My sudden turnaround and decision to learn carnatic music nearly gave my parents whiplash. It's such an integral part of my life now!
I decided to write this after a small-ish Hindu festival thing a few days ago when, as is customary in most religious events, me and my mum were invited to sing a few lines. We did, and from the corner of my eye I noticed the fiancee of a family friend, not accustomed our ways, flinch a little. We aren't bad singers and my mum especially is actually very good. I'm ok as long as I have her as a security blanket to overcome my natural shyness around lots of strange people. Anyway, I found it quite interesting and it got me thinking on the differences between classical Indian music and the-rest-of-the-world-music.
I normally don't think too much about what I'm writing here, but this has made me scratch my beard a bit. It's awkward. First of all, though I may have learnt on-and-off for more than ten years, there are many people I know, much younger than me with much more talent and knowledge, so I don't know if I really have the authority to say much. Secondly, I'm not sure the disparities even could be captured in words. Language is limited and art is a subjectively lived experience, after all. Finally, there's the fact that my appreciation of music, like any other form of art, doesn't involve any complicated thought process. I just let it wash over me and if I like it, I simply... do.
So then what do I write about? Well there are a few points that jump out.
Carnatic music has to be understood deeply to be loved, you can't just wander into it and like it. It's technical and complicated in its metre, tonic, the system of ragas, etc. There are lots of rules and specificities that have to be strictly followed. Yet it's far from being mechanical and improvisation is a key factor, which is really quite an important point where it deviates from Western systems of music. Also, it relies much less on "sound", much more on melodious complexity and intricate nuances. If you don't understand this all carnatic music essentially sounds the same, and maybe, bad. What really warms me to itc is the fact that you can't dress it up with any frills or embellishments. It's honest.
I read this biography of Rukmini Devi a few years ago and there's this description by Yeats (da poet) of her bharatanatyam dance performance, but I think it's quite applicable to how I see carnatic music:
I decided to write this after a small-ish Hindu festival thing a few days ago when, as is customary in most religious events, me and my mum were invited to sing a few lines. We did, and from the corner of my eye I noticed the fiancee of a family friend, not accustomed our ways, flinch a little. We aren't bad singers and my mum especially is actually very good. I'm ok as long as I have her as a security blanket to overcome my natural shyness around lots of strange people. Anyway, I found it quite interesting and it got me thinking on the differences between classical Indian music and the-rest-of-the-world-music.
I normally don't think too much about what I'm writing here, but this has made me scratch my beard a bit. It's awkward. First of all, though I may have learnt on-and-off for more than ten years, there are many people I know, much younger than me with much more talent and knowledge, so I don't know if I really have the authority to say much. Secondly, I'm not sure the disparities even could be captured in words. Language is limited and art is a subjectively lived experience, after all. Finally, there's the fact that my appreciation of music, like any other form of art, doesn't involve any complicated thought process. I just let it wash over me and if I like it, I simply... do.
So then what do I write about? Well there are a few points that jump out.
Carnatic music has to be understood deeply to be loved, you can't just wander into it and like it. It's technical and complicated in its metre, tonic, the system of ragas, etc. There are lots of rules and specificities that have to be strictly followed. Yet it's far from being mechanical and improvisation is a key factor, which is really quite an important point where it deviates from Western systems of music. Also, it relies much less on "sound", much more on melodious complexity and intricate nuances. If you don't understand this all carnatic music essentially sounds the same, and maybe, bad. What really warms me to itc is the fact that you can't dress it up with any frills or embellishments. It's honest.
I read this biography of Rukmini Devi a few years ago and there's this description by Yeats (da poet) of her bharatanatyam dance performance, but I think it's quite applicable to how I see carnatic music:
"The sheer beauty in human rhythm lifted me to a state of aesthetic bliss. The theatre was filled with a presence rather than a personality. Here there was no pandering to sensation or sentiment. Here was a call away from the half-Gods of mundanity to the celestial realm in which one becomes a partner in the divinity that shapes not only our ends but the creative beginning of things."Whewww, not sure what he's on about in the last part but his statement regarding "a presence rather than a personality" really struck me. Here's the thing: on one hand, the vocalist is at the crux of the performance, but on the other, there's something to it all that completely transcends him/her.
This is all making me sound like a huge classical Indian music nerd but sadly, I'm really not. I never practice between lessons and would probably sooner listen to... you know, whatever I listen to on spotify.
