Music and Musicians

BY E. KRISHNA IYER, B.A., B.L.

(Advocate, Madras)

Standards in art, and in the appreciation of art, can seldom be expected to be uniform. There is a growing feeling among savants that South Indian Music has fallen from the high and standards of the classic art of the past. The unsatisfactory nature of the average training in the art, the modern exigencies of earning one's livelihood in the musical profession, the uninformed tastes and requirements of audiences, particularly in urban areas, lack of appreciably frank and helpful criticism of art and artists, absence of high ideals and want of effective and useful co-ordination of effort,–these are believed to be some of the many causes for the deterioration in standards.

On the other hand, a new enthusiasm for music is widespread in the land. A far greater number of people are now found to enjoy and take to it than in the past. Newer kinds of graces and styles, polish, and presentation are also observable in a few exponents of the art. From being merely a sole monopoly of the professionals, music has come to be practised by a large number of amateurs as well, among men and women. At any rate, in the average audiences of today, in a music hall, one may be sure of finding an appreciable number of music lovers of both sexes having some knowledge of the songs sung in a performance.

Whatever may be the divergence in the general viewpoints of past and present music, the effect of the change of patronage from discerning princes and patricians to the motley crowd of the streets is indelibly marked in the present-day growth and development of the art. The demand of the populace of varying tastes and degrees of understanding has brought in a corresponding supply. A wholly ignorant audience would ordinarily enjoy the pleasing aspect of sweet sounds and might be content to take the lead of the initiated on the scientific and technical features of the art. But considerable sections of the present-day music hall audiences, with their nibbling acquaintance with a good number of catchy songs, are not seldom found to crave more, and more for what they themselves are very familiar with, than for other things equally important. Among them, the man who sings a large number of pieces–preferably short ones–has perhaps a better and surer chance of wide popularity than others who may be able to expound their ragas, pallavi, and other scholarly features of the art in a profound or elaborate manner. On the whole, there is morehurry than the necessary leisure in the present-day music in general. Those who go in for impressive, elaborate, and leisurely rendering of ragas in particular, or compositions in slow time measures, are comparatively few. This, combined with the excessive development of tala accompaniments, has had no small influence in shifting the centre of interest from some of the essentials of good Karnatic music.

Of course, kritis and other pieces should in the nature of things form the mainstay of a South Indian musical concert. But even there the question of variety in ragas and talas, and in the authors of the pieces sung, and the quality of the same with reference to raga bhava, are as important as their numerical quantity. Karnatic music has been rich in its composers and compositions, and it is but natural that among them the great Tyagaraja and his lyrical treasures should tower above the rest. But one cannot afford to ignore or neglect the pieces of other good composers, and particularly those of Muthuswamy Dikshitar, Syama Sastri, Kshetraya, Arunachala Kavi, or Gopalakrishna Bharati.

The unique feature and glory of Karnatic music are to be found in its conception and beautifully classified system of ragas–pure sound melodies of rich variety, exquisitely pleasing to the ear and capable of rousing different moods and emotions without the aid of words of any language, though one may not believe in all the exaggerated and legendary notions of their magical effects. Classified and codified as they are with mathematical precision, there is ample scope for the play of one's personal genius, skill and imagination. A musician who has a mastery over ragas and raga bhava gives a more distinct and exquisite flavour to what he sings than one who is comparatively deficient in them. And yet, as a result of the excessive development of tala accompaniments, music has been driven to attune itself to the steel frame jathis of the rhythmic variety, to the detriment of ragas and raga bhava. The climax is reached when raga alapura itself is not infrequently found to be reduced almost to a sort of swarajathis though veiled in form.

The learning and exposition of compositions, swara and tala, are perhaps comparatively more mechanical and easier than those of ragas, which are somewhat elusive and require no small skill, imagination, patience, and other personal qualities. More than the latter, the former variety seems to suit easily the convenience and circumstances of the average professionals, with their struggle for life and desire to shoot up quickly into cheap fame, and with their need to satisfy the tastes of large sections of modern audiences for music of the galloping variety, particularly in pieces and swara sancharas. In the paucity of the natural grace of raga bhava, some of them seek to make their wares attractive by a sort of mechanical finish and polish. In short, they have got only the dry bones of tala swara and sahitya and well-nigh lost the flesh and blood of raga and raga bhava.

