M. V. Ramana and Ram Naidu
Published in Sangeetham, Silver Jubilee Issue, No. 19
(2001)
Sangeeta Kalanidhi Vedavalli is a member of a rare breed – a practicing musician who incorporates musicology into her music. Prof. Glen Haydon in his Introduction to Musicology defines musicology as the field of musical research, the careful or critical inquiry or examination in seeking facts or principles concerning music. While there is a long history of musicological explorations in the field of Karnatic (and Hindustani) music – examples of which are the works of people like Mathanga, Sarangadeva and Venkatamakhi – the practise of Karnatic music has long been marked by a lack of appreciation for the theoretical aspects that govern the art form, or respect for its history.
Following in the footsteps of illustrious gurus like Mudicondan Venkatrama Iyer and Madurai Srirangam Iyengar, Vedavalli maintains fidelity to music in its past form. From her one can hear jnanamosagarada in its original tune in shadvidhamargini, nagumomu in the real abheri with the shuddha dhaivata (as opposed to Karnataka devagandhari, now erroneously termed abheri) and so on. This is a valuable feature; classical music is what it is because it follows certain rules. These rules should not be changed either for reasons of convenience or even one’s sense of aesthetic beauty, especially since there is ample room for creativity even within the confines of these rules.
It was the interplay between the rules underlying Karnatic music and the creativity that exemplifies this art form that Vedavalli explored in her two lecture demonstrations on “Allied Ragas” and “Varnas as the source of Manodharma Music”. Given her pedigree and the link to the past that she offers, it should be no surprise that her presentations were among the most valuable aspects of CMANA’s silver jubilee celebrations. Here we will summarize some of the points made in her first lec-dem on the popular topic of allied ragas, while adding insights from musicological literature and lecture-demonstrations by musicians such as Prof. S. Ramanathan, Prof. S. R. Janakiraman, and Prof. T. R. Subramaniam.
Vedavalli began her lecture by pointing out that it is more appropriate to title the subject “Subtleties in Ragas” because it is through such subtleties that ragas are defined and distinguished from each other. Mathanga in his Brihaddesi (date disputed, but usually said to be 5-9 century AD) offered one of the earliest definitions of a raga:
Yo asau dhwani
viseshastu, swara – varna - vibhushitaha
That which has a special sound, that which is adorned by notes and varnas, that which produces pleasure to the listeners, that is called a raga.
Varna in this definition stands for kinds of movements among notes. There are four kinds of varnas – sthayi, arohi, avarohi, and sanchari. Sthayi refers to halting at a single note, arohi to an upward movement, avarohi to a downward movement and sanchari is a mixed (upward and downward) movement.
Despite the centuries of evolution in Karnatic music, this definition of raga still encompasses the many facets of a raga. There are two parts to the definition: the reference to notes and varnas is the structural aspect of a raga, the reference to the special sound, the aesthetic aspect. It is the structural characteristics that can be employed to establish differences between ragas with similarities.
The simplest difference in allied ragas come from swara differences; for example, Sankarabharanam and Kalyani differ in their madhyama. In his Chaturdandi Prakasika Venkatamakhi offers an analogy – just as the addition of one drop of curd to a pot of milk converts the taste of the entire vessel, the addition of the prati madhyama instead of the shuddha madhyama completely changes the complexion of the raga.
This difference is in some sense easy. But it is not all encompassing; it is quite possible to distinguish two ragas without going into the notes that differ. Thus Charukesi sounds quite different from Sankarabharanam even without going into the uttaranga (the upper tetrachord). Think of the opening phrases of adamodi galade and how it clearly establishes that the raga is not Sankarabharanam (Alternately, if someone were to sing Sankarabharanam in that fashion, it would be considered, appropriately, a bad rendition of the raga.). Charukesi has flat notes, whereas the rishabha and madhyama of Sankarabharanam have a characteristic shake (kampita gamaka). Another example that Vedavalli admirably brought out was the difference between Mayamalavagaula and Nadanamkriya. The gandhara of Mayamalavagaula is sung flat whereas that of Nadanamakriya has a large and long oscillation. Of course, these two ragas also differ in the range since Nadanamakriya does not go above the nishada, but as Vedavalli demonstrated, the difference is apparent even in sancharas that involve only the range from shadja to madhyama.
