99th Annual Conference of The Music Academy - Day 10

 

The first lecture of the day was by Vidwan Ravi Rajagopalan on “The chronology of Muthuswami Dikshitar’s biographies.”

Hagiography and blatant falsehoods often pass into history. I am currently reading a book titled Fake History, which takes ten stories widely accepted as historical fact today and carefully dismantles the myths around them. These are stories from the western world, where record keeping has generally been more rigorous than in India. While we have stone inscriptions from a thousand years ago that give us precise details of donors involved in the construction of the Big Temple in Thanjavur, our more recent history is often lost, distorted, or repainted without hesitation. The tendency to canonize people we admire does little to help the preservation of historical truth.

The question of who Muthuswami Dikshitar really was clearly requires serious reexamination. Layers of dust need to be cleared, cobwebs removed, and coats of paint peeled away before we can begin to glimpse the person behind the stories.

Unfortunately, we are not even certain of his year of birth, even as we observe 2025 as his 250th birth anniversary. In an earlier article, I had mentioned his birth year as 1776, based on some reading I had done. I later corrected this to 1775, which is widely believed to be the year of his birth. Today’s lecture brought this question back into focus. Was he born in 1775 or in March 1776? The simple and honest answer is that we do not know.

Was he a performing musician? Did he play the veena? Was he showered with gold? Did he have a daughter? Did he actually travel to all the places he sang about? Did the royal elephant of Ettayapuram run amok before his death? Did he compose all the works attributed to him today? The answer to all these questions, and many more, is the same. We do not know.

What struck me deeply was that even arriving at this admission of uncertainty requires enormous scholarly effort. That was precisely what Ravi Rajagopalan brought to us through this lecture. He has painstakingly compiled available writings on Dikshitar, attempted to collate and correlate the information they contain, flagged possible fabrications, and presented a carefully reasoned account of what we do not know. I mean this entirely as a compliment. The word dispassionate was used by several people to describe the lecture. But I believe it takes immense passion to be that dispassionate. I was glad Shriram acknowledged this in his concluding remarks.

Ravi Rajagopalan sought to present Dikshitar the man, not Dikshitar the myth. Romantic notions such as him spontaneously producing lyrics after eating a sugar candy diminish his genius and deny the rigor of his intellectual and creative labor. Recognizing him as a human being who lived a normal life and yet produced such monumental artistic work only deepens our appreciation of his legacy.

This was stellar work in separating fact from fiction. The post lecture interaction raised several thought provoking questions, and Shriram, as always, handled the summing up with admirable diplomacy. I have deliberately avoided discussing specific details from either the lecture or the discussion here. This is one presentation that deserves to be listened to in full.

For me, it was heartening to see that a space exists where such questions can be examined with scholarly rigor, without inviting hostility. In my experience, this is not always the case in other public forums, particularly on social media. I thank everyone involved for creating and sustaining that safe space, and for participating in an enlightening and necessary discussion.

The second lecture of the day was on “The Veena tradition of Muthuswami Dikshitar” by Vidwan J.T. Jeyaraaj Krishnan and Vidushi Jaysri Jeyaraaj Krishnan. They are also the recipients of the TTK Award for this year. They trace their lineage to Muthuswami Dikshitar through tutelage and have performed widely as a vainika duo.

They played the veena, sang, and explained how Dikshitar’s compositions are particularly well suited to the veena. Dikshitar, of course, referred to himself as a vainika even before identifying himself as a gayaka. The first aspect they highlighted was the use of gamakams that are naturally suited to the veena. To illustrate this, they chose the composition Jambupathe in Yamuna Kalyani, an apt and evocative choice. The handling of gamakams in Purnachandrika once again demonstrated Dikshitar’s brilliance.

The manner in which both of them sang and played emphasized the importance of a deep understanding of sahityam, even for instrumentalists. The Ramakali they presented was strikingly different from the version I am accustomed to hearing and offered a fresh perspective on the raga.

They then demonstrated the difference between Kalyani and Yamuna Kalyani through the usage of kampitam. Subramanyena Rakshitoham was chosen to explain Spuritam. Arabhi, Sahana, Kannada, and Ananda Bhairavi flowed seamlessly from their veenas as they elaborated on various gamakams and plucking techniques.

The lecture concluded with an explanation of Tribinnam, a gamakam unique to the veena, where two or more strings are played simultaneously. The nottuswaram Varasivabalam was used to illustrate this technique.

