Talk:Carnatic music/Archive 3

message: The Modern Period - The Evolution of Kriti 
One of the greatest influences in the development of Karnatic music was that of the immortal bard, Purandara Dasa (1484-1564). He made great contributions to both Sacred and Art music. He is the most prolific of all the South Indian composers. He perfected a systematic approach to train students of Carnatic music which has since become a standard format. He composed the "Swaravali" (simple exercises based on the Scale), "Alankaras" (exercises based on the seven basic Talas) and "Gitams" (simple melodic compositions in praise of the various deities), songs in Kannada known as "Devarnamas". He was the creator of the musical form, "Kriti" which was later perfected by the great composer "Thyagaraja
source : http://sify.com/carnaticmusic/fullstory.php?id=13167675&vsv=597
I want discussion on this topic.In few days i will be posting my comments in article which if deleted will be considered as vandalism. 
Nrupatunga
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.176.35 (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was purandaradasa the creator of Kriti format 

message: Article Carnatic music should be article of Carnatic music not for article of modern artist. I found lot of and repeated images of same person. If any body would like please put images particular person's article. Other wise Quality of article should be Stub. I feel somebody trying to put some unfamiliar composers images to show they are very famous.
Rgds A4ay 11:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article [[Carnatic music]] '''should be article of Carnatic music''' 

message: Refer to Manual of Style - headings - capitalisation... Addhoc 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to capitalisation 

message: Could I suggest this edit war is a waste of time. If there are two sides in a dispute, one side attempting to include several images and the other side hoping not to include any, eventually there is going to be a compromise of just including a few. Pretending otherwise and continuing the edit war is pointless. In this context, could we agree on an interim compromise of including two images? Addhoc 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: The references are impertinent and false. They dont relate to the statements being referenced ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean impertinent? How do you know they don't relate to the statements? Parthi talk/contribs 10:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't remove cited passages based on your opinion. It may be termed as POV pushing. Please donn't delete  tags without giving appropriate citations. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: According to WP:V, articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources and material not supported by reliable sources can be challeged and removed. For the avoidance of doubt, an individual editor's opinion on what looks better or whether he agrees with a reference doesn't over-rule policy. Addhoc 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second User:Addhoc. Parthi talk/contribs 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now extensively cited the passage Srkris keeps deleting. This passage in now with the most citation in the article. Every sentese is cited. Parthi talk/contribs 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreasonable deletion of referenced passages 

message: I have edited the structure of this article so that there is flow. In this section, "Composers", the languages have been married into the mudra paragraph (or final paragraph). This is to avoid any linguistic tints. (The Kannada-Karnataka aspect is explained just prior to this section in origins and history.) This way, there is a WP:NPOV sustained throughout.
The tala parts have been edited to include material that another editor has worked so painstakingly on. The Tiruppugazh reference has been restored here too.
The kriti section has been handled impressively, however, I have readjusted it to be 'verses' rather than 'units' - this word isn't quite appropriate. However, if there is a better word than verses that is appropriate, feel free to add it in.
The Varnam section has been adjusted to include a bit of the previous material - this description is quite adaquate.
The external links are kept to a minimum. Commercial sites are not mentioned, as with forums etc. 
Modern artists - an unfair emphasis has been put on vocalists, with a lot of unreferenced (let alone POV/biassed) material. So, this will be the way it stays to maintain neutrality among artists. If we are to be fair and neutral, then one image for each of the modern artists will flood the article. On the other hand, there will be a huge picture edit war if some are included over others in this section. So the only fair, neutral way of dealing with this issue, without wrecking the article, is to stick with the latter, no pics. Hopefully, people will respect this aspect, or they will be the cause for why this article will always remain in a B-class! 
Hopefully, any further adjustments in content will not reflect POV - just factual content please. Thanks. Ncmvocalist 14:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits 

message: shouldnt we have a separate section for the instruments special to carnatic music?  
Chitra Veena, Flute, Gottuvadyam, Ghatam, Gayathri Veena, Jalatarangam, Kanjira, Mridangam, Nadaswaram, Veena and others? Also non-standard instruments that are used heavily such as Guitar, Keyboard, Electronic Organ, Mandolin, Saxophone and Violin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejas81 (talk • contribs) 
::I think we should. Do you want to add one? Also please sign you posts in the Talk pages with four tildes (~). Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 01:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry for not signing parthi, thanks for seconding. i have at best an amateur understanding of carnatic music itself, i was hoping someone else would note the comment, and write a knowledgeable section. --ti 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section for instruments 

