Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

Why Double standards?

Topic started by Sundar (@ 203.197.144.217) on Mon Jun 18 06:01:24 EDT 2001.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

Why is that whenever ARR blantantly copies like "naadha vindhu kalaadi namonama" in his enveetu thottathil(gentleman)it is called inspiration. Whenever DEVA does something like suprabhatham in "garuda Garuda" it is called Copying.There are many more examples of ARR cutting pasting from Folk songs, old MSVR etc.,

Why this Double standard ? The highly acclaimed ARR is the one who really started doing this on a large scale.
why blame deva only.

Sundar

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: doubter (@ 208.142.210.30) on: Thu Jun 21 19:34:43 EDT 2001
  
  vijay
  
  'andhi maalai' was not THAT blatant. It was an intelligent copy of 'endharO mahAnu'. Something like 'nAdha vindhu' and 'en veettu thOttaththil'. So it could be ARR.
  
  
• From: Common Friend (@ 203.197.141.183) on: Fri Jun 22 13:03:25 EDT 2001
  
  "andhi malai" was done by ospechaan (some thing of such name) - a malayalam MD. He used ARR's name to market his cassette , or probaly the cassette company used ARR's name.
  
  Saravanan :
  I do not agree with you completely. For certain ragas its better to use it in its popular form.
  I think you would have heard an old song
  "kaadal kanirasame kandadhum....." , now I am not so sure with its raaga, but I have heard a CM keertanai "naadham tanumanusham...shankara" (not so sure with the line) based on the same raaga, sung by Dhandapani Desigar. I happend to listen to an old gramaphone. Now, tell be is "kaadal kanirasame" a copy?
  
  
• From: Common Friend (@ 203.197.141.183) on: Fri Jun 22 13:06:08 EDT 2001
  
  I am not a CM litrate. I love it but, I don't know how to talk in CM language. If anybody could understand what I have said earlier and say tha raaga of the song, I will be greatful.
  
  
• From: bm (@ 205.188.197.42) on: Fri Jun 22 16:38:00 EDT 2001
  
  CF..Naadha tanumanisham is in siddha ranjani..Is ariyaa paruvamamda also in the same raaga...can somebody help...?
  
  
• From: sundar (@ 202.9.162.139) on: Sat Jun 23 02:37:49 EDT 2001
  
  response to bm
  
  Siddha ranjani is actually 'karaharapriya' rendered in the madyama sthayee. SAma veda is also follows this pattern.
  and "ariya paruvamadah'" probably is siddha ranjani.
  
  
  
  
• From: sundar (@ 202.9.162.139) on: Sat Jun 23 02:38:11 EDT 2001
  
  response to bm
  
  Siddha ranjani is actually 'karaharapriya' rendered in the madyama sthayee. SAma veda also follows this pattern.
  and "ariya paruvamadah'" probably is siddha ranjani.
  
  
  
  
• From: sundar (@ 202.9.162.139) on: Sat Jun 23 02:38:24 EDT 2001
  
  response to bm
  
  Siddha ranjani is actually 'karaharapriya' rendered in the madyama sthayee. SAma veda also follows this pattern.
  and "ariya paruvamadah'" probably is siddha ranjani.
  
  
  
  
• From: rba (@ 209.219.209.68) on: Sat Jun 23 05:43:11 EDT 2001
  
  
  Guru guru thaan!! Sishyan sishyan thaan!! Comment about IR and ARR.
  
  See http://www.vikatan.com/av/2001/june/24062001/av0802.htm
  
  
• From: Common Friend (@ 203.197.141.179) on: Sat Jun 23 12:06:57 EDT 2001
  
  rajaG:
  >>>The similarity between "en veettu thOttaththil" and "naadha vindhu kalaa" doesn't stop with the senchurutti raagam. The swarams (notes) of the pallavi are virtually the same.
  
  If I am right, this perticular song contains three raagams. Of course, the start is Senchurutti. Then the first and seconn interludes are in Hamsadwani. The Charanams are in shankarabharanam. So, to say that it is a exact xerox of "Naadha vindhu" is absurd. As I said earlier, ARR said that the tune might be apt for an iyer family and because of the familiarity of the tune, he started the song with that tune. Then the song goes in its own path with other two raagam. I got this information from a program in TV by T.V. Gopalakrishnan, long back. I think , I remember the details well. Please, help me if I am wrong.
  