It was difficult to believe that it was merely a coincidence that this lecture demonstration took place on the same day as the earlier lecture that raised questions about Dikshitar as a vainika. The manner in which these gamakams are embedded in his compositions clearly establishes him as a veena player, as Shriram noted in his concluding remarks.

99th Annual Conference of The Music Academy - Day 08 and 09

 

The second lecture of Day 08 was by Dr. Nanditha Ravi on “Sanskrit compositions in the Muthuswami Dikshitar disciple lineage.” She began by outlining the family tree of Dikshitar, the Maharajahs of Ettayapuram, and the wide network of his disciples, who hailed from different parts of present day Tamil Nadu and were accomplished in multiple art forms. Kallidaikurichi Vedanta Bhagavathar was among the earliest disciples mentioned. From this larger group, Dr. Nanditha chose to focus on those composers who wrote Sanskrit compositions, consciously following in Dikshitar’s footsteps.

Dr. Nanditha proposed an interesting hypothesis that each of these composers appears to have taken up one particular dimension of Dikshitar’s multifaceted genius as an area of specialization. This observation itself speaks volumes about the sheer breadth of Dikshitar’s creativity. The Muthuswami Dikshitar Shishya Parampara has largely adhered to the path laid down by the composer by restricting themselves to devotional compositions, incorporating mythological narratives and kshetra kritis. They have also retained Dikshitar’s distinctive prasa style and continued to compose in ragams closely associated with him. At the same time, Dr. Nanditha pointed out certain inconsistencies within this lineage. These various aspects were illustrated through her own singing as well as through recordings of other musicians.

The second lecture of Day 09 was presented by Sangita Kala Acharya Rama Ravi on “Pathanthara variations in Muthuswami Dikshitar’s kritis.” She was assisted by her daughter, Dr. Nanditha Ravi, who had delivered the previous lecture. Rama Ravi began by defining what constitutes a parampara or discipleship and how, over time, this evolves into a sampradaya or tradition. This evolution, she emphasized, does not imply stagnation. On the contrary, it is a process of continuous refinement. From this emerges what is termed a bani or style. Even within the same school, there are stylistic differences, whether in lyrics, melodic treatment, tempo, or the usage of particular phrases. This formed the central theme of the lecture.

Examples were provided for each of these categories, clearly demonstrating how the same composition is rendered differently across schools. Multiple kritis were presented, and the variations ranged from quite pronounced to extremely subtle. This was one lecture where listening carefully was essential to fully appreciate the distinctions. It was particularly interesting to note that differences existed even between Brindamma and T. Viswanathan, who belonged to the same family lineage.

In his summing up, Shriram very aptly observed that while these differences across schools are real and significant, the core elements of the compositions are retained by all. He supported this point with examples from his own experience, reinforcing the idea that diversity of interpretation coexists with fidelity to tradition.

99th Annual Conference of The Music Academy - Day 09

Vidwan G. Ravikiran and Dr. Madhusudhanan Kalaichelvan are a formidable duo. Ravi is a dear friend and a senior student of Sangita Kalanidhi T. M. Krishna. He is a brilliant musician, deeply rooted in the Carnatic tradition. As someone passionately invested in the legacy of Dikshitar, he founded Guruguhaamrta, a trust dedicated to increasing awareness of Dikshitar’s rich musical heritage.

Dr. Madhusudhanan Kalaichelvan is a gifted storyteller and a keen student of history and heritage. I have listened to many of his discourses and am an admirer of both his scholarship and his oratory skills. I am currently following his lecture series on Thiruvachakam.

Together, they have partnered to bring to life the details embedded in Dikshitar’s compositions on various temples, with Ravi rendering the compositions and Madhusudhanan providing the historical and cultural commentary. This program, titled Dikshita Kshetra Darshanam, is available on the Guruguhaamrta YouTube channel and is a must watch.

When I saw that this pair was scheduled to present a lecture demonstration, I had marked it as a not to be missed event. They delivered the first lecture of the day titled, “Tiruvarur temple traditions as seen in Muthuswami Dikshitar’s Tyagesa kritis.”

Setting the context, Ravi explained that there are fifteen kirtanams, as per the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini, in which Dikshitar makes reference to Tyagaraja. In four of these compositions, there are explicit mentions of temple traditions, which formed the core of this presentation. In addition to these four, they also included one composition that falls outside the SSP.

The first tradition discussed was Ajapa Natanam. Ravi pointed out the references to this dance form in Dikshitar’s compositions, particularly in the Gowlai kriti Tyagaraja Palayashumam, while Madhusudhanan elaborated on the significance of the dance itself. The details he shared about this tradition were truly breathtaking, quite literally.