message: According to linguist M.V. Seetharamaiah, the names of a few places referred to by Ptolemy (150 AD) in his geographical treatise are undoubtedly the ancient versions of present-day names of places in Karnataka (viz., Pounnata, Modougalla, Kaligeris and Banavoause). The word "Karnataka" and "Kuntala" that are mentioned in the Mahabharata and the grammar of Panini are a Sanskritised form of a Kannada word, which is according to many scholars "Karunadu," meaning large or an elevated country or black soil.
Sources http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/31/stories/2006103108870500.htm
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+karnataka+sanskritized+form+of+kannada&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nrupatunga (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karnataka is Just Sanskritised form of kannada 

message: This short article about “Karnataka Shaastriya Sangeeta” (Anglicized: Carnatic Classical Music) is a translation of various articles written by late Dr. D.V. Gundappa (1887 - 1975). 
In December 1953, Shree C. Rajagopalachari, who was the chief-minister of TamiLnaadu made a controversial statement: “Karnataka Sangeeta” is not apt, and it should be named as “Tennattu Sangeeta” [TheHindu, 26-12-1953]. The reason why a person like Shree Rajagopalachari, who was against the formation of states based on language, who always advised Indians to overcome the barriers of language, and who was against the concept of “Bhaashaabhimaana” to make such a statement can be logically reasoned. Majorpart of Madras Province, which is currently in the state of Tamilnaadu, has seen various movements like“Draavida kazhagam”, which was dominant those days. The unfavorable situation in those days would have compelled Shree C. Rajagopalachari to make such a statement, atleast to ease the tension. However, if we have to believe his words, it would be going against the historical facts.
Let us consider the historical perspective to understand the facts: In earlier times, sangeeta shaastra followed the “Guru-Shishya” tradition, and there did not exist any written text. First classical music began as abhyasa, and it was only later that shaastras were formed. It is estimated that only during the period of Bharatamuni (300 BC) for the first time the theories of sangeeta were documented. It was termed as “Naatya Shaastra”. For a considerable period of time it was the only authoritative treatise (PramaaNaGrantha) for the whole of India. After that, independent growth of classical music occured across different parts of India, in different forms.
In South India, around 1200 BC, that is around 800 years ago, a scholar by name “Shaarjnadeva” wrote a treatise, which was named as ”Sangeeta Ratnakara”. This is considered to be the first documented work on South Indian classical music. He hailed from Devagiri (which is now Daulatabad, province of Hyderabad). This region was part of Karnataka desha (majority of Karnataka Desha is currently Karnataka state), during that time. Later, South Indian classical music obtained a well-defined structure (nirdishta roopa) through the works of Maadhava and VidhyaraNya (1350BC). Apart from strengthening the sangeeta shaastras (sangeeta shaastra pravartane) by writing “Sangeeta Saara”, they were also ministers of the Vijayanagara Empire, and Heads of Shringeri Mutt. Both of them were from Karnataka and kannadigas.
They were followed by Shivayogis (1500) and Purandara daasa (1550) (who is also known Pitamaha of Karnataka shaastriya sangeeta) and other daasas. All of them were from Karnataka. After them, around 1650AD South Indian classical music got a new lease of life from Govinda Deekshit. Even Govinda Deekshit was from Karnataka. He was a minister in the court of King Achyuta Nayaka of Tanjavore. He wrote a Grantha “Sangeeta Sudha”. In his “Sangeeta Sudha” he has quoted a lot about “Sangeeta Saara” by Maadhava-VidhyaraNya. His son was the renowned Venkata Mukhi. He wrote “ChaturdanDee Prakaashika”, which even today is a novel work. “ChaturdanDee Prakaashika” for grammar of sangeeta is like how “PaaNini” is for Sanskrit grammar. It is important to mention at this point that even Kshetrajna who wrote “Shrungaarapadas” (also deals with theory of sangeeta shaastra) with pseudonym of “Muvva Gopaala” was also around this time (1650). Around 150 years after VenkataMakhi, arrived two of the Divine Trinity - Tyagaraaja, and Muttu Swamy Deekshit. It is very crucial to note that both of them followed the Shaastra Paddati set by Venkata Mukhi. During the time of VidhyaraNaya there were 15 meLakarta raagas, which became 22 during the time of Venkata Mukhi. Even for today’s classification of raagas, these 22 meLakarta raagas act as a base. Apart from above mentioned theorists many other theorists like kallinatha, raamaamaatya, somanatha, etc, have contributed a lot to the development of South Indian classical music. Majority of them, if not all, were from Karnataka. In conclusion, starting from Shaarjnadeva to VenkataMakhi, that is over a period of 650 years, scholars/musicians from Karnataka have elaborated on the developed theories for South Indian classical music. So, for the system they had developed, it was named as “Karnataka Shaastriya Sangeeta”. Last but not the least, the terms that are used in sangeeta shaastra : THaaya, Ela, Ovi, KaivaaDa, etc, strengthen therelationship between Kannada and Karnataka Shaastriya Sangeeta.
Point to Ponder: If we can divide people in the field of classical music into: Shaastra (theory) Kartaas, Lakshya (aesthetics) Kartaas, Prayoga (experiment) Kartaas, artists from Karnataka, Andhra and TamiL-naadu will occupy those positions, respectively. It is also interesting to know that only “prayoga kartaas” will perform for the masses. So, it is no surprise that “Tamilians” are more popular in Karnaataka Shaastriya Sangeeta and that could be the possible explanation behind the words of Shree C. Rajagopalachari.
-       I am going to add this in wiki.But lets have some discussion before i put this on wikipedia.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.131.50 (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Karnataka in Karnataka Shaastriya Sangeeta? References added 

