Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

Music directors !!

Topic started by Indian Music Fan (@ 204.50.249.133) on Sun May 13 19:02:00 EDT 2001.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Hey guys

I want to know what you think about Laxmikant Pyarelal and R.D. Burman. How do you like their music and their style and how would you compare them to Illyaraja and A.R. Rahman.

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Indian Music Fan (@ 204.50.249.133) on: Tue May 29 22:36:37 EDT 2001
  
  Ya that's true what you said. They were both good MD's. But i want to make a web site on one of them and i want to find out your opinion on them. I like them both but i need to know what you think.
  
  
• From: True Music Fan (@ 138.89.106.168) on: Tue May 29 23:02:55 EDT 2001
  
  Both sucked big time. Please give good reasons for your opinion and don't just say what you think based on only a few songs you have heard of their's. Also, who sucked better.
  
  
• From: lv (@ 203.197.82.107) on: Sat Jun 2 10:25:42 EDT 2001
  
  RAJAG:
  
  >>>>Piano is NOT suitable for playing CM - it is NOT possible to play Bairavi, thOdi, mukhaari.....with the sliding gamaka notes using a staccato instrument like Piano. Maybe possible with keyboards using pitchbend
  
  Oh no -similar remarks were passed on the Santoor - u know. But there are methods to produce that lovely 'meend' on the santoor. And a person called Appa Jalgaonkar plays the meend on the harmonium too!
  
  Lastly sorry for that again - but I almost thought twas you.And u'll get the list DEFINITELY by about 2 weeks.
  
  SWAMIJI:
  Thanx for considering my opinion, but I never said that anybody was better than IR.
  
  Well- I think almost all songs of Naushad,MM,Roshan,Bhupen Hazarika,Anil Biswas, Jaidev,Khayyam,Ghulam Mohammed,Hridaynath were raga-based. Many songs of Chitragupt,RDB(!!!),SDB,Shankar Jaikishan and Salil C were raga based. Even LP have given great classical scores to ur surprise - Bhairavi,Satyam Shivam Sundaram,Madhavi,Utsav,Badalte Rishte(a few songs),Harishchandra Taramati,some songs in Parasmani,Sur Sangam,Sant Dnyaneshwar and many more.f course they are NOT to be compared to IR at all!!!
  
  AND OTHERS:
  Okay - no more HFM from my side unless someone says something really bad/unfair about the HFM poeple. And I defintely mean no disrespect for any Carnatic musician or IR /ARR/MSV.
  
  
• From: kiru (@ 64.166.85.213) on: Sun Jun 3 01:02:45 EDT 2001
  
  Here is an excerpt from the Carnatic Music Primer by P Sriram. I did not have the link on my home PC but I was able to search and find it. Please read it patiently even though it is long..
  ----------------- begin excerpt -------------
  We observed earlier that doubling the pitch of a swara by a factor of two results in going up in pitch by one octave. Thus, doubling the pitch of Sa (say Sa1) results in another Sa (Sa2) which is one octave higher than our original Sa. A further doubling produces Sa3 which is one octave higher than Sa2 and two octaves above Sa1. Three times the original Sa produces the Pa located between Sa2 and Sa3. In other words, the pitch of the swara Pa is one and half times the pitch of the Sa below it (and three fourths the pitch of the Sa above it). Now we come to an important limitation of the keyboard - the way the octave is divided into the twelve swara sthanas. Since it is based on current western music norms, the division is done on a logarithmic basis (which is just a more technical way of saying that the pitch values of the successive swara sthanas form a geometric progression). An octave is a factor of two and there are twelve intervals in it. If we make all the intervals equal to a multiplicative factor x, then the pitch corresponding to any key will be x times the pitch of the key (white or black) immediately to the left of it. Extending the procedure we arrive at what the value of x should be. The thirteenth swara sthana results in an octave, or, stated mathematically, x12=2. Then, we have x to be the twelfth root of two or a factor of approximately 1.06. Using this logarthmic division procedure, Pa (the 8th swara sthana) corresponds not to a ratio of 1.5 but 1.498. Though the discrepancy is very small, a well trained ear (eg. professional musician) can pick out this difference.
  
  Carnatic music is based not on logarithmic division but on rational division. An octave is based on the ratio 1:2; Pa is located through the ratio 2:3; similar definitions exist for all the twelve swara sthanas. A few centuries ago, Western classical music too was based on rational division (the resulting scale was called as the natural scale), but this has given way to the equally tempered (also called chromatic) scale produced by logarithmic division. The difference is subtle, but quite important. The rational division claim is supported by the fact that tuning of instruments (for example, in setting the frets of veena) is performed mostly by the ear and not by reference to standards. Further, the swara sthanas of Carnatic music define only nominal locations for the swaras. Depending on the raga in which the swara is used, it manifests a deviation from the nominal sthana. Actually, the deviation from the nominal sthana depends on the swara phrase in which the swara occurs; thus, a single swara in a given raga can appear at different deviations from its nominal sthana when occuring along with various other swaras of the same raga. In a general sense, this deviation is called gamaka. Gamaka can refer to a constant deviation from the nominal swara sthana or a time dependent deviation or the path taken in reaching the nominal swara etc. Truly, gamaka is the life blood of Carnatic music and the raga system. Ragas are defined more by the gamakas and the way in which certain swara phrases (chain of swaras) are used than by the mere presence or absence of certain swaras. Thus, playing the keys corresponding to the swara sthanas of a certain raga will not reproduce the true character of the raga but only provide a general idea of what it sounds like. This is the reason why purists object to the use of keyboard instruments in Carnatic music - the lack of gamaka, which leads to a mutilation of the raga swaroopa. The use of gamaka also implies that the method used for defining nominal swara sthanas (rational or logarithmic division) is not too critical as long the correct raga swaroopam can be accommodated.
  