The second tradition explored was the Yaga Shala Utsavam, which finds mention in Tyagarajena Samrakshitoham set in Salaga Bhairavi.

The third composition, Sri Tyagarajasya Bhakto Bhavami in Rudrapriya, refers to Sayarakshai, Rudra Ganika Natanam, and Suddha Maddala Vadhyam. Although this kriti does not appear in the SSP, it is widely accepted as a composition of Dikshitar. Madhusudhanan explained the continuing importance of the evening worship at the Tiruvarur temple and why Dikshitar’s reference to it is particularly significant. He also spoke about the traditions of the Rudra Kanikas, drawing connections to inscriptions found in the Big Temple at Thanjavur.

Next came the Sri raga composition Tyagaraja Mahadhvajaroha. Ravi highlighted some unique aspects of Dikshitar’s use of this raga, and the song itself was examined in great detail. The insights into temple traditions embedded in the lyrics were brought out beautifully. The three groups of traditions, along with their preceding rituals, are skillfully distributed across the pallavi, anupallavi, and charanam. This kind of thoughtful structuring is quintessentially Dikshitar. 

Madhusudhanan then explained how this kriti served as documentary evidence for a particular temple tradition that had been discontinued and later reinstated. If that tradition continues today, Dikshitar deserves a measure of credit for preserving its details through his composition.

There was so much more to be said that time ran out, and V. Sriram was forced to assume his unfortunate role as timekeeper. I can only hope that a “Not Limited by Time” version of this lecture will materialize someday, allowing these two scholars the space to fully explore the traditions of the Tiruvarur temple, a sentiment Shriram shared in his summing up.

99th Annual Conference of The Music Academy - Day 08

After a few decades of listening to Karnatik music, I am gradually getting better at appreciating nuances while a song is sung or played on the violin. I have shared a few aha moments with people who possess far deeper knowledge than I do. However, when it comes to talam and layam, I am very much like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights. I simply freeze.

I was therefore petrified to listen to Vidwan K. Arun Prakash speak on “Laya intricacies in the compositions of Muthuswami Dikshitar.” I have heard Arun speak about layam on several occasions before, and although I probably do not grasp ninety percent of what he presents, it has always been a pleasure to listen to him. Those prior experiences gave me the courage to listen to this lecture. Arun was accompanied by Vignesh Ishwar and Madan Mohan, in a reversal of roles from the traditional concert format.

I am going to begin at the very end of the lecture demonstration. Vignesh rendered a soulful and deeply emotional “Jambupathe,” and Arun’s accompaniment on the mridangam was outstanding. This composition is an all time favorite of mine. I do not understand the technical details, but I strongly connect with the emotion embedded in the song. We all know that this is one of the Pancha Bhoota kritis, set in Yamuna Kalyani, composed on Lord Shiva at Tiruvanaikkaval, where he manifests as the element of water. The lyrics highlight this element in myriad ways.

To me, the song flows like a river, beginning as a gentle gurgling stream, then moving majestically forward, roaring into a waterfall, and finally meandering into a state of calm. Arun’s mridangam accompaniment brought out the emotion at every stage of this journey, often enhancing the mood through the thoughtful use of silence. At the request of T. M. Krishna, Arun then played an alternate accompaniment version for the same song. While that version sounded sweet, it did not come anywhere close, for me, to the impact of the first rendition.

That piece, along with “Maye Tvam Yahi” in Tarangini, stood out among all the compositions presented during the lecture. For Vignesh and Madan Mohan, this was clearly a test in front of a large and discerning audience. Rendering a charanam from one composition and swarams from another, while navigating contrasting kalapramanams and structural frameworks, is no easy task. They rose to the occasion and performed with great confidence and poise.

Arun explained how Dikshitar began innovating as early as the second line of his very first composition, thereby setting himself on a path marked by creative twists and turns. He emphasized the importance of accompanists having a deep understanding of the composition so that they can internalize Dikshitar’s vision and reflect it faithfully in their performance. Through selected examples, he brought out the various mathematical permutations, combinations, and intelligent innovations employed by Dikshitar. The sheer number of times he uttered, “Oh my God!” showed how much he revels in the brilliance of Dikshitar. 

I have had the opportunity to listen in on conversations among T. M. Krishna, Shriram Kumar, and Arun on a few occasions, and the post presentation interaction felt very much like those informal exchanges, simply unfolding in public view. Shriram Kumar offered a concise lecture demonstration of his own while summing up the session.