message: I think a lot of people keep ignoring this blue message at the top of the page, so it's just a reminder: "This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here."
I've gone through the present discussions and pulled out all the spots where there are obvious incivil remarks or personal attacks made, and changed them appropriately. Ncmvocalist 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the good intentions of Ncmvocalist's actions and I support them. However we should suitably warn those who abuse WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF guidelines. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. That's where the "NB:" (above) comes into play. Ncmvocalist 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request about remarks on this talk page & Reminder: heated debate - please keep a cool head 

message: Other than one impatient user over an image he uploaded, everyone has finally stopped any other revert wars, arguments etc. So hopefully we can start polishing this article, and once we've done it, try for it to be rated as a good article. 
I intend on making individual sections on this talk page for each of the 11 or 12 sections of the article - this should include what we need to add, or what needs to be changed (once things are added or changed or removed, then we can strikethrough these changes on the list). This is designed so people can discuss and/or agree/disagree with proposed changes. Once again, I ask everyone keep a cool head (and assume good faith) during this time, as it may be a while before we're finally happy with each section, individually, before being happy with the article as a whole. 
Assuming no biassed/disruptive editors come (or come back) out of no where, we will have a "good article" real soon, or so I hope. Ncmvocalist 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article polishing 

message: The Chennai music season is one of the most notable Carnatic music events.  I believe that it is inappropriate to replace the image related to Chennai music season.  --BostonMA talk 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Is G.S. Rajan a famous Carnatic Music flute player? Why is he mentioned in the same breath as Ramani and Sikkil Sisters. Even Thyagarajan and Mala Chandrasekaran have not reached the stage of being called Maestros.
Please remember this isn't a forum discussion boards - regarding the manner in which you compare two musicians, no matter what they're standard is. However, unless someone insists otherwise, you are welcome to remove G.S.Rajan from the article. I would recommend against Thyagarajan and Mala Chandrasekharan being removed in entirity...if you understand my hint. Ncmvocalist 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flautists names 

message: The article desparately needs reliable citations. Many of the sections don't even have a single inline citation. The reference section is completely missing. Please don't delete  templates from the article. Thanks Parthi talk/contribs 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article lacks citations 

message: I agree about the citations. Maybe the article should focus on Carnatic music itself and link to another article on Modern artists, etc. Just a suggestion.  Sincerely,  --Mattisse 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs focus + citations 

message: Carnatic Music is not Dravidian music just because it is prominent in South India. It was not indigenous to Dravidians since its most authoritative treatise (Sangeeta Ratnakara) was written by a person from Kashmir; nor is any worthwhile Carnatic Music treatise written in any Dravidian language except Telugu (that too only in modern times i.e last 100 years or so). So adding Dravidian template does not augur good for this article. 59.92.47.201 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but I am pushing for more educational information on the Dravidian civilizations of South Asia. Secondly, please provide referenced material to back your unsourced claims. Regards. Wiki Raja 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Sarvagnya for not removing the WikiProject Dravidian Civilizations template. I hope you understand that this is just a contribution to Wikipedia for educational purposes and in no way disrespectful to anyone's ideology, nationalism, religion, way of life, or POV. Much regards. Wiki Raja 07:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  :: Please observe some decency and stop repeatedly inserting Dravidian template in articles related to classical music and dance, ask your friend Venu to observe some decency too by not simply reverting pages willy nilly until Template_talk:Dravidian_topics#What_the_word_Dravidian_refers_to_.3F is addressed to everyone's satisfaction. Dont expect civility if you yourself are not prepared to reciprocate by stopping your repeated acts of reverting and including the template. Your intention and others perception of it may not always agree, and it is necessary to make it clear that you are not pushing for ethno-racial exclusivity in wikipedia articles by using terms like Dravidian culture and Aryan culture etc. 59.92.46.189 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cannot provide referenced materials, then you should not post nonsensical things on Wikipedia articles. I am sorry I do not succumb to fairy tales and make believe stories. Nationalistic advocates in California have managed to revise the history books on India in the schools. Putting fairy tales in there to suit their liking. One should not revise or modify history at the cost of other civilizations. Pol Pot and Hitler did that at one time. Wiki Raja 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry I edited my prev post, and you posted too soon. I just asked you to provide references that show that Carnatic Music was exclusively or mainly Dravidian. Its pure nonsense.59.92.46.189 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Raja is pushing for Dravidian template 

