A Stagnant Music?

'Guitar' Prasanna, one of my favourite musicians, says in this interview, "Jazz is constantly evolving, while Carnatic music is static. That is the reason Carnatic music is in such a pathetic state today." He goes on to state that musicians do not express themselves anymore, and that there aren't enough Balamuralikrishnas and GNBs around.

Even though the term 'express oneself' is a bit vague, he was making a fair point, I thought at first glance. But, the more I think about it, the less convincing it seems. When tradition and history are crucial ingredients of an art form, they are the form's greatest strengths and weaknesses. While on the one hand, they give the art its mystifying depth, its breadth, its microscopic subtleties, and crucially, its distinct identity; on the other hand, these traditions define boundaries, they channel innovation within these boundaries, and most disgustingly, they scoff at perceived transgressions. Yet, these art forms evolve constantly - outside influences seep in, the atmosphere within which this art is enjoyed changes. It is the ones that fail to adapt and evolve that die out.

However, to claim that Carnatic Music is stagnant is a bit dubious. Even an untrained ear will be able to tell the difference in style between Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar, Madurai Mani Iyer and Semmangudi, and Sanjay Subramanian, TM Krishna and Vijay Siva. The 'older' music is much different from the 'new', even though the compositions, ragas and structures remain the same. Although we don't have recordings of an even older era, I'm quite confident that even they were very different from the Ariyakudi generation. As a friend put it recently, "Dude, did Tyagaraja do neraval at 'Veda Shastra Purana...'?"

Speaking of Ariyakudi, it is true that the innovator that he was, he brought in the concert system followed till today. It is now nearly a century old, and while the structure largely remains the same, it has remodelled itself to suit its newer environment. Most concerts today are shorter (to the extent that even top musicians are often seen performing one-and-a-half to two-hour concerts), raga explorations are more structured and in a sense, more to-the-point, ragam-tanam-pallavis aren't always the crowning item in a concert (some people even complain that it is dying out), kacheris are far more formal than they were. Bolder innovators question the logic of Ariyakudi's system. TM Krishna often doesn't sing a varnam to start his concerts, and on occasions is known to sing a varnam as the main piece. Sanjay Subrahmanyan explores a lot of Tamizh Isai in his concerts and accords it as much time and respect as he does to Sri Tyagaraja's compositions, he also often chooses lighter or even hitherto unexplored Hindustani ragas for lengthy elaboration (the last four concerts of his that I attended, I came across (in order) RTPs in Darbari Kanada, Jaunpuri, Patdeep and Chandrakauns). U. Srinivas engages in fun and frolic, octave-jumping, flashes of unimaginable speed, and odd combinations in traditional ragas that the earlier generation wouldn't have approved of.

Concert structure is only one example of change. In the kind of compositions presented, MS introduced Mira bhajans and all sorts of other compositions in various languages, the Marathi abhang is very common today - especially amongst the female singers, and contemporary composers' pieces are sung with greater frequency. Newer ragas have surfaced like Kadanaluthuhalam and Revathi, and older ones have changed or withered away. Many of us know that Khamas takes both nishaadas only after Mysore Vasudevacharya used it in 'Brochevarevarura'. Abheri has lost its original shuddha daivatha and only takes the chaturshruti daivatha. Mali often played the shuddha daivatha in Kanada, giving it that hint of Darbari Kanada. Kalyani and Pantuvarali are ever so often sung with more than just a few traces of their Hindustani counterparts. Bhairavi and Manji have merged into each other! I once went to a lecture demonstration (years ago, when I was too young to even understand it to any degree) where a senior musician demonstrated the Bhairavi varnam as it had been taught to her. Even though I hadn't learnt Bhairavi at that point, and only knew it by ear, I realised that it was a version of Bhairavi that had been lost to its more popular avatar.

Further, violin duos increasingly use harmonies and chords to give their music a more modern feel. Much of 'fusion' is actually just Carnatic ragas with chords laid beneath them (while this sounds like a simple scam to pull off, it is an innovation that people hadn't thought of for hundreds of years - Western Music has been in India since Dikshitar's time!). Shrutibedham wasn't accepted by many musicians of the previous generation. Almost everyone indulges in it now.

Again, I think, approval is what holds many musicians back when it comes to innovation. On the Carnatic concert stage, a certain discipline and decorum is expected of the musician. In other words, a conformism is expected, from both the audience and fellow musicians. Innovators are often branded as upstarts and not accorded the same sort of respect as the traditionals. Often, a 'right' to innovate is spoken of - a musician must be of a certain standard, must command a certain respect before he can compose his/her own pieces (let alone perform them in his/her own concert). Even Balamuralikrishna is often criticised for singing too many own compositions in his concerts! Yes, super-strict adherence to school and grammar has hindered many an idea.

Our music still evolves. Prasanna speaks of how jazz takes influences from all over the world, and how "there are people who bring in elements from I Ching and speech patterns in African dialects". Those are evolutions in the form that can be seen and percieved clearly. The evolution in Carnatic music isn't one that can be seen or described in nuggets. It is far more subtle. It is far slower. Two and a half centuries ago, when the Trinity dealt with this music, it was, in a form recognisable today, about a century old. It was easier then to get bring in outside influences, make pioneering changes to the form and structure. With more baggage, the art is harder to move. Still, it moves.

Much of Tamil film music was born out of Carnatic Music. Old film songs were in immediately recognisable ragas, and largely followed Carnatic structures. Today, the music takes influences from all over the world. Rahman uses Carnatic, Hindustani, folk, african rhythms, jazz, rock, pop, hip-hop, R-n-B with almost equal ease to create a sound that is still unmistakably Indian. Many Carnatic musicians experiment with music forms that are alien to them with varied results. Some create dodgy 'fusion', and others do succeed in creating their own unique sound.

But they don't do it on a Carnatic concert stage. That place still has some rules, and it will continue to do so. It is a Classical art form, and it comes with its traditions that must be respected. Traditions do change, but they take their time. However, to treat tradition as an ironbound box is a mistake. The box isn't as flexible as the newer one, but it can, it has been, and will continue to be shaped over time. But as long as the box survives, it will be made of the same raw material, and encompass the same core.
***