If this summary reads like it was written by a fanboy of K. Arun Prakash, that is because it is entirely true.

99th Annual Conference of The Music Academy - Day 07

The first lecture of the day was titled “Compositions on Muthuswami Dikshitar” and was presented by Vidushi Shyamala Venkateswaran along with her disciples. Vidushi Shyamala Venkateswaran is one of the two Sangita Kala Acharyas for this year. In his introduction, V. Sriram observed that while there is an enormous body of compositions dedicated to Sri Tyagaraja, the corpus of songs composed on Dikshitar is comparatively smaller. A carefully chosen selection from that corpus formed the scope of this lecture.

The compositions discussed were created by Dikshitar’s disciples and musical descendants, including members of the Tanjore Quartet, Mysore Vasudevachar, Kotiswara Iyer, Dr. V. Raghavan, M. D. Ramanathan, and Dr. Balamuralikrishna. The Tanjore Quartet composed a set of nine songs, with the first one aptly set in Mayamalavagowla. It was clearly explained how this composition, “Maya Theertha Swaroopini,” followed the template established by Dikshitar and mirrored the structural framework of his Mayamalavagowla composition, “Sri Nathadi Guruguho.”

The lecture then moved on to the remaining compositions in this set, which were composed in the ragas Binnashadjam, Kambhoji, Sailadekshakshi, Varali, Pantuvarali, Ramapriya, Purvikalyani, and Shanmukhapriya. A few of these pieces were rendered by Vidushi Shyamala’s disciples, while she provided insightful commentary on their salient features.

This was followed by a ragamalika composed by Sangita Kalanidhi Mysore Vasudevachar. Set in six ragas, the composition offers a musical portrayal of Dikshitar’s life. Next came a composition in Devamanohari by Kotiswara Iyer. To mark the 200th birth anniversary of Dikshitar, M. D. Ramanathan composed a ragamalika viruttam describing Dikshitar’s qualities as a composer. The penultimate piece presented was a composition by Dr. Balamuralikrishna in the raga Sucharita. The lecture concluded with a verse composed by Dr. V. Raghavan.

One distinctive feature of Dikshitar’s compositional style is the format he adopted, which differs from the more common pallavi, anupallavi, and multiple charanams structure. Instead, many of his compositions follow a pallavi, anupallavi, and swaram format. The second lecture of the day focused on this aspect of his work. Sangita Kala Acharya Dr. R. S. Jayalakshmi presented a lecture titled “Chittaswarams for Muthuswami Dikshitar’s Compositions in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini.”

The swarams discussed in this lecture are variously referred to as muktayi swarams or chitta swarams. Later in the presentation, there was also a reference to compositions containing two swaram sections, one identified as a muktayi swaram and the other simply as a swaram.

Dr. Jayalakshmi began with a discussion on swara graham, a topic that was somewhat beyond my comprehension. I suspect this section would have been particularly engaging for students of music and listeners with more advanced training. Once again, Dikshitar’s fondness for wordplay came to the fore through an exploration of the palindromic swarams found in the selected compositions.

A comparison of the various available sources highlighted how challenging it is to determine what constituted the original composition, what may have been added later, and what could possibly be the result of errors during documentation. There was also a discussion on why certain compositions in specific ragas do not contain swaram passages.

I found it particularly interesting to learn that Dikshitar also tuned compositions written by others, in addition to composing his own. One such example discussed was a song by the Ettayapuram Maharaja, which Dikshitar set to the raga Atana.

The post presentation discussion continued along similar lines, examining original compositions, later additions, and subsequent modifications. The fact that the discussion lasted nearly as long as the presentation itself was a clear indication of the audience’s deep engagement and passion for the subject.

99th Annual Conference of The Music Academy - Day 06

Tyagaraja and Dikshitar followed different systems when it came to raga classification. Tyagaraja adhered to the melakarta scheme proposed by Govinda, while Dikshitar remained steadfast to the raganga raga system put forth by Muddu Venkatamakhi. Both systems share certain commonalities, have areas of overlap, and also possess very distinct features. Unsurprisingly, the compositions of these two doyens differ widely. They are structurally different, with one foregrounding emotional expression and the other embodying scholarship and a sense of mystique. Both of them have composed in the same ragas, in ragas that share a name yet differ substantially, and in different ragas that share characteristic phrases.

