Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

Why TFM alone??? Ilayaraja is probably the best music director that India has EVER produced. What say all of you??

Topic started by Karthik (@ cnl-4.cnel.ufl.edu) on Fri Aug 8 12:14:55 EDT 1997.
All times in EDT +9:30 for IST.

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: pg (@ gate02.merck-medco.com) on: Thu Jun 11 12:50:08 EDT 1998
  
  Sivaji was a phenomenal actor who was directed by pathetic directors. Many of Sivaji's colour movies are junk ; many of his B&W movies are classics. His performance in rangoon rAdhA is a timeless masterpiece.
  
  
• From: Bharat (@ dsi.mids.com) on: Thu Jun 11 12:57:47 EDT 1998
  
  IR is definitely one of the most brillaint composers. But this is a faulty (if not impossible) attempt IMO. To decide if he's truly the best in India, we have to think about the vastness of Indian music.
  
  Bhupen Hazarika from Assam and Hridayanath Mangeshkar (Lata's brother) from Maharashtra are absolutely brilliant. But how does one compare IR to them? Both their styles include regional influences that sounded downright foreign to me till I listened to more of their music. So, if IR combined the best of Tamil folk music and western music, these people did the same with their influences. Now is anyone in this forum really knowledgeable enough to compare these people with IR? I know I cannot. It's like trying to compare Hindustani and Carnatic music.
  
  As it is, people like Kanchana and Sathiya Keerthi will contend that MSV is the best (no offence here, just a statement of individaul preference). To make matters more interesting, there was an IR-fan earlier on this page who claimed he didn't like the Karagattakaaran songs, which I'm sure is close to blasphemy (I mean, how COULD he say such a thing :--)) for many here.
  
  India should decide whether or not IR is the greatest, if anyone should at all. We, here, are just a bunch of (mostly) Tamilians. All those factors listed earlier may sound scientific, but as any person with a marketing background will tell you, this poll is hardly scientific. In that case, all that will happen (yet again) is DISHOOM-DISHOOM.
  
  IR rules, but then he's not the greatest. What next? An argument on whether Subramania Bharati is better than Rabindranath Tagore... (Hey, maybe behind that Nobel Prize was as big a conspiracy as ARR's National Awards :--))
  
  
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks14d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Thu Jun 11 13:14:57 EDT 1998
  
  It is possible to judge who is the better poet among SB and RT (no irreverence meant by abbr.) if you can consider Skill, Aptitude and Qualification. Recognition and personal preference only hinder our judgement. If there is anybody in the DF qualified enough to surmise the works of SB and RT I am sure (s)he will be able to make a final judgement as to who is better. Same applies to IR and MSV. Region, language, population (and incidentally popularity) and awareness of clients(ourselves) is not sufficient to certify greatness. Only quality of o/p is reqd. BH, HM and others may have composed some great tunes, but this is like saying that Rahul Dravid is the best bat as he hit Allan Donald for a 6. Great as that may be we still can't ignore the presence of a Sachin in the team.
  
  
• From: Bharat (@ dsi.mids.com) on: Thu Jun 11 13:35:12 EDT 1998
  
  Srinath:
  
  You mention three factors -- Skill, Aptitude and Qualification. These seem faily general. Do you mean to say that someone better-qualified in terms of, say, education, is a better poet?
  
  I disagree that only the quality of output is required to judge a person -- only because, that "quality" (or lack thereof) is a determination made by humans, with all our conditioning and subjective tastes.
  
  And sport is a different kind of playing field. There are determinates there. Who took the most wickets? Who made the most runs? You may argue that IR has scored the most number of films. However, Each run of a batsman contributes to the betterment of his team. Whereas, each film of IR has not contributed to the betterment of TFM (before you start bashing me, please refer to earlier arguments about how many IR-albums are "crap").
  
  It is impossible to make an objective analysis about any art. Try asking North Indians to evaluate IR's music, for instance.
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks15d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Thu Jun 11 14:41:25 EDT 1998
  
  Skill:
  Skill is more intelligent, denoting familiar knowledge united to readiness of performance. A man is skillful in any employment when he understands both its theory and its practice.
  
  Aptitude:
  1. A natural or acquired disposition or capacity for a particular purpose, or tendency to a particular action or effect; as, oil has an aptitude to burn.
  
