This is a letter I wrote to SRUTI when they published an issue devoted to E. Krishna Iyer. From what little I knew, I felt that his role in Karnatic Music was over-rated. To back up my views, I quoted a piece by the late Rangaramanuja Iyengar. The Editor of SRUTI published this - but after chopping out one of the more significant parts (the reference to E Krishna Iyer's review of a concert that did not happen), and adding a note saying that they preferred to believe GNB rather than Rangaramanuja Iyengar. The editor is, of course, welcome to believe who he wants to - but in the interests of objectivity, he should have at least published my letter completely. You be the judge....
To
The Editor
SRUTI
The glowing tributes to E. Krishna Iyer's role as a music critic seem
quite exagerrated. Whatever his contributions to Bharatanatyam may
have been, there is little evidence, judging from his "Personalities
in Present Day Music" to substantiate praising his role in the cause
of Karnatic music. Rather than impose my views, let me quote the late
R. Rangaramanuja Ayyangar (see SRUTI Issue 87/88 for more about him) :
"The dilettante and impostor have been in increasing evidence in
recent years. Their game started in the early thirties. Details of
musicians' clothing and appearance, their predilections for items of
cuisine, etc. appeared in a series of pen sketches in the daily press
by the late E. Krishnier. ..........
T.N.Rajaratnam's name was in the A.I.R. Journal. He did not turn up for the recital. There was a substitute item instead. Yet the Tamil weekly, Kalki carried a review of the Nagaswaram recital. Readers were astonished. Of course the editor was incensed. He sacked E. Krishnier."
(From "Musings of a Musician" - R. Rangaramanuja Ayyangar pg. 57)
I think these quotes may help balance the overly favourable article by
one of my favourite musicians - G. N. Balasubramaniam.
M. V. Ramana
Cambridge, Massachusetts
USA
