Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

A request to amateur composers who visit this page

Topic started by Vijay (@ 212.137.205.127) on Thu Nov 16 16:58:22 EST 2000.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

I'd like to request amateur composers who visit this page to tell me if they've uploaded any of their work onto the internet and if they have, please tell me where I can listen to it. Thank You.

---

Some composers to check out (in no particular order): Jay, Srikanth, Ganesh, Eswar, Sridhar Seetharaman, Kumar, Rjay. Vishwesh Obla

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: sarat (@ 128.192.5.10) on: Wed Feb 25 17:05:32 EST 2004
  
  IMO the basic difference between serious music and popular music is ego.
  When the pop musician is trying to make music to cater to an audience and they reject it, he is humble enough to accept that he needs to change what he is doing and adapt to his audience whereas the serious music composer will go to his grave with the grievance that nobody was smart enough to get his music.
  I guess its also true that the serious guy is not making music for an audience but for himself and is constantly trying to push himself to a higher creative level.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• From: Aditya (@ 160.231.5.196) on: Wed Feb 25 19:50:54 EST 2004
  
  Worthy digression from the serious topics...
  
  Radhika, Congratulations for retaining your originality in voice. This is one of your best.
  I wish you and srikanth to work more. Perhaps this is a great beginning! I adored the way your voice is introduced in the song...
  
  Sunder, salute to your ragalapana in the intro.
  You're soulful as usual.
  
  New Studio Facilities or Sridhar's involvement in Production or Srikanth's taste for sound engineering or all of them...Recording quality is very nice...
  
  Srikanth, in this message, I have no extra comments just that you did a beautiful song:-))
  Catch you later in another message...
  
  Good Work!
  
  Regards,
  Aditya
  
  
• From: Anand (@ 66.30.193.155) on: Wed Feb 25 22:13:37 EST 2004
  
  sarat
  
  you sort of posed a misconception and answered it yourself. I dont think ego has to be the distinction, altho i agree it is so many times. There are many uptight carnatic musicians who will downplay others easily, even fellow carnatic singers. Jesudas is a great example. He is one rare example of uncommon talent AND mass popularity. But he is never accepeted by many to be a serious classical musician like KV Narayanswamy or Ravikiran, inspite of his sheer technical virtuosity (Ive heard that he can keep track of 2 differnt complicated talas at the same time with his two hands!).
  
  the same is true in the west. No one will take a symphony composed by John williams too seriously, altho he is a great film composer.
  
  It just takes a different "attitude" to be a purist I guess. I cannot put what this is in words, but it is certainly not ego. As you said, it is probably related to the fact that a classical composer pursues what he likes without caring for a mass audience's taste.
  
  cheers
  -Anand
  
  
• From: Eswar (@ 202.54.154.163) on: Thu Feb 26 02:26:38 EST 2004
  
  Anand,
  
  Nice topic to get this thread alive. So "seriousness of music" is measured by the amount of "non-acceptance of that music"? I am pretty sure that Mozart was as popular musician in Vienna as is any other pop(ular) musician of this time. So was Beethoven, so was any other classical composer. You see, we had that kind of competition then, as we have now. So, a symphony cannot be popular, if it doesn't appeal to people, that also means a composer will have to pack his bags if he only thinks of mathematical jugglery in his compositions. In my thoughts, there is nothing called "serious" music, it is all in the perception of some people who think that somehow serious music saves the world, where as popular music degrades the quality of music in general.
  
  I disagree there!
  
  Eswar
  
  
• From: Srik (@ 64.80.98.165) on: Thu Feb 26 10:29:24 EST 2004
  
  imo,
  For a Music listener: Music is something that he/she can enjoy, have the right to be very biased and subjective about it.
  
  For a Music Composer: Music is his creation. He simply views it has an art form.
  
  From 20th century we have this new breed mentioned “Commercial Music composer”
  For a Commercial Music composer, include the above but he is bound the person mentioned below.
  
  Music producer: he sees it as a product and tries his best to divert the subjective listeners to hear the music.
  
  For a Music Reviewer: Another POS to be skeptical about.
  
  As far as I know there is nothing called "Serious music", "non-serious”,
  "Trend music”. The individuals [rather than music form] determine all these in general.
  
  "Serious musician”: I don’t know how to determine this, when I sit in front my console I am dam serious about what I do. So can I call myself my as serious musician really I dont have a clue.
  imo, "Serious musician is more a behaviour"
  
  Music is an art form, a medium something like language. Carnatic music does get its greatness because stalwarts like Shri KVN or Shri. Ariyangudi were singing it. It is more about the musical discipline found in the form for music, this is more powerful than the artists themselves. Like wise Western classical does not gets it good name because Bach and Beethoven composed symphonies or get a bad name because John Williams cannot compose symphonies.
  The system the vital part here, Musicians are different from Music form.
  