message: Can somebody look into these, before I remove them or suitably modify them. --Aadal 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is full of unreferenced and slanted statemnts

message: This user's edits (encompassing Telugu POV and anti-transliterationism) need to be reverted. --Śiva 18:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  59.145.136.1 

message: I believe this is an important article and  it should be thoughtfully developed to make it as one of the FAs. At present it is in such a bad shape- only because there is undue importance given to certain views. I would appeal to Tamil, Telugu, Kannada enthusiasts to collaborate constructively and improve the article. It is important to understand that merely listing those Sanskrit works and giving a lot of prominence to Sanskrit-centric or Tamil-centric or Kannada-centric ideas are not going to be useful for a general reader. If Tamils believe CM owes a great deal to Tevaram and it is an evolution of Tamil music and Kannadigas feel it is the Haridasa movement which is foundational, or if the Telugus think it is primarily due to Tyagaraja and prior to him Annamacharya et al. I belive it should be possible to write all these in a balanced and accomodative narrative with proper referencing. There is no point in simply listing a huge number of composers without in some way, though briefly, explaining what their contributions or fame is based on, so that a general reader can gain some insight. The role of Veena, flute, Nadasuram etc. in the evolution of CM and its styles should be mentioned. The historically important musical inscriptions (even starting from 4th century CE are available) should be mentioned. Some pictures from temples, depicting musical instruments should be added. This article has so much potential and scope and it is a pity that it is languishing due to parochial edit wars.--Aadal 06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality of this article

message: I also agree. I find that certain user keeps deleting even valid edits which did not delete existing statements.
I had made the following edit to state that there is not single one trinity and have preserved the earlier statement about calling the Muthuswami-Thyagaraja-Shyama triad as trinity also.
I have cited also a whole book by U.V.Saminatha Iyer as evidence from nearly a century ago. So why this user Gnanapti keep reverting it calling it "false history"?
"There are various sets of composers recognized as "Trinity". Some consider Muthu Thandavar (1525-1625), Marimuththa Pillai (1717-1787) and Arunachala Kavi (1712-1779) as a trinity. The famous U.V. Saminatha Iyer has written a book called "Sangeetha Mummanikal" where in Kanam Krishnaiyer, Gopalakrsihna Bharathiyar and another composer are biographed in great details and accuracy typical of U.V.Samintha Iyer's writings.
Still further the contemporaries Tyagaraja (1759? - 1847), Muthuswami Dikshitar, (1776 - 1827) and Syama Sastri, (1762 - 1827) are regarded as aTrinity of Carnatic music, due to the quality of Syama Sastri's compositions, the varieties of compositions of Muthuswami Dikshitar and Tyagaraja's prolific output in composing kritis.[11]."
I hope Mr. Gnanapti understands this. As I said above, I have not deleted what was there earlier.
perichandra1
:Please go through talk page archives. Gnanapiti 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched for the word "trinit" and am unable to find any discussion on what the matter of dispute here is. Anyway it does not matter. We have to judge this on what the edit is trying to state. What is your problem with stating that there are other trinities as well recognized traditionally? First of all the article does not even cite who and when designated the Muthiswami-Thyagaraja-shyama triad as "The Trinity" of Carantic Music. That statement itself is subject to delete or what going by your policy? Please desist from this edit-delete cycle.
perichandra1  21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple trinities

message: Would the reverters care to explain why the following lines - relevant and cited - are being deleted from the article?:
According to some scholars, Carnatic music shares certain classical music concepts with ancient Tamil music. The concept of Pann is related to Ragas used in Carnatic music. The rhythmic meters found in several musical forms (such as the Tiruppugazh) and other ancient literature, resemble the talas that are in use today.Lotlil 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blind bias could be a possible reason. Parthi talk/contribs 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ... ancient Tamil music is an important source             from which Carnatic music is derived
Lotlil 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of cited content