Besides gamakas, what else can be used to distinguish ragas? Another easy characteristic is the difference in tempo. A good example is the difference between Purvikalyani, a slow paced raga, and Kamavardhani (commonly termed Pantuvarali), a fast paced raga. Similar is the case of Nayaki and Darbar. This difference in pace is apparent even during raga alapana. Though there is no explicit tala during raga alapana, it is the mark of all good singers that they stick to an underlying kalapramana. Of course, a great singer or composer may violate the rule by singing or composing in a different kalapramana and yet preserve the character of the raga – but that is more the exception than the rule.
The primary difference between allied ragas that most focus on is the difference in characteristic prayogas or sancharas (phrases). Vedavalli, in fact, emphasized that when she was younger, students of music were taught the characteristics of a raga not through its arohana – avarohana, but through a series of sancharas. A good example of a sanchara is the one that Vedavalli elaborated on – Kedaragaula and Surati. The p n s’ r’ prayoga (where s’ = upper shadja, etc.) of Kedaragaula, characterized by the elongated rishabha accompanied by large oscillations, is readily recognizable. Those who have seen the old Tamil movie Ambikapati may recall Thangavelu singing this prayoga often. Surati on the other hand is characterized by the prayogas m g p m r and r m p n n. Similarly, Vedavalli described how Bhairavi is characterized by several upward (arohi varna) phrases that involve the shuddha dhaivata, even though the nominal arohana of the raga uses the chatusruti dhaivata. This, she explained, was because of its proximity to Manji, which is characterized by a sharpened (higher frequency) chatusruti dhaivata. Therefore in the olden days, musicians and composers avoided using the chatusruti dhaivata to a significant extent in Bhairavi.
Another example is Ritigaula with its g m n n s’ prayoga. A contrarian can ask why it is not permissible to sing g m n n s’ in, say, Sriranjani. After all this might seem to be “allowed” by the arohana of Sriranjani. But, each raga has a form or swarupa which is determined by its lakshana, the rules governing the grouping of swaras which impart to the raga its definite character and individuality. Paraphrasing Orwell, one may say that in a raga some notes are more equal than others. These notes, around which the sancharas are developed, are often termed jiva swaras.
Ragas are also distinguished by several other characteristics. To define and elaborate on all of these is beyond the scope of this article. For the purpose of illustration, we can look at nyasa – the notes that one can ‘stand’ on or end phrases on during raga elaboration. (Nyasa can be further categorized into hrsva and dirga nyasa, depending on how much elongation is permitted, but we won’t go into that.) An example of how different nyasa swaras characterize different ragas can be seen in the case of Sama and Arabhi. While both ragas have almost the same notes, if one halts at the gandhara, then it evokes Sama rather than Arabhi. In another example, if one were to stand at the dhaivata, it would suggest Todi rather than Dhanyasi, though Dhanyasi does include dha in the avarohana.
Often, practicing musicians have not consciously analyzed and codified these rules themselves. Nevertheless in their presentations, they do follow these rules. (Occasionally they don’t – either by error or by ignorance – and the resulting perturbation is perceptible to the discerning listener.) If they cannot state these rules, how then do they sing alapanas or indulge in other kinds of (melodic) manodharma? The answer is that much of the essence of raga lakshana is codified in the compositions of great composers that they learn and listen to. One example of kritis demonstrating such difference has already been mentioned – adamodi galade. But the problem with kritis is that they are to some extent malleable and they tend to evolve over the years. No one can state with complete certainty that the present renditions of any of Thyagaraja’s kritis are identical to the way he composed (or sang) them. However, one can rely with much greater certainty on another variety of composition – the varnam, whose influence on creativity formed the subject of the second of Vedavalli’s lecture demonstrations and is described in a separate article.