Talk:Shruti (music)

message: No offense to Dr. Oke. I actually know him. So not casting any shade at him, nor this theory.
But sadly this article sounds like an infomercial for his system.
It would be like if an article about creation myths only mentions ideas from the book of Genesis, and to state it as fact as opposed to a particular culture's story.
So while I agree that his theory should be included in this article, it needs to be done much better where its clear that the "Intervals of Shruti" chart is according to HIS theory.... where it is currently being presented a a standard fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brak (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Maybe This Article Should Be Renamed to Dr. Oke

message: Ok.... this article is riddled with tons of claims with no citations. Many sources/people are mentioned, but no citations?
The article mentions Bharata Muni's theories, but the person couldn't be bothered to give the citations of the 28th chapter of the Natya Sastra that they are in?
This article is riddled with so many ex cathedra statements with no citations to back almost any of it!
And when dealing with the frequency ratios...... people need to cite where they are getting those values from - especially since there is no consensus of that they are.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brak (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: No Citations?

message: Concerning sruti:
as a student of hindustani classical music, to be more specific: of Dagarvani Dhrupad, I would like to comment on the remarks made under the entry 'sruti':
Many differing vieuws are put forward by dissenting scholars, however, the interpretation that makes a lot of sense to me is to read sruti as: "smallest audible difference in intonation"
I make a point about me studying Dhrupad as it is one of the most subtle and demanding schools within Hindustani musical culture in which ragas and svaras are most carefully discerned.
martin spaink
At first glance subject appears thouroughly, well described and understandable. Some figures appear less consistent to each other (Fig. 1/(Fig. 2, Tab. 1); Shadja Grama on a stretched string/Madhyama Grama on a stretched string).  Thanks for this article.
Robert Eriksens (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Smallest

message: I think there is a mistake here:
# 4:3 is taken as distance between Sa & Ma Shuddha this was placed on "13 th shruti"
# 5:4 is taken as distance between Sa & Ga Shuddha this was placed on "13 th shruti"
How can they both be the 13th shruti?
Magnusjonsson (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4:3 and 5:4 

message: I've  been trying to understand the 22-note system, and it seems to be much more academically controversial than the Wikipedia page expresses.  There seems to be no agreement on the shruti, or even if they can be expressed as fixed ratios/frequencies.  For instance, "Music contexts: a concise dictionary of Hindustani Music" By Ashok Damodar Ranade says "Almost every aspect of the sruti phenomenon has raised controversies that are raging even today."  It seems there are three viewpoints: one is that shrutis are evenly-spaced quartertones at about 53 cents, the second viewpoint (expressed in the Wikipedia page) is that they are irregularly spaced, and the third is that there are no fixed 22 notes, but variable systems of pitches depending on the musician. 
A potential reference for the table in the article, by the way, is http://www.22shrutiharmonium.com/research_topic_35.asp
I think things are not nearly as cut-and-dried as the Wikipedia article implies, but I don't know enough to start modifying it.  76.126.159.111 (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More controversial than expressed here? 

message: There seems to be a large body of research measuring the actual frequencies of a given note produced by musicians (comparing within a particular performance, between different performers of a given raga, between different performances of a raga by an artist, etc) all showing that there is a fairly large variation (larger than ascribed to those between different srutis) in general, and that this variation in any case bears no relation to the ancient 22-sruti system. There are many papers by Jairazbhoy, Arvind Krishnaswamy, Levy etc showing this. I can dig up references, but so far as I know, the academic literature based on actual measurements thinks the sruti theory is no longer applicable to Indian classical music. If nothing else, I think the academic viewpoint should also be expressed in this article. --Gargletheape (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sruti in contemporary Hindustani/Carnatic music 

message: Hello!
I'm a music technology student, who have been active in reading musicological literature of India since past 3 years. I have edited the article; included clarifications on some important points. I don't see the relevance of 22 sruti table in this article. I have kept it as written in my edit. I thought I should first discuss it here, if someone objects it. 22 srutis is not a standard accepted consensus. It is only proposed by a few, several of which have limitations in explaining the practical usefulness of their derivation. So, let us discuss here and improve the article!
Thanks,
Gopalkoduri (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  22 Srutis 

message: Sruti in Indian classical music is Pitch in Western music. Why it can not be mentioned in the article? Thanks --Musicindia1 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sruti and Pitch

message: The first sentence needs to be changed, as it is factually incorrect. 
"The shruti or śruti [ɕrʊtɪ] is the smallest interval of pitch that the human ear can detect and a singer or musical instrument can produce"
This ^^^ is literally not true. It is not the smallest. There are much, much smaller intervals both detectable by the human ear and produceable by instruments; modern microtonal instruments prove that, some having as many as hundreds of intervals in an octave (whereas the shruti system typically has 22 notes, much larger intervals, over the same space). It is kind of hard to explain how this is just blatantly incorrect if you don't already have some base knowledge of music and know what I mean by intervals and octaves and microtonal in the first place, so I won't write an essay here, but I am trusting that someone else notices this and changes it.
It should read something along the lines of "The shruti or śruti [ɕrʊtɪ] is a system of pitch intervals which were thought in ancient times to be the smallest intervals of pitch detectable by a human ear or musical instrument.
Something like that. Because that is true. That's how the whole shruti thing started -- people thought they were the smallest detectable intervals. However, NOW, in modern times, we know for a fact that is not the case and people prove this every day by using modern instruments that have smaller intervals. 
I don't think anyone could say with a straight face, in 2024, that a system of 22 intervals is the smallest detectable amount of intervals... That's how the system originated, but it is now known to be untrue. 
My IP address won't allow me to change. Someone make it accurate please 2601:19C:5080:18E0:CC33:81C:E0D6:F145 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple change needed: First sentence is factually incorrect.