This naturally leads one to the question of tastes in musicians and music lovers, which is after all the chief determining factor in standards and appreciation of art. One cannot expect much of uniformity, steadiness or refinement in the many-headed multitude; nor can one blame them for it. Hence all the more is the responsibility for forming good tastes on the part of the musicians and the discerning among music lovers. The crowd will always follow what lead it is given, provided it is definite and strong. Tastes, in turn, depend not a little upon culture and character. The former gives the artist capacity to discern good from bad and the latter enables him to withstand or avoid any temptation to lower himself and his art to pander to the vitiated or moribund tastes of the gallery.

There is again the baffling paradox in voice qualities. It is a notorious fact that in South Indian music not much attention is being paid to selection and cultivation of voices as such. An apparently rich and gifted voice, pleasing as it is on its first onset, is really found to be so ill-trained not to display the necessary elements of good and well cultivated music. It is a mountain stream rushing through a narrow strip of coastland to waste its waters into the sea, without being harnessed to much useful purpose. Often you come across musicians of profound knowledge struggling with bad or indifferent voices, yet compelling your respect and admiration for their wonderful sadhana or practice and exposition of brilliant features of a highly-developed system of music. The uninitiated crowd–including many of the so-called educated gentry who cannot be pleased except by sweet sounds as such–would swear only by the music of the stage stars and slipshod amateurs with ravishing voices and bad or no technique and practice and would prevent by legislation if possible–the so-called scientific musicians of bad and indifferent voices from taking to vocal music. The pandits and prudes, of the contrary, can only be propitiated by musical gymnastics and acrobatics and would spurn mere sweetness as effeminate and fit only for the un-understanding plebeians. In the absence of a master-musician of the type of a Maha Vaidyanatha Iyer who was reputed to have combined in him most of the necessary, desirable, and highly appreciable qualities of voice and technique, practice and presentation, culture and good taste, such kinds of factions in tastes and appreciation are bound to exist. There is not much to choose between them. Nor can it be denied that much of the want of attractiveness in the average professional music of the present day is due to the obtrusively over-wrought technique, killing melody and grace, though laudable exceptions may be found here and there.

It is but natural that in the general dearth of good and well-trained voices among the platform musicians, and scared away by the excesses of dry acrobatics of the technical experts, the democracy of the music-loving public, as the real paying patrons of art, should run mad after sweet sounds as such, wherever they are found, irrespective of the quality of cultivated art. It may not be easy to convince the democracy that sweetness of natural music,–as that found in the voices of women, young boys and singing birds–very necessary and desirable as it is, cannot by itself and without the aid of developed technique and practice make a whole and true picture of a highly-refined and cultivated system of art like South Indian music. Gold ore or bar gold as such is good and valuable. Beat it and mould it into some shape as that of a casket, it becomes attractive. Give it a desirable size and proportion and smooth polish as well, it looks very pretty. Carve some designs on it, it appears beautiful. Set some rubies, diamonds, and other precious stones into it, it shines brilliant. Place it on a well-carved pedestal, it looks glorious. Both raw gold and the finished casket are valuable and will have a sure sale. But it is the latter that ought to be in greater demand and better priced. The trouble comes in only when the casket is made of tinsel, or over-carved with bizzare designs or ill polished, and when the raw gold is clumsily kept, unbeaten into any shape. So is the case with music, in its natural and cultivated forms. It is obvious that good music is to be sought for in a happy combination of natural music of sweet sounds and the refinement of technique, practice, and presentation.

When all is said, no highly-developed art can be understood and enjoyed or properly valued without some initiation into its technique and conventions, though everyone need not be an expert either in theory or practice. The Indian art is not as if it is slowly growing from a crude primitive stage, catching from here and there a tune or melody at random from every source, making something new out of it. There is undoubtedly room for new creations in it. But before one creates something new, one ha; to be acquainted with a large part of what already exists–or at least with its basic principles and principal features. Though the contribution of well meaning amateurs to art is not inconsiderable, there is perhaps not much room for that type of dilettante with slipshod or no technique in a system of art like Karnatic music. Want of understanding of even the bare elements of technique and principles of the art is no excuse either, for the lack of proper appreciation of the same.