Comparing and contrasting the two has always been an exercise rich in intrigue. It was therefore no surprise that the first lecture of the day, titled “A Comparative Study of Ragas as Handled by Tyagaraja and Dikshitar,” presented by Vidushi Amritha Murali, was one I was especially keen to listen to.

Amritha began by selecting three pairs of ragas to establish the differences between the two systems: Vegavahini and Chakravaham, Kokilaravam and Kokilapriya, and Tarangini and Charukesi. She demonstrated that even when the swaras are identical, the approach and treatment are so different that one cannot mistake one school for the other. As a lay listener, I must admit that I am more partial to the twists and turns of Dikshitar than to the more linear approach often associated with Tyagaraja. Ada Modi Galade, sweet as it sounds, takes second place to the more beguiling Maye Tvam Yahi in my personal playlist.

In another dimension, it is interesting to note that Dikshitar, remaining true to his chosen system, did not compose in Kharaharapriya or Harikambhoji, while Tyagaraja did compose in Sri raga and Kedaragaula. Even in these shared ragas, however, there is a clear difference in his approach when compared to Dikshitar’s handling. Amritha explained these distinctions beautifully and illustrated them by singing carefully chosen phrases. 

Dikshitar, for his part, was clearly aware of the alternate system, as evidenced by his subtle acknowledgments of it within his compositions. A well known example is the use of the phrase Nata Bhairavi in his Reetigowlai composition Sri Neelotpala Nayike. Amritha discussed this raga in detail, bringing out Dikshitar’s distinctive phrases in all their richness.

She then turned her attention to the so-called gana ragas, such as Shankarabharanam, Todi, Kambhoji, and Kalyani, which are frequently heard on the concert platform. Even here, the approaches of Tyagaraja and Dikshitar diverge significantly. As listeners, we are the beneficiaries of these contrasting visions, for they have left behind a corpus that is unlikely to ever be equaled.

Saraswati Manohari, Devakriya, Shuddha Saveri, Kalavati, Narayani, Manohari, Kaapi, and Hindolam were among the other ragas that Amritha chose to discuss and illustrate through her singing. Ananda Bhairavi, Sahana, Salaga Bhairavi, Gangatarangini, Gangeyabhushani, Bhogachayanata, and Vagadeeshwari were mentioned briefly, constrained only by the limits of time. Forty five minutes simply is not enough to do justice to this topic. 

Shriram was visibly proud of his student’s presentation, and rightly so. That the hall was full and overflowing stood as testimony to the enduring appeal of the two great composers, the richness of the topic, the excellence of the presenter, and the quality of the lecture itself. This was undoubtedly one of the finest lectures of this year’s series thus far. Kudos to Amritha! 

Born in Tiruvarur, Dikshitar’s journey took him to Varanasi, Kanchipuram, Chidambaram, Tiruchirappalli, and several other places, many of which are renowned for their Shiva temples. The second lecture of the day was titled “Iconographic Representations of Lord Shiva in Muthuswami Dikshitar’s Kritis” and was presented by Dr. Chithra Madhavan and Dr. Gayathri Girish. I have listened to many lectures on history and temple architecture by Dr. Chithra in the past, so I was looking forward to what I expected would be a grand tour of the temples that Dikshitar had sung about.

Dr. Chithra began with an overview of the various forms of Shiva and explained their shared iconographic features, starting with Somaskanda. Some of the images of Chola era bronzes that she showed were breathtaking. The Pallava period sculptures at Mamallapuram, which predate the Cholas, stand as evidence of the antiquity of the tradition of depicting Shiva and Parvati together with their son Skanda.

The first Dikshitar composition taken up for discussion was on the Ekambaranathar temple in Kanchipuram, where both the Prithvi Lingam and the Somaskanda panel are referenced. Another composition featuring Somaskanda, unsurprisingly, is associated with the Tiruvarur temple. Dr. Gayathri sang portions from both kritis, highlighting the specific iconographic details described in the lyrics. Dr. Chithra explained that the absence of Ganesha in these depictions is due to the fact that the earliest image of Ganesha from Vatapi dates to a later period than these sculptures.

The next form discussed was Nataraja, and naturally, the discussion began with Chidambaram. Dr. Chithra’s explanations brought to light Dikshitar’s keen powers of observation, even in compositions that I have heard many times before. I found myself wondering how Dikshitar noticed such minute details and wove them so seamlessly into his compositions. With Dr. Chithra’s narration, the Chola bronzes seemed to come alive. I was left in awe of the richness of our cultural heritage, and at the same time felt a sense of loss at how much of it has faded over time. Ananda Natana Prakasam and Chitambara Nataraja Murthim were the two compositions that Dr. Gayathri used to illustrate the iconography as described by Dikshitar.

