Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

Shankar-Ehsan-Loy !

Topic started by cosmician (@ 194.170.127.53) on Sun Jun 24 00:21:11 EDT 2001.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Shankar-Ehsan-Loy...maybe the only other MD with Bollywood roots also composing for TF....I was listening to their "Dil Chahta Hai"..except for the title track, all the other songs seem to meander around...but they are the only ones around in Bollywood who give a original techno touch to their music apart from ARR.

"Aalavandhaan" is their next big TF release...would like to hear your opinions on this trio.

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Anand (@ 192.19.194.27) on: Thu Sep 6 11:15:00 EDT 2001
  
  Nandini,
  Are you a chennaite?
  
  
• From: Fliflo (@ 146.186.113.254) on: Thu Sep 6 11:49:44 EDT 2001
  
  "I read somewhere people who learn abstract mathematics can see the world with a different set of eyes.They see patterns emerging around things which have been random."
  
  Trend! Would you care to go a little more on this...I am eager to know...
  
  
  
• From: Trend (@ 216.68.113.230) on: Thu Sep 6 12:34:07 EDT 2001
  
  Fliflo,
  
  Digression(this is a big one):
  
  I don't think I know anything substantial about it.But it makes me passionately curious.
  I was talking to this programmer(like me)about things in general and the conversation somehow steered towards relation between Programming and Mathematics.He said that he's been fascinated by their beautiful(something both artistic and scientific)relationship it can have if probed deeper(he said he's spending a lot of time trying to probe deeper).
  All this didn't make a lot of sense to me and I voiced my concern.He was trying to explain to a KinderGarten kid(me!) that in Object Oriented Programming when you design Objects you can achieve a higher level of abstraction if you are convinced of abstract theory.This conviction can come thro eihter by Mathematics and/or by logical thinking and analysis.
  
  Then I started trembling with fascination and also my lack of knowledge even though it didn't make sense to me.
  Since then,I've been trying to think about it.But nothing productive till date.:-)
  
  Sorry for boring you a lot.:)
  
  I think Nandini may have more ideas on this I would like to hear.
  Tell me what you think?
  
  
• From: genuine musician (@ 202.9.180.213) on: Thu Sep 6 12:42:19 EDT 2001
  
  Mr y,Stick to Maths and you will be better off.Explaining what genius is is a difficult task but what is easy is to say thet you are not.And Ehsaan was talking about Pachai Nirame and not the song u mentioned.Guys,a genuinely nice guy like Ehsaan comes along and you have morons who try to irritate him.I requet all sincere forumers to atleast respond to this unneccessary irritant and see that atleast these celebs are not heckled.
  
  
• From: Shashi (@ 137.197.72.212) on: Thu Sep 6 13:18:54 EDT 2001
  
  Hi everybody Just a few comments. Heard Alavandhan--and definitely very fresh unconventional sounding album. Kudos to every
  musician & composer in creating something that should not only is situation based but atleast tries to satisfy the peculiar tastes of Northern
  and Southern listeners.
  
  I would be happy to write a detailed review of this album but briefly for Srikanth's sake (whom I know from
  previous discussions; since he asked about usage of raga in this movie)--wonderful imagination in Raga Jog--for the title number. The
  briskness that is inherent in this raga has been used quite imaginatively. For carnatic fans--Naatai may be considered equivalent to Jog
  (although not truely) I did have one criticism based on the grammar for this title number--May be Ehsan or Nandini may be knowledgable
  to respond. It is this--the first line ie--Alavandhan... is ascending (pa, n2,S, G3,R3) and the second Alavandhan... is descending from R3.
  
  There is an unwritten grammar code in music composition, that it should reflect the meaning of the lyrics. Alavandhan should be ascending
  only! Why? Alavandhan should rise and rule not decend and fall! In the very first line the gradual fall of the G3 to R3, can be accepted as it
  does give an eerie almost a sense of incompleteness and suspense. The second Alavandhan must then IMO should atleast rise (?M1 or P)
  before resting in Sa. Other than this small highly technical criticism the rest of the song shines.
  