  Qualification:
  That which qualifies; any natural endowment, or any acquirement, which fits a person for a place, office, or employment, or which enables him to sustian any character with success; an enabling quality or circumstance; requisite capacity or possession
  
  From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
  
  In short... A man is skillful in any employment when he understands both its theory and its practice. A natural or acquired disposition or capacity for a particular purpose. Any natural endowment, or any acquirement, which fits a person for a place, office, or employment, or which enables him to sustain any character with success.
  
  A man is skillful in any employment when he understands both its theory and its practice:
  
  Music is not and cannot be restricted by Carnatic, Hindustani, Western Classical or Pop. You need to have a consummate knowledge and experience in all to be considered a master. Please, be honest and tell me if anyone apart from Ilayaraaja has conquered or, for arguments' sake, even explored all three ?
  
  A natural or acquired disposition or capacity for a particular purpose:
  
  For a change 'number' does matter ! For if not by sheer number how else can you determine a person's 'natural or acquired disposition or capacity for a particular purpose' ? If a person is able to do something repeatedly over a long duration of time, without 'burning out' or tiring and yet maintaining a consistent quality (here your neyar viruppam does play a minor part), surely he has an aptitude for whatever he is doing !
  
  Any natural endowment, or any acquirement, which fits a person for a place, office, or employment, or which enables him to sustain any character with success.
  
  He who does not have to play by ear, he who can score music purely with his mind is fit to be a music director. This man does not depend on a Korg keyboard to try out some pathetic tunes and then improvise upon them using special effects. His is a music that comes from far beyond the human ear. It comes from within the mind. This is the qualification that ARR does not have, that Deva does not have, that Sirpi, VidyaSaagar and others of their ilk don't have. Where MSV lost was probably skill. He was talented, but that much short of genius. MSV had an aptitude for music (I woudln't dare argue with those melodies !) and he
  was definitely qualified in the sense that he produced original, inspiring music. But he was more like an uncut gem. I was not talking of a B.E or M.E when I said qualification. But even by those standards a Gold Medal from the Trinity Music College would certainly help !
  Srinath
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks15d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Thu Jun 11 14:51:56 EDT 1998
  
  I am only trying to say that individual preference cannot really determine the quality of a MD. Therefore, the more efficient Md is the better Md. We could go on arguing as to who 'we' like better and still not reach an argument. But if we were to discuss as to who is the more efficient, then it definitely is IR. Yes, because he scored a Symphony, yes because he introduced Stereophonic recording in TFM, yes because scored music so quickly and definitely YES because he scored music for so many movies.
  
  
• From: Bharat (@ dsi.mids.com) on: Thu Jun 11 15:22:49 EDT 1998
  
  Srinath;
  
  Interesting argument. But i stand by my conviction that greatness in art is subjective. My problem is not in conceding that IR is great, which I've done many times in the past and will do so in the future, but in conceding that he's the "greatest".
  If quantity equals quality, fine, IR is the greatest. See, that's a precise definition (albeit someone's) of what is great. But saying he's the greatest of all Indian MDs, past present and future, is really beyond me.
  
  BTW, when I mentioned that your use of those terms was general, all I meant was that the criteria seemed general. I wasn't questioning whether you understood those terms :--)
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks13d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Thu Jun 11 15:38:34 EDT 1998
  
  If we could draw a curve as to which MD imroved the quality of TFM(or FM in general), it would undoubtedly be in IRs favour. What argument do you seek to up hold this view ? His use of chord patterns ? His unparalled bass scores ? The variety that he introduced in FM. His fidelity to ALL classical forms of music ? Give me one good area in which another MD has contributed more towards qualitative improvement of FM. That should be proof enough that he is the greatest of all time.
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks6d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Thu Jun 11 15:50:08 EDT 1998
  
  You said "I disagree that only the quality of output is required to judge a person -- only because, that "quality" (or lack thereof) is a determination made by humans, with all our conditioning and subjective tastes."
  Taste is subjective, I agree. But music has a definition. It has certain rules, it's own dogma. Those rules were not made arbitarily. They were installed with a purpose. Those very same rules may seem objective, but your very 'subjective' response to music is greatly governed by those rules. Rahman broke one with Chiku Buku Chiku Buku Rayile. The song was interesting, no doubt. But why do you think it failed to withstand the test of time ? He used a arrythmic 'rythmn'. But even that was a psuedo deviation. The song itself is sung to a regular beat. When you digress from those norms you can create something interesting, but not something that can always satisfy your tastes. The conditioning that you talk about is a direct result of objective principles of music. I hope I am not going to digress now :-)). But by those standards, IR scores far more than any other MD.
  