The third form taken up was Dakshinamurti. The discussion on the banyan tree without aerial roots and the image of Veenadhara Dakshinamurti revealed how deeply and thoughtfully art was pursued in those times. The compositions chosen for this form were Sri Dakshinamurthim in raga Phenadyuti and Dakshinamurthe in Shankarabharanam.

Given the time constraints, only these three forms could be discussed, though it was clear that this was merely the tip of the iceberg. The intersection of visual art and music opens up an entirely new way of appreciating both disciplines. If Shriram was proud of his student after the first lecture of the day, he was equally proud of Dr. Chithra, who had been his school classmate. He added further insights into some of the subtle details that Dikshitar had embedded in the compositions discussed.

Several lectures by V. Sriram on related topics had prepared me well to appreciate this session more deeply, and I owe him credit for that foundation. By the end, one is left astonished by the artistic achievements of the Pallavas and the Cholas, and by the sheer brilliance of Dikshitar.

Two exceptional lectures made the day memorable, and I am grateful to everyone involved for sharing their knowledge.

99th Annual Conference of The Music Academy - Day 05

The first lecture of the day was delivered by the noted violinist Dr. R. Hemalatha. The topic of her presentation was “Vivadi Ragas as Handled by Muthuswami Dikshitar.”

Dr. Hemalatha began by defining what vivadi ragams are. Out of the seventy-two mela raganga ragas, forty are classified as vivadi ragams. She explained that the primary difference between the raganga raga scheme and the melakarta scheme is that, in the former, all seven notes need not be present in both the arohana and avarohana. It is sufficient if all seven notes appear somewhere within the scale of the raga. One interesting point she highlighted was that there are no kirtanams in the janya ragams derived from vivadi raganga ragams.

She structured her lecture into four broad sections: the structure of compositions in vivadi ragams, the characteristic phrases employed by Dikshitar, other distinctive features, and kirtanams found in publications beyond the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini. Dr. Hemalatha noted that around forty kirtanams are available in the ragams included within the scope of her lecture. Of these, five follow the pallavi, anupallavi, and charanam structure, while the remaining compositions use only the pallavi and anupallavi format with swarams, with one notable exception.

Dr. Hemalatha is an erudite scholar, and her deep musical insight combined with her vocal ability made the lecture especially engaging. She illustrated her analytical points by singing the relevant passages, which greatly enhanced the listening experience. While the technical depth of the lecture was beyond my full comprehension, as I had anticipated from the title itself, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It offered me a glimpse into the remarkable compositional mastery of Dikshitar.

The second lecture was one that I had been eagerly anticipating. Titled “The Nottusvarams of Muthuswāmi Dikshitar,” it was presented by Vidwan Anil Srinivasan, Vidwan Sikkil Gurucharan, and Vidwan Sayee Rakshith.

Nottusvarams are a joy to listen to and stand as evidence of yet another facet of Dikshitar’s compositional genius. Just last month, Sangita Kalanidhi T. M. Krishna released around twenty-five nottusvarams that he had rendered along with schoolchildren on his YouTube channel, which had already heightened my interest in this topic.

There are several narratives surrounding the origin of the nottusvarams. What is reasonably well established is that Dikshitar was exposed to European folk music through British military bands, and that these encounters influenced the creation of these compositions. As with many aspects of Dikshitar’s oeuvre, questions regarding how many nottusvarams he composed and how many were later attributed to him remain subjects of debate.

I found it particularly fascinating to listen to the original Western tunes alongside Dikshitar’s adaptations. The trio played both versions and explained how Dikshitar transformed melodies meant for social gatherings into structured compositions of enduring value. During the discussion on melodic structure, they spoke about the concept of an endless loop and demonstrated how multiple nottusvarams can be sung seamlessly, one after the other. While they described this as an accidental discovery, I have previously heard T. M. Krishna render three or four nottusvarams consecutively in concerts, making them feel like parts of a single extended composition unless I did not understand the point Anil made..

Even basic Karnatik music theory is challenging for me. When Western music theory is added to the mix, along with elements of neuroscience, it begins to feel overwhelming, like drinking from a fire hose. I will likely need to listen to this lecture several more times before I can begin to grasp the full magnitude of what Dikshitar achieved. Yet, if so much can be discussed and analyzed today about these compositions, one can only marvel at the genius of the man who created them.

