The first lecture of the day was by Dr. T. R. Aravindhan on the topic “Compositions of Muthuswami Dikshitar in Unpublished Manuscripts”. From the earlier presentations, we already know that the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini is the primary source for Dikshitar compositions, and that many more songs have come down to us through other documentation and oral traditions. We have also heard that several compositions, including some very popular ones attributed to Dikshitar, have been shown not to be his, while others continue to have question marks around them. With this context, I was keen to understand the process by which a scholar identifies a source, validates its authenticity, and studies its contents.
Dr. Aravindhan began by defining manuscripts as unpublished notes maintained by musicians primarily for their own use. The first manuscripts he discussed were those of the Tanjore Quartet. Of the many manuscripts that exist, he was able to examine a subset. Even within these, there was a wide variety of material, including compositions of Dikshitar, compositions of the Quartet themselves, and several other musical forms. Among these, there were ninety compositions attributed to Dikshitar. Eighty five of them appear in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini, though with differences in notation and musical treatment. The remaining five formed the scope of his lecture.
He then moved on to the manuscripts of Bharatam Natesa Iyer, Mudikondan Smt. Vijaya, Smt. Champakavalli, and one manuscript believed to belong to Ambi Dikshitar. He explained both the continuities and the divergences in these traditions. The lecture was quite academic and, at times, difficult for me to follow in detail. What I did take away was that these unpublished sources reinforce the idea that Dikshitar continually expanded the boundaries of his creativity.
One particularly interesting point that Dr. Aravindhan raised was about the existence of multiple ragas sharing the same name, each with its own distinct lakshana. He also spoke about the interchangeable use of the names Rudrapriya and Poornashadjam to refer to what appears to be the same raga in certain contexts.This served as an apt lead into the second lecture of the day.
My professional life involves making many presentations, and I am familiar with the craft of public speaking. I consider T. M. Krishna to be one of the finest presenters and communicators I have heard. Having attended several of his lecture demonstrations in the past, I was looking forward to his presentation. The second lecture of Day 15, by TMK, was titled “Muthuswami Dikshitar’s Rudrapriya – One name, multiple identities”.
This lecture was far beyond my level of comprehension. What I understood, in very broad terms, was that within the Dikshitar tradition there are about half a dozen compositions attributed to the raga Rudrapriya, and that the melodic phrases used in each of these compositions differ significantly from one another. One of these songs, tuned by Subbarama Dikshitar, bears a resemblance to Tyagaraja’s “Sri Manini” in the raga Poornashadjam, raising the possibility that the Tyagaraja composition may have influenced the Rudrapriya kriti. The lecture involved a detailed analysis of similarities and distinctions among several ragas, including Rudrapriya, Poornashadjam, and Kapi.
There was also a discussion on whether compositions with a similar musical flavour might have been grouped together historically and assigned a common raga name. If so, what criteria would define such a grouping? Should Rudrapriya be understood as an umbrella under which several related melodic forms exist, each with its own distinct identity? If that were the case, should ragas that are currently treated as distinct, such as Manjari and Devamritavarshini, be brought under a single collective label? These were some of the thought provoking questions raised during the lecture.
I am attempting to express a highly complex academic discussion in my own lay terms. V. Sriram’s comment helped me visualise what was being discussed. Drawing from his background as a historian, he referred to the term Indo Saracenic, which is used to describe a broad category of architectural styles, even though it includes distinct sub styles such as Hindu and Islamic forms.
In my own mind, I related this to changes in planetary classification. As new discoveries were made, astronomers found the need to introduce a new category called dwarf planets. While newer discoveries such as Haumea and Makemake were added without much controversy, the reclassification of Pluto from a planet to a dwarf planet caused considerable debate. I imagine that the discussions surrounding that decision would have resembled this lecture and the conversations that followed it.
The lecture piqued the interest of the experts in the audience as it was followed by a lively question and answer session with many commenting that the lecture was thought provoking. I can only wish I could understand it better.
TMK, along with his students Shalini, Vignesh, and Raghavendra, sang several compositions beautifully. Even though much of the theoretical discussion went over my head, I thoroughly enjoyed the musical demonstrations.
With this, the lecture demonstrations themed on Dikshitar and his compositions have concluded.
0 comments:
Post a Comment