  
• From: Srinath (@ socks6d.raleigh.ibm.com) on: Thu Jun 11 16:02:25 EDT 1998
  
  Bharath:
  I left out counter-arguments to two of your othe points. Kindly forgive the broken responses :-)
  
  You said, "Whereas, each film of IR has not contributed to the betterment of TFM (before you start bashing me, please refer to earlier arguments about how many IR-albums are "crap")."
  
  and
  
  "It is impossible to make an objective analysis about any art. Try asking North Indians to evaluate IR's music, for instance."
  
  For the first pointmy answer is, YES, every (well, almost every) movie of Ilayaraaja has contributed to the betterment of TFM. You cannot have enough of his kind of class act. Which if IRs compositions (the hits please !) would you rather be without ? Which of those hits do you think was redundant because it didn't improve the quality of TFM ? I am not tlaking about 4000 songs improving the TFM scenario. But if you can consider atleast a fourth (1000 songs) as improvements to TFM, well it is TFM that can now boast of an additional 1000 songs that improve its average of good songs. Numbers do matter ! Would you rather have one good car or two good cars (and perhaps a dozen broken bicycles thrown in for good measure :-)!!!)?
  
  For the second point, do you want me to go and ask 'any' North Indian or would you prefer it if I asked Naushad, Anand-Milind, Hari Prasad Chaurasia et al ? For their opinion of IR, please browse through DF - no dearth there for info :-)
  Srinath
  
  
• From: Bharat (@ dsi.mids.com) on: Thu Jun 11 16:56:28 EDT 1998
  
  Srinath:
  
  " Taste is subjective, I agree. But music has a definition. It has certain rules, it's own dogma. "
  
  Agreed, but there exist different kinds of music, and am against using the same set of rules to "evaluate" proponents of each kind. Ears trained to, say, only Classical music will find it difficult (mind you, I say difficult, not impossible) to respond to something more loosely structured, say a jazz riff. The original "rules" of TFM were Carnatic-based. Then MSV came and made another set of "rules", with his mellisai (with elements of twist, cha-cha etc.).. Then IR came and made another set of "rules" with his western classical inflections. So if IR is recognized for his contribution, shouldn't MSV be too?
  
  About your statement "every (well, almost every) movie of Ilayaraaja has contributed to the betterment of TFM", please Srinath… even today, I blindly pick up any album of IR's on the shelves, but do not tell me that he does not recycle or that almost every movie of his is a milestone. I heard such rave reviews about his "Kaadhalukku Mariyaadhai", but found that the songs (IMO) were good, not great.
  
  Agreed that Naushad, and Hari Prasad Chaurasia et al have lavished praise on IR, but I wouldn't lay much emphasis on Anand-Milind :--).
  
  See, I grew up with IR's music, and most of the "rules" of TFM were laid down by his music so much so that I would not even attempt listening to other MD's music in Tamil. They sounded "different", their interludes didn't flow so well, their use of instruments was primitive - I had all these reasons and more.
  
  However, the real reason I was refusing to enjoy their music was because I was so strict about what I wanted my music to sound like. Now that I'm no longer so choosy, I find so many things innovative in others' music too. I am more careful today about ascribing adjectives like "greatest" loosely. Variety is really the spice of life, and music too.
  
  We could have a zillion technical discussions about chord progressions, bass scores etc., but sometimes that is not all that matters. An example from film: There is a '60s French film called L'Avventura, by Michelangelo Antoinioni, considered to be a classic, one of the most superbly-crafted films following all "rules" of cinema and then breaking some. Try to watch it. I couldn't. Not because I couldn't appreciate its mastery. But because that's all there was. It wanted to so impress your brain that it forgot to caress your heart.
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

Post comments