99th Annual Conference of The Music Academy - Day 04

There was only one lecture today, but the content, presentation, and accompanying music deserved every bit of applause it received. The lecture was delivered by Dr. Sumithra Vasudev and was titled “Music of Dikshita Parampara Composers.”

Dr. Sumithra began by clarifying that her focus would be exclusively on Dikshitar’s family and not on his disciples. The term parampara in the title was therefore defined as a familial lineage rather than a sishya parampara.

If I have understood correctly, the composers discussed in the lecture were Ramaswami Dikshitar, the father of Muthuswami Dikshitar, Chinnaswami Dikshitar and Balaswami Dikshitar, his brothers, and Subbarama Dikshitar, Balaswami Dikshitar’s grandson, who was later adopted as his son. All of them contributed to a substantial body of compositions that upheld the spirit of their shared parampara. Dr. Sumithra explained how each composer drew inspiration from those who came before him, while still establishing a distinct individual voice. Their output spans a wide range of forms, including varnams, kirtanams, ragamalikas, raga talamalikas, padams, prabandams, and more, amounting to well over a hundred compositions in total.

While there are numerous compositions of Muthuswami Dikshitar that exist outside the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini, there is comparatively little material available outside that text for the other members of the family. Dr. Sumithra described the structural and melodic frameworks they employed and illustrated her observations with musical examples. Whereas Muthuswami Dikshitar composed predominantly in Sanskrit, Telugu appears to have been the preferred language for the others.

The mudra Guruguha, adopted by Muthuswami Dikshitar, was also used by other members of the family, perhaps as a way of affirming lineage. This practice, however, has occasionally led to confusion regarding the authorship of certain compositions. In addition to Guruguha, other mudras were also used, including references to patrons and deities, and in the case of Balaswami Dikshitar, the mudra Ettendra.

A shared love for wordplay seems to run through the entire family, resulting in remarkable creations such as swarasthana varnams and padams, where the lyrics are constructed entirely from swarasthana syllables. This reminded me of the song from the film Unnal Mudiyum Thambi, where the line “Sadha Maga Thamadhama” is used as swarakshara. Now imagine entire compositions built on such a construct.

The family also produced works in which the swaras, the lyrics, or both are palindromic, exploring a variety of intricate permutations and combinations. Ramaswami Dikshitar is credited with the creation of the raga Hamsadhwani, and he composed a prabandam in that raga, even though the form had fallen out of vogue by then, perhaps to lend an air of antiquity to the newly created raga. Another striking creation was a ragamalika spanning an astonishing forty-four ragas.

Wordplay and puns are much loved in my own family, and at the slightest provocation we launch into impromptu sessions of playful language. I could not help but imagine the Dikshitar household to be similar, except that their playful ingenuity has resulted in works that have endured for generations.

One composition that particularly captivated me was a ragamalika set in thirty-two ragas, divided into two groups of sixteen. Each line of text was rendered in one raga from each group, with two singers alternating between the sets. As the performance unfolded, it felt as though the two strands were being braided together into a single, cohesive whole.

The quality of the lecture was evident in the responses it elicited. V. Sriram, who is usually a strict timekeeper during these sessions, requested that some of the compositions be sung in full and even promised additional time. During his summing up, Sangita Kalanidhi designate R. K. Shriramkumar asked for certain pieces to be repeated. These gestures themselves were a testament to the excellence of the lecture.

This lecture definitely is one not to be missed - https://youtu.be/bBGUyDc5WRo?si=NQi531NxEmTa6GIL

99th Annual Conference of The Music Academy - Day 03

The first lecture of the day was titled “Dikshitar and the North: Tracing Hindustani Threads in a Carnatic Fabric” and was delivered by my dear friend Bharat Sundar. Since I already know him as someone with a flair for presentation, especially when it comes to explaining complex ideas in a simple and engaging manner, I was greatly looking forward to this session. He did not disappoint.

One of the first points Bharat made was that while the separation of Hindustani and Karnatik music did eventually happen, there had been a great deal of exchange between the two systems well before Dikshitar’s time. I had always believed, and perhaps this is a commonly held view, that Dikshitar was largely responsible for bringing several Hindustani ragams into the Karnatik fold. Bharat clarified that this was not entirely accurate. There was already a free flow between the two systems, with ragams being absorbed, reinterpreted, and reshaped over time.