  
• From: rajaG (@ 152.163.194.179) on: Wed Jun 27 03:06:42 EDT 2001
  
  CF: The charaNam has a dhaivatha in the first line itself, so it is definitely NOT Hamsadhwani. Plus, I was talking only about the Pallavi NOT the charaNams being a note for note similarity.
  
  A smart operator like ARR dos not stupidly copy an entire song or just combine 2 songs (and get caught repeatedly like Deva and SAR. Any good composer, who has a few months to prepare, can work wonders once a basic template (copy) is given. If you are looking for 100% copied song from ARR, you will never get it. But to me, if the "key signature" to a song is identified from another, while I may give credit to the rest of the song (and the composer's creativity) it still stands as a copy. I trust my ears and analysis enough to differentiate between a copy and use of the same raaga.
  
  As I said earlier, further discussion on copy is better handled in the Copied Songs thread (please see old responses)
  
  
• From: Kupps (@ 156.153.255.134) on: Wed Jun 27 05:48:51 EDT 2001
  
  Digression
  
  rajaG your argument in "making of yen veettu thotaththil" made me to point out something similar in IR's case.
  
  in the film "yellam inba mayam(i think)" there is a song called maaman voodu machchi voodu its making is also in the same format as of making of "yen veetu". IR made this song from naadha venu gooOpala. But in this case, IR reveales that this is inspiration from naadha venu gooOpala song. In the film the scene will be set like that explicitly. In the kuppan a bhagavathar ghosti(or some thing like that) will be singing this song for Kamal's wedding celebration(a kuppam man). In that time Kamal will intervene and sing this maaman voodu song in dappanguththu style.
  
  Even the Bharathy song edhilum ingu iruppaanavan yaaro is a improvisation of Jai Shiva Shankar song (i think). IR reveals this by using the Jai Shiva Shankar song in the BGM part(while showing kasi) and then immediately followed by the edhilum ingu song.
  
  End Digression
  
  
• From: Common Friend (@ 203.197.141.187) on: Wed Jun 27 13:04:54 EDT 2001
  
  ragaG:
  >>>CF: The charaNam has a dhaivatha in the first line itself, so it is definitely NOT Hamsadhwani.
  
  I said Charanam in Shankarabaranam. not Hamsadhwani. Read my privious posting again. Don't ask me to explaint the details. I am a little more that zero in CM.
  
  
• From: rajaG (@ 208.24.179.207) on: Wed Jun 27 14:08:20 EDT 2001
  
  CF: oops! You mentioned interludes (music) NOT the charaNams. Cool!
  
  
• From: rajaG (@ 208.24.179.207) on: Wed Jun 27 14:08:36 EDT 2001
  
  CF: oops! You mentioned interludes (music) NOT the charaNams. Cool!
  
  
• From: Common Friend (@ 203.197.141.187) on: Thu Jun 28 12:56:59 EDT 2001
  
  rajaG:
  Let me make it clear. The music part that appears after the pallavi, anupallavi is in Hansadhwani. The charanam is in Shankarabaranam. Forgive this music illitrate.
  
  
• From: LV (@ 203.199.130.115) on: Sun Jul 8 02:36:31 EDT 2001
  
  Common Friend:
  
  Leave RajaG alone. Why spoil ur mood, dear friend?
  No matter how many evidences u give to support ur claim, RajaG will twist and turn them, adjusting commas cleverly indeed, and argue his way out. Else he'll say something like "we have to agree to disagree!".
  
  I was indeed a fool to have spent my precious time typing a whole list of songs to prove my point in some discussion. I sent it to him, and his pompous response was "we have to agree to disgaree". Moreover, though he is knowledgeable and has good exposure to music, he is just unwilling to accept that there are QUITE A FEW songs that prove his "opinions" wrong (Opinions, if he has them in the first place).
  
  Thats the real trouble with these people of the older generation. They feel they alone know everything, and that the rest are fools. And they also know how to completely ignore questions they cant answer, and then start rabblerousing or exaggerating trivial points and calling it "solid analysis".
  
  So just ignore him!!
  
  
  one more thing - these people are out to prove that IR > 10000 * all other MDs - which is clearly a stupid belief. So they are out to trash ARR
  
  
  
• From: a (@ 203.90.83.84) on: Tue Jul 10 11:38:01 EDT 2001
  
  a
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

---

Back to the Forum

Post comments