  For a composer or a performer [Like Jazz Carnatic music has more performers than composers] they need know the system quite well and be loyal to it.
  
  All the so-called “commercial musicians”, “classical musicians”, “traditional musicians”, “serious musicians” mentioned in these discussions so far,
  all of them know the system quite well. It is the listener who decides and brands them.
  
  
• From: Srik (@ 64.80.98.165) on: Thu Feb 26 10:53:06 EST 2004
  
  Anand, interesting.
  Let me first clarify that by '20th century music', I was referring to art or serious music rather The Beatles or Illayaraja will not fall in this category, but rather, Stravinsky, Schoenberg.
  
  What does this mean?, Technically, How is Stravinsky’s score in EMajor different from Raja's E-major arrangement? The format in which Raja gives might be different [listeners or produces call it style, trend etc] but technically Raja sticks to the WC rules right? the same rules Stravinsky’s followed. Also In what way Beatles chord progression not “serious”, from Stravinsky’s arrangements?
  What you mean by Serious here? “Technically not sound” Or you don’t like it?
  Isn’t the word “serious musician” very subjective? btw:I just took Raja because you put his name, I would ask this same question regardless of who you referred. :)
  
  
• From: Srik (@ 64.80.98.165) on: Thu Feb 26 11:17:53 EST 2004
  
  or do you decide serious "music" based the environment it is played?
  imo, this is not correct.
  
  because Beethoven, Mozart scores are heard on hotel elevators these days. :)
  
  
• From: Srik (@ 64.80.98.165) on: Thu Feb 26 11:34:26 EST 2004
  
  Ok, I need to go now, since anand or eswar are not around I will conclude my view:
  
  Serious music or not, this is very very subjective and it is not decided based on the music or the Musician.
  
  For Iyappasamis, K.Veeramani gives them most so called "serious music" they need.
  Just because Veeramani does not sing the music that Anand has assumed to be serious music, you cannot write off Veeramani’s music to be non-serious music.
  :)
  
  was fun in writing.. thanks .Good day folks
  
  
• From: Anand (@ 132.183.136.57) on: Thu Feb 26 14:24:45 EST 2004
  
  hi folks
  
  I am glad that more people have joined the discussion. Reading the posts, I think I might have given a wrong impression. I am not making a qualitative judgement about the superiority of one form of music vs another at all. At some point this almost gets personal and people can get offended.
  
  this topic is however an interesting one, so I hope we can set emotions aside and address it.
  
  Easwar..
  
  serious music requires a trained ear and is not readily appreciated. It is not that it is classified as serious music because of non-appreciation!
  
  Srik,
  first of all, I was just referring to what people in the western world generally imply when using the term '20th century music'. it wasnt my definition. here is a site I got from google search,
  http://www.theviolin.freeserve.co.uk/20th.htm
  If you say that the definition should include a lot of great pop,rock,jazz,blues,reggae, etc., AND indian film music music wtitten last century, I woud agree!
  
  secondly, I am a big fan of Illayaraja, no doubt he is a genius in many ways. His technical soundness is no less than a classical composer. But, in what way is his score different from Stravinsky's? Immensely. (Once again, let me be clear that I am not saying one is superior to the other, this is subjective)
  
  Take the Rite of spring for example. As you might know, the opening night of this ballet was chaos and disaster. The audience were completely confused by the harsh dissonances and absolutely weird orchestrations and apparent lack of a form. Only as the score began to unfold did people see the immensity of the work. The orchestration is absolutely wild (there is a point where the rythm is stressed by alternating bass drums and violin pizzicato, now how often do you see that in a score?). Now, here an example of a composer deciding to break the barrier.
  If you listen to the score again and again and again, you will see how much thought went into it...the amount of thematic coherence and so on.
  
  Illayarajas music adheres to the theme and variation form, (or the pallavi-anupallavvi-charanam) typical of classical music, and everything is pretty predictable although the melodies are very mature and timeless. That is just what he writes, and it is great music, but it is different in from Stravisky (in ways I cannot put in words but only feel), in my opinion.
  I would compare Illayaraja more with Mozart than Beethoven or Stravisky, since much of what he composed was in haste, to meet the demands of the film producers (analog of aristocrats in Mozarts case).
  
  but I hope all this argument is in good fun, for afterall, music appreciation of whatever form is the greatest gift you can have in life!
  
  cheers
  
  
• From: Srik (@ 64.80.98.165) on: Thu Feb 26 14:44:58 EST 2004
  
  Anand,
  You have raised an new issue called serious music.
  involviong Kikiran to Mozart to beatles.
  I tried to explain my view, there is nothing known as series music with some clear examples.
  
  I am yet to get a clear picture of what you mean by serious music, please dont give me a google link. for benefit of many please put it crisp what you have understood from the link.
  
  for a composer anything he scores, he is serious about it. It is the audience who decides all this variations like serious music, molecular music etc..
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

Post comments