  Another comment for Ehsans
  sake--the first line P,N2,S,G3 , mirrors the line 'Paalirukkum... from the MSV/TKR classic Paalirukkum Pazhamirrukum Pasiirukaathu
  (What a great melody)--Incidently I had also composed a song along the very same lines(about 3yrs ago; some of my friends here and I
  think srikanth may have listenend to it too)
  These are just co-incidences and not copies.
  
  I would be happy to write a detailed review if
  requested.
  
  
• From: jay (@ 209.10.124.134) on: Thu Sep 6 13:27:31 EDT 2001
  
  Hello Ehsaan..
  You guys seem to use a lot of analog synths in
  your songs...thats a nice change. Is it the Z1?
  Who does the synth programming?
  I love "Koi Kahe" from Dil chahta hein..
  we drove down to Washington DC last weekend and we blasted the song quite a few times on the
  way....its got a great energy.
  Thanks!
  
  Jay.
  
  
• From: G MAURUTHI (@ 203.197.156.66) on: Thu Sep 6 13:29:00 EDT 2001
  
  I SAW SHANKAR MAHADEVAN TWO OR THREE WEEKS BEFORE WHEN HE CAME TO A SHOW CALLED AS DUMRA DUMM, IN COIMBATORE.
  
  BOY, HE DID PEP UP THE AUDIENCE. THE AUDIENCE WERE EVEN PREPARED TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT VASUNDHARA DAS DINT COME.
  
  BTW, VASUNDHARA DAS CAME THE WEEK BEFORE AND BOY, SHE HAD AN AMZAZING VOICE.
  
  
• From: srikanth (@ 12.5.10.130) on: Thu Sep 6 13:44:38 EDT 2001
  
  WOW,
  shashi is back G.Musician is back...
  how are you guys, welcome back been missing you :)
  
  g.maruthi, is your caps lock in your keyboard stuck or broken, typing in uppercase is considered as screaming here. A long time tradition.
  :)
  
  
• From: asdasdasdasd (@ 66.19.6.142) on: Thu Sep 6 14:01:14 EDT 2001
  
  Hi folks,
  Digression – another big one!
  I saw Nandini's comments and welcome it. However mention of Feynman and Ramanujan and mention of Chick, Miles and Steely Dan rather loosely, prompted me to put down my own feelings about the often confused term of 'genius'.
  Genius can take several forms and is very wide in its scope, however one definition (the simplest one) of genius that we all can immediately relate to is one of intuitive genius - a kind of genius which is unaided by anything except pure spontaneous bursts of complete creation which stands the test of time and rules and yet redefines them. Feynman, Ramanujan or Newton, however brilliantly well equipped they may be in their ‘craft’, are considered geniuses universally more for their intuitive (yet perfectly meriting serious mathematical analyses) outburst of absolutely magical revolutionary ideas. Similar examples in music (to me personally) could be Mozart, Beethoven, and numerous others. Mozart in particular, did not revisit/correct his works while composing, and yet came out with a level of perfection that’s astounding. Eg, Requeim (done in his death bed), last three symphonies (written in a few weeks). Beethoven wrote a huge amount of music stone deaf and yet stunning (last string quartets, symphonies). Take a case like Haydn (Mozart’s teacher) who was and is never considered a genius like Mozart, (although Haydn was/is regarded as a much more complete and accomplished composer than Mozart). One doesn’t have to even describe the genius of a tyagaraja or a Dikshitar to have come up with such eternal creations so spontaneously. Dikshitar’s works, for eg, are both intuitive and carefully planned but what sets him apart is the breadth, the mastery of the Vedas, tantra, etc and the fact that he composed about every deity in India by traveling to all those places (including Tripura) by foot.
  In Popular music, ‘genius’ has unfortunately been very loosely used. Most people who do something ‘interesting’ are considered geniuses. Steely Dan is an example of someone who have really transcended their idiom. However, as stunningly brilliant as they are, by the intuitive definition of genius, I would not call them that, since their music is too meticulously crafted over an expanse of time (and has corrected things over and over again) and has deliberately achieved an astounding level of perfection. If we take the case of someone like Illayaraja(I am bringing him in an objective way and please no IR/ARR debates on this), he fits the ‘intuitive genius’ category perfectly well – he dared to do things which are beyond cultivated craftsmen – casually bringing Bach-like canons, high degree of counterpoint and a completely original internalization of carnatic music, classical western music etc– to bring in the depth of the most daunting carnatic ragas against most precise western orchestration concepts- yet being ‘himself’ in such a popular mass musical context like tfm is very special. However, I would not ‘compare’ him to Tyagaraja/Dikshitar/Syama Sastri for various reasons. Well, I have expressed only my own (entirely debatable) feelings on genius.
  