message: I am not satisfied that this is relevant to the section under which you posted it - composers! Please explain why it belongs there. Further, it needs to be worked on as it can be fixed up, so I suggest you work on it here in discussion. Once it's fixed, we can discuss a more appropriate 'spot' or 'section' to put it in the article. I've pasted what you've done so far below so you can keep going with your editing. Cheers Ncmvocalist 09:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply: These well know composers, musicians who composed in carnatic style and played it with instruments, while singing these compostions vocally. Why do you say it does not belong where I had put it?Dineshkannambadi 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to have them in the composer list. However, this is a summary article only cover the general main points - this paragraph isn't one of them. Further, none of the compositions of the listed composers are rendered (if at all) frequently enough by prominent artists to qualify being mentioned in this article, as it is a summary article by nature. And by the way, they are NOT well known composers in the same way Thyagaraja, Papanasam Sivan, Swathi Thirunal and so on are well known.Ncmvocalist 19:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, the whole article is in a mess and a properly cited and well written portion should be the least of our concerns.  We are still not a stage where WP:SS compulsions would force us to remove content.  Dinesh's additions are pertinent and well sourced.  So we should just leave it alone for now.  The "Modern artists" section is a joke.  Also talking of non notable composers, the likes of muttu tandavar and marimutha pillay and n s ramachandran etc., wouldnt stand a chance of making it to a properly written SS article.  So there's plenty to fix and cleanup in the article.. so lets leave well sourced content alone for now and not lose so much sleep over it. Sarvagnya 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Including this material doesn't improve the article in any way. You can't keep changing your mind. Muthuthandavar, Marimuthu Pillai were all agreed to be included just last year. They still are prominent composers whose compositions are rendered frequently by prominent artists. The modern artists section is relevant/accurate as of today, even if it reads more as a list. It overall needs more citations, but it certainily does not need that much more fixing up. None of the actual content has been disputed, unlike this paragraph. So how about leaving it as it is and contributing to progress the quality of the article as a summary one in the future, rather than making excuses. Ncmvocalist 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Including this content does improve the article.  And Veene Sheshanna, Veene Subbanna et al are/were legendary composers and Vainikas.  You probably need to read more about them and make enquiries before you start blanking them.  As for Muthutandavar, m pillai etc., there is nothing about changing my mind.  When we had agreed to add them, we also had agreed about certain other things.. all of which are not being followed.  And there's plenty wrong with this article, for one, sourcing is from amateurish sources and needs heaps and heaps of cleanup and copyediting.  We definitely are not in a position to blank valid, sourced content.  Sarvagnya 20:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but you aren't in a position to blank out the m's on all the words, such as Virutham. *rolls eyes* Fixed it anyway. 
Being a legendary composer doesn't qualify to fall under this section being a summary article - their compositions will be rendered frequently by prominent artists if they belong in this article! Certain other things like? This material needs to be moved if not blanked - not because of it's valid references, but because of the nature of this article.  Ncmvocalist 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the paragraph talks mainly about development of Carnatic music, I think it would be appropriate to break the paragraph and add content in appropriate sections. First few sentences can very well fit into "History" section of the article. The well cited paragraph does add value to the article. Names of the composers can go into the next section which solely talks about composers. Gnanapiti 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case, each line would needs to be referenced. Names of the composers again are the problem as their compositions are not frequently rendered by prominent artists. Muthuthandavar compositions have been rendered by all "vocalists of today", except perhaps, Sreevalson J Menon. On the other hand, how many times have a significant quantity of the modern artists rendered compositions of these composers? Another suggestion is that they could be included under learning Carnatic music rather than under the composers section. Ncmvocalist 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  And all that has to do with cpediting.. not blanking.  Blanking content is very easy and it can get lost forever.  If you think that the content needs to be split up and restructured, do it.  If you think that certain parts of the prose need sourcing, use the  tag.  Dont blank.  Especially when it is sourced. Sarvagnya 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think each and every line of that paragraph is sourced. The reference for all four sentences are at the end of fourth sentence citing different page numbers. Gnanapiti 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Even Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar is a composer who is counted in the top league. Sarvagnya 00:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The composers are not based on different regions of India. The only part where this is done is in the mudra section where the language of the most prominent composers have been identified. Mysore Vasudevachar and Muthiah Bhagavathar are from that region according to the current composers list, so they have been included in the prominent composers section. Please be respectful other editors contributions thus far. If you want to insert something, insert it in the appropriate sections rather than messing what they have done so far up. You do need to cite each line as each one will have to be put in a different section. Ncmvocalist 05:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development in instrumental carnatic music