to as Panja marabu is actually available but it is trasliterated in English as Pancha Marabu; (2) An article written by B.M. Sundaram published in SRUTI magazine(India's Premier Music and Dance Magazine)Issue 132, p. 23 (1995) which is based on a lecture delivered by B.M. SUNDARAM at the 53rd annual festival of music and dance organized by Sri Tyagaraja Festival Committee in Tirupati is available here. There are some interesting historical statements made there about the 18th-19th century musicians and CM. I do not subscribe to all the views mentioned there, but if some of the things mentioned there are corroborated or further validated, they would be interesting. --Aadal 19:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pancha marabu and other Tamil works on Music

message: The following sentence appears in the first paragraph of the article:
:This is one of the world's oldest and richest musical traditions.
At least twice in the past, I had this sentence changed to be more objective. The first time, it was commented out, but Bharatveer (who inserted the sentence in the first place) changed it back to the original form, giving a reference to back up his view. I did not find the reference credible, and so, some time later, I changed the sentence to read:
:Having its roots in the ancient music of India, this is one of the world's oldest musical traditions.
Yet even this was changed back to the un-neutral version, and a comment I had inserted at the end, noting that the reference is not credible, was also erased. I would like either some support for not calling CM "one of the world's richest musical traditions", or at least some scholarly reference (such as a comparison of the world's musical styles, preferably by a non-Indian) that states that CM is one of the world's richest musical traditions. If nothing else, we can at least say that "[t]his is considered by some to be one of the world's oldest and richest musical traditions.[1]"--Siva 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another POV issue 

message: Just in order to not play tit-for-tat, I am keeping silent as far as the edits are concerned, while Aadal and Co keep adding all their POVs. We are merely remaining civil in the face of incivility, not for ever. I personally dont think POVs can be pushed like this, and we will prove it with facts. Till then you have a free hand with this article-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Kris. Others, please stop changing the disputed parts of the article while discussion is on. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I reserve my right to modify things as appropriate 

message: If something is reverted, it is essential to point out exactly where the issue lies and if it is dealt with or resolved somewhere in the discussions - to quote the solution precisely. Vague references like "you're advised to go through the extensive discussions" is not acceptable. 
In such cases where this isn't given specifically, the revert will be ignored and go back to what it was before the revert.
Ncmvocalist 12:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before reverting or deleting, it is important to discuss it here. Why did you delete the references to Muthu Thandavar, Arunachala Kavi and Mari Mutha Pillai? There was a citation to a book titled Tamil Trinity, which contains their compositions. I request Sundar to look into this user Ncmvocalist's action here and see his user talk pages (where he had deleted whole articles of others and he had been warned several times). --Aadal 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *'m sorry Ncmvoalist, my apologies. I was in a hurry and it is clear that I didn't see all the changes. I'm ready for discussions - I hope the changes to this article will be constructive and the outcome will be a better article - more quality inforamtion with better balance and substance. If Arvind or someone else wants to make some drafts before making changes, it would be better.--Aadal 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Though Tamil Nadu has been the cultural center of the Carnatic music tradition, most of the song texts and writings are in Telugu.   This is because the existing tradition is to a great extent an outgrowth of the musical life of the principality of Thanjavur in the Kaveri delta. Thanjavur was the heart of the Chola dynasty (from the 9th century to the 13th), but in the second quarter of the 16th century a Nāyak viceroy was appointed by the emperor at Vijayanagar, thus establishing a court whose language was Telugu. Telugu Nayaka rulers acted as the governors in the present day Tamil Nadu area with headquarters at Tanjavur (1530-1674) and Madurai (1530-1781) during Vijaynagar empire. After the collapse of Vijaynagar, Tanjavur Nayakas became independent ruled for the next 150 years until they were replaced by Maratha kings. This was also a period where several learned Telugu families from the North, fleeing drought and Muslim persecution, came and settled down in Thanjavur. Telugu, a language ending with vowels, giving it a mellifluous quality, was also considered suitable for musical expression..... [snip]
I hope this topic shouldnt raise any hackles here.  I felt the prev ver had some POV imo(i have bolded the parts I felt were POV).  Apart from POV, I felt going into each trinity was not necessary in  this part of the article.
So did a bold rewrite of the section.  Most of the stuff in the section, I feel is common knowledge and also many sources speak about it.  If anybody feels there is POV in the rewrite also or if you think some things need to be reworded, please comment here.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages and Telugu's popularity 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight -- ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 17:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What NPOV is not