  In the past, Hindustani music also had complex gamaka schemes, but the acceptance of the Harmonium has caused their virtual disappearance and only a few of the gamakas remain in use. The result is that the current form of Hindustani music has lost some of its traditional character - perhaps forever. Carnatic music is one of the very few musical forms in the world that have not lost their traditional character due to the influence of western culture. On the contrary, Carnatic music has enhanced its traditional character by borrowing good things from other systems of music. The introduction of the violin is a very good example of a positive influence. The instrument and its playing techniques have been successfully adapted to fit in with the rest of the system. This adaptation is so complete that the present day listener can hardly imagine a concert without a violin accompanying the singer.
  
  ------------- end excerpt ---------------
  
  
• From: Sugrutha (@ 65.11.240.45) on: Sun Jun 3 14:14:48 EDT 2001
  
  LV,
  
  You are missing the whole point. No one says HFM does not have great classical and semi-classical songs. But they dont have songs yet that combine a pure classical tone in a 'modern' song. Perhaps the people are not yet ready for that sound. "Pani vizhum malar vanam", "solai poovil malai thenral" kind of songs is not yet there.
  
  Carnatic can never be played on an instrument that gives discrete sounds. As a Veena player (once upon a time) I remember how half the time, one plays the next higher note by pulling the previous note back with gamakam, sometimes even while playing pure swaram sequences. It can be played thus on a santoor or sarangi or sitar or guitar or mandolin but not on a harmonium or keyboard.
  
  Listen to Charukesi, although the swaras and their sequencing are the same, the Hindustani version sounds so different from the carnatic version.
  
  Kiru,
  Thanks for pulling up the article. It is very eloquent.
  
  
• From: Swamiji (@ 198.102.112.201) on: Sun Jun 3 14:49:53 EDT 2001
  
  LV, absolutely no. You cannot play few ragas with heavy gamakams on the piano. I can assure u. Nor can you build one (or it would be very difficult I would say).
  
  Let me give you a simple explanation why (A visit back to school physics - please dont mind):
  
  Piano strings are held rather tightly compared to the guitar or. Reason is that piano strings are more bulky - which means theres more mass per unit length (on the lower octave), and they are more lengthier. You know that
  frequency of vibration is inversely proportional to the length and square root of mass per unit length, and directly proportional to force applied on the string. If we assume piano strings length = 2 x guitar string, and mass approximately doubled, piano would need roughly 8 times more force than a guitar.
  Unlike a guitar, where u can bend each string separately, you will have to provide a mechanism to bend all the strings of a piano. That means force required = 8 x 12 strings per octave x 7 octaves = 672 times more force. So if u were to bend a piano string, you would have to arrange for two more people just to bend it, and of course provide good lever also, because it is a lot of power. Mind u, this is only for a semitone. If you want to bend over like 4 or 5 semitones - which is the case if you want to play "heavy" gamakams, you would need 16 (or 25) times more power!! Then you can arrange for a crane or U-Haul to do the job, and it is not guaranteed that they can bend both ways because gamakams happen rather quickly.
  conclusion: THINGS U CAN DO WITH GUITAR IS REALLY REALLY DIFFICULT TO DO WITH A PIANO, AND IAM NOT EXPERIMENTING ON MINE. YOU CAN GO MESS UP A SANTOOR OR A HARMONIUM, BUT NOT A PIANO.
  
  And Mr. L.V please dont say u never compared anyone with IR. You did, just go back a few, and u will know u said "far surpasses IR in melody". Plain and clear.
  
  
• From: Swamiji (@ 198.102.112.201) on: Sun Jun 3 15:02:28 EDT 2001
  
  This is clipping from Mr.LVs posting
  
  "As far as use of classical music goes there was ONE very underrrated music director by the name of SN Tripathi whose classical scores are the best anyone has given - probably better than IR"
  
  Mr. LV, just to explain why u said that, along with RajaG's list, please explain the following:
  
  . How SN Tripathis comositions are better than IR. Point by point - technical details please and not some crap on "Mood" "feeling etc". If possible please provide a link to his music.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• From: Swamiji (@ 198.102.112.201) on: Sun Jun 3 15:06:22 EDT 2001
  
  And once again Mr.LV, TFM of today is far far ahead of HFM. I reiterate. You can name 1000s of people from olden days, but simply names dont count.
  "Hey Ram's" background is till this day UNMATCHED. And it wouldn't be possible but for IR.
  
  
• From: Swamiji (@ 198.102.112.201) on: Sun Jun 3 15:19:50 EDT 2001
  
  And once again Mr. LV(for the last time sorry!):
  
  " AND OTHERS:
  Okay - no more HFM from my side unless someone says something really bad/unfair about the HFM poeple. And I defintely mean no disrespect for any Carnatic musician or IR /ARR/MSV "
  
  You dont have to classify myself separately from others. The above remark applies to me as well. The thread grew because a southie LIKE YOU spoke high of HFM and belittled IR. It is a fact. Dont say u didnt. Do you even know IR or his genius to say that? Please dont come back next week and give explanations like: Do you Vivek Seth, or Farookh shah.. blah blah..., it doesnt matter whom you mention. It will only anger us more.
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

Post comments