I was surprised to learn that many of these Hindustani ragams had been handled by Dikshitar’s father, and that their usage went back even further. Bharat mentioned Giriraja Kavi, who had composed in many of these ragams and is believed to be among the first to compose in both Brindavani and Dwijavanti. One particularly interesting observation was that the kampita gamakam, now a defining feature of Karnatik music, evolved gradually and was not emphasized as strongly in earlier periods as it is today.

Bharat then went on to discuss five ragams: Yamuna Kalyani, Ramakali, Hamviru, Jujavanti, and Brindavani.

He traced the evolution of each ragam within Karnatik music and compared it with its Hindustani counterpart. At the end of the discussion on Yamuna Kalyani, he played a dhrupad that shared a similar melodic palette with “Jambupathe.” I thought I could hear shades of Ramakali, and I was relieved to find that Ramakali was indeed the next ragam he took up. It felt like a natural and satisfying segue, and I was pleased that my listening instincts were not entirely off the mark.

Any discussion on Ramakali inevitably begins with the question of authorship of the composition “Rama Rama,” and Bharat appropriately started there. He played a version sung by Viswa sir of the Dhanammal school, which I found deeply haunting. Next came Hamviru, which is not Hamir Kalyani, though I would not be able to tell the difference myself. I thoroughly enjoyed the snippet that Bharat sang in this ragam.

Dwijavanti is one of my most favorite ragams, so much so that I had written a blog post about it some time ago. There was an extended discussion following the presentation, focusing solely on the name of this ragam. I had assumed that its adaptation into Karnatik music was due to Dikshitar, but this presentation corrected that assumption.

Brindavani and Brindavana Saranga are again so close to each other that a lay listener like me cannot easily distinguish between the two, though I can enjoy them both equally.

Bharat also spoke about ragams mentioned in the Guru Granth Sahib, which include ragams from the South. This further reinforced the idea of fluidity between different musical traditions. V. Sriram added more historical context to this point during the discussion that followed the lecture.

In addition to the adaptation of ragams, Bharat also spoke about common structural forms shared by the two systems and how these influenced Dikshitar’s compositional approach.

If I have one complaint, it is that forty-five minutes is simply not enough to do justice to such a rich topic. Perhaps focusing on a single ragam and exploring it in greater depth, with more extensive musical illustrations, might have been another effective approach.

The second lecture of the day was delivered by Dr. Rama Kausalya and was titled “The Vara Kritis of Muthuswami Dikshitar,” with vocal support provided by Vidushi Madhuvanti Badri. Appropriately, the lecture began by addressing why Dikshitar composed Vara Kritis, seven songs corresponding to the celestial bodies governing each day, rather than a full Navagraha set, and why the compositions on Rahu and Ketu are excluded. Dr. Rama Kausalya then narrated the story of Ammaiappan, a disciple of Dikshitar, to explain how these kritis came into being.

The lecture covered all seven compositions, highlighting both their shared features and their individual distinctions. Informative details were woven throughout, such as the presence of ragamudra only in Saurashtram and the mention of a kshetra only in Angaraka. When Dr. Rama Kausalya spoke about the beauty of prasa, it resonated deeply with me, as it mirrors the grammatical principles of Tamil poetry, an area in which I occasionally dabble. The use of edugai, monai, and iyaibu, the rhythmic and alliterative devices in the lyrics, is one of the reasons I enjoy Dikshitar’s compositions even without understanding Sanskrit.

The most intriguing part of the lecture, for me, came when Dr. Rama Kausalya spoke about the mythological narratives embedded in these songs, particularly the explanation for Saturn’s slow movement. She displayed a slide listing the time taken by each of the seven celestial bodies to move from one astrological house to another. I am not certain whether these figures were explicitly mentioned by Dikshitar or were additional explanatory inputs. However, the durations broadly align with the sidereal orbital periods of these bodies, with Saturn being a notable exception. I did some additional reading afterward and found that there are plausible astrological explanations for this discrepancy, though I did not fully grasp them. Since astronomy is another area of interest for me, this intersection of music, mythology, and celestial science was especially fascinating.

This lecture also included a reference to Kallidaikuruchi, so that is yet another point of pride for our village. As always, the summing up by Shriram was a mini lecture in itself.

My post on Dwijavanthi - https://elavasam.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-day-of-dwijavanthi.html

Link to the post on Yamuna Kalyani by Ravi Rajagopalan that Bharat mentioned - https://guruguha.org/articles-ravi-rajagopalan/?_page=11