Like literature, music too has got it styles. Technique, rigorous as it is, can never make it uniform or stereotyped. In a way it takes on a highly personal colour, according to the individuality of the singer. The same piece with set sangathis or musical phrases sounds differently in different artists; and much more so is the case with ragas, swara, pallavi, etc. A rose is best understood and enjoyed when it is seen, smelt,–and worn as a button-hole or on a tuft of hair. No amount of analysis of its petals and pollens can help to give a perfect picture of the flower. So is style in music. It is to be heard, understood, followed, and enjoyed. At best one can only give out some of the outstanding characteristics of an artist that make his art all his own and are fairly describable in words. Again, though each artist may have some individuality of his own, it is not all who have developed it into markedly appreciable styles. Perhaps a distinct and catchy style is mostly a freak of Nature and born with the artist, irrespective of any profundity or depth of knowledge or intensiveness in practice. A combination of many mediocre but necessary and desirable qualities, presented with just balance and proportion, often enslaves a listening audience much more than an extensive or even profound exposition of specialised aspects of the art. Once in a way, we may also come across a genius whose art, though essentially based on technique and conventions, yet transcends both.

There is again the problem of regional differences in music, i.e., the same system of music appearing in different modes in different regions separated by distance. Further,the effect of the growing contact of other systems of music on ours has to be taken into account. While violently different views as to the desirability or otherwise of imbibing some of the necessary features of other systems of music into ours are being held among artists and art-lovers, their influence on our music, particularly that of the North, is steadily and imperceptibly growing and making its mark on the art of some of our popular artists. After all, music in South India has been an ever-growing art through changing times and tastes, and how far the art of a later period can be confined and cramped within the theories and practices of a former one or of by-gone ages, is a highly debatable point. At the same time we have to draw the line where innovations and extraneous modernities strike against the very roots of the system itself and do not fit in happily and unobtrusively into it.

These are only some of the factors in general that have to be borne in mind in approaching the problem of styles and standards in music and appreciation of the same. If it is only a want of understanding of fundamental or essential requirements of art or the elements of its technique, the problem would not be very difficult, and it may not be impossible to bring some sort of uniformity in the means and methods of appreciation. But public opinion, constituted as it is among the present democracy, is not altogether free from unnecessary sentimentality and artificial factions and prejudices regarding art and artists. Not infrequently are these heightened when well-meaning and high placed public men are found to be airing views on things connected with art about which they are thoroughly and blissfully ignorant. It is not uncommon also that really appreciable points in the music of an artist are left unnoticed while mechanical and superficially spectacular rarities are applauded.

The situation is further complicated by letting loose on the public the good, bad and indifferent radio broadcasts and gramophone records of all and sundry and making confusion worse confounded in tastes and standards. Though, of late, honest and laudable attempts have been made by the manufacturers of mechanical music to bring out the art of leading and popular professionals, the craving of the masses for some kind of easily understandable music, not to speak of the moribund tastes of the vulgar part of the crowd, and the business exigencies of the trade in mechanical music, is making it extremely difficult if not impossible to wade through the apparent chaos for a proper understanding and appreciation of the art. Perhaps these are only passing phenomena in a newly created flood of popular enthusiasm for music. The flood that has overspread itself, may, in course of time pool down into deep waters. In a way, institutions like the Music Academy, Madras, the Rajah Annamalai College of Music, and the University of Madras, are doing something to utilise this enthusiasm and to bring some sort of order and light in what is apparently a chaotic field. Perhaps some good results have been achieved. But what has been done actually is nothing when compared to what has yet to be done.

In the nature of things and in such a state of affairs, criticisms in art are not likely to carry conviction in any universal manner. One may not look for much of appreciable help in that direction from the average professional experts who, constituted as they are with all sorts of interests and obsessions, cannot be expected to care for or properly and generously understand and estimate one another's art and much less speak out fairly and frankly about it. But music-lovers with a fair acquaintance with the technique and principles of the art cannot help thinking aloud on these matters. If some among them with breadth of outlook and balance of judgment happen to be free from obsessions and prejudices of any kind, and attempt to understand and give out their impressions of the art of some of our professional artists, they need offer no apology for the same and nobody need feel any hyper-sensitiveness about it.

Anyway, factions and favouritism, strong likes and dislikes, sentimentality and prejudices without much of a justification for the same are not likely to improve matters Perhaps there would be little room for these, if one were to proceed on the assumption that no artist is perfection in himself, and that each notable artist has something of his own to contribute to the art and its appreciation even in these days. A clear vision of the essentials of good art, combined with an open frame of mind, frankness and sympathy, may go a great way in helping music-lovers to appreciate our art and artists.