  
• From: y ?? (@ 148.87.1.170) on: Thu Sep 6 14:23:46 EDT 2001
  
  Well, Nandhini,
  
  if you are around, firstly, thanks for sharing ur thoughts. Now, the unfortunate soul that talked about the big R and F was me. I don't think you got what I was saying. I was referring to them while asking Ehsaan about how he categorizes a musical 'genius'. My limited knowledge doesn't give me that freedom to brand someone as a genius and so I accept what knowledgeable people say. No ma'am, I never said, there can be no geniuses in music land.
  
  Actually, this sounds so funny though I can understand your excitement in being at a public forum and getting appreciated. Maybe you lost your control, that's fine with me. And using some $#@%^& was totally unwarranted. Do you think that makes u sound cool? I can bet anything that I can come up with more of these things than all the abstract math concepts that exist in your head. Doing abstract math in M.Sc is no sign of one's intelligence. Let me know if you have put some original papers or contributed anything to any subject that can be considered an advancement. We can then talk.
  
  Let's stick to your field of music here and I respect you as an artist. So,let's end it there.
  
  Good luck for your future endeavors and have a gr8 time.
  
  Thanks.
  
  
  
• From: Bharath (@ 192.25.158.12) on: Thu Sep 6 14:42:17 EDT 2001
  
  shashi,
  
  wud love to have an analysis from you! please post one when u have time. The "different"'ness of alavandhan, I have categorized it as something that wud be understood better in the movie. But if at an indivudual stand point it does mean something I would like to know about it.
  
  
• From: Bharath (@ 192.25.158.12) on: Thu Sep 6 14:55:38 EDT 2001
  
  asdasdasdasd (@ 66.19.6.142) ,
  
  what u ahve said is the common perception of genius. There is truth in what u say. but the perpective from which u view the facts is slight different (from that of mine and my fav. analysts)
  
  1) Genius is not a genetic lottery. That one is endowed with , by god or by the chromosomical luck or by a DNA trick.
  
  2) Subscribing to the fact that genius is inborn and people blessed with it have it since birth and people who dont! just dont is a very narrow view .
  
  3) the most taboo word when analyzing a genius is the use of the word "magic". because its the opposite of genius!. Magic denotes unexplainable or outlandish atrributes to a fact! genius is much more tangible than magic (however it is not tangible like the keyboard u tuch :) )
  
  4) Genius cannot be analyzed and defined in this forum. There is book called "emotional intelligence" which tries hard to analyze this issue in a big book. which IMO does well but only partiallY!
  
  5) IR, bach, beethovan, ramanujam wud feel very insulted if u dismiss their work as genius! thereby discrediting their hardwork! and attributing their success to god or DNA's charity.
  
  6) ramanujam breathed math. he was so familar with it that some steps that are intermediate to us wud be subconcious to him. that makes people like him see the world beyond what looks like a fuzzy ceiling to us.
  
  7) the direction of explaining genius should be more of weighing tangible attributes like, direction of interest, available reference sources, perseverance, stamina etc.. instead of the custmary though pathetic magic wand!
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

Post comments