Talk:Carnatic music

Template:Fac-contested

Contents

1 Karnatak vs Carnatic 2 Devanagari 3 Scale 4 Carnatic music and Karnataka 5 History/Instruments 6 Theory 7 Tonic Vs. Key 8 Concerts and Content 9 Favour for me. 10 Telugu transliterations 11 Palghat Srirama Bhagavathar

Karnatak vs Carnatic

--Siva 15:54, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why is the term Karnatak used instead of Carnatic? The article title is Carnatic music, and that is also the term most commonly used in English. Guaka 12:52, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

changed to Carnatic -- Paddu 09:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Devanagari

Hi, Thanks for ur comments. I'm unable to view the devanagari encoding and thought that they were junk characters and deleted them. I'm using firefox(0.8)/mozilla(1.7b) as the browser. I have selected the encoding as Hindi(Devanagari) but still the characters show up jumbled. Can you pls let me know how to view them?

Thanks

You don't need to select any encoding, but you need to have you got Devanagari fonts installed? What's your OS? -- Arvindn 05:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Scale

"Carnatic music uses the carnatic scale, which from the starting note is half step, one-and-a-half steps, half step, whole step, half step, one-and-a-half steps, half step. As you may notice, this is symmetrical, and the sargam letters (in Tamil at least) used to refer to the notes (sa ri ga ma pa tha ni sa) reflect that symmetry - ri & ni look similar, ga & tha look similar, and ma and pa look similar."

there is no such thing as 'the carnatic scale' defined this way. this is merely one of many scales that are used.

Carnatic music and Karnataka

The article says that the term "Carnatic (or Karnatak) music" bears no relationship to the Indian state Karnataka. I thought that it was called Carnatic music because it was first popularized by Purandara Dasa and Kanaka Dasa, saints during the Bhakti movement in Karnataka. Also, it says that "Karnatak music" literally means "Traditional music" - I couldn't find any sources to say that "Carnatic" literally means "Traditional." Can someone clarify?--ashwatha 15:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right. Whereas Karnataka has a retroflex na, the na in karnataka sangeetham is alveolar. My Sa-En dictionary doesn't give anything beginning with karn- (alveolar na), and my En-Sa dictionary says that "tradition" is sampradayaha. I don't know the historical details that you give, but I will make an appropriate change.--Siva 16:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused here - Sanskrit has no alveolar consonants as far as I can see; did you mean the Dental consonants? In any case, "karNe aTati iti karNATakam" i.e., karNataka sangItam is that which pleases (aTati) the ear (karNam), is one possible derivation of karNataka sangItam that has nothing to do with the name of the state. Is there any reason to believe Karnataka was called so even during the times of the Haridasas? Ambarish | Talk 14:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is - in fact, the name "Karnataka" is first available in the Kannada literary work "Kavi Raja Marga", written in the 9th century. 10th century Kannada works mention the name of the state in several places. Also, the basis for carnatic music (Maya Malava Gaula as the base raga, etc) was laid down by Purandara Dasa in an attempt to simplify classical music and bring it to the masses. At the very least, we should mention the different possible derivations of the term "carnatic music" instead of declaring outright that it means traditional music and that it doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the state(carnatic doesn't mean traditional anyway). I will be making this change in a couple of of days if there are no objections. --ashwatha 01:53, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agree. I didn't write the original text; I was merely pointing out that there could be multiple theories, and one ought to mention all of them. BTW, I'm still uncomfortable about the actual spelling of the term - whether the 'n' is dental or retroflex. If the latter, the Devanagari figure ought to be changed as well. Ambarish | Talk 16:06, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it is the dental 'n' in the sanskrit term, so the current figure should be ok; I have heard the word "Karnataka" being pronounced with a retroflex 'n' (though it is rare), but never in connection with the musical school. I agree with you that Sanskrit doesn't have any alveolar consonants. --ashwatha 02:39, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, this is very fishy, then. "karṇa" meaning "ear" has the retroflex nasal. I understand that the term for the state is derived from "karu" + "nādu", with "nādu" having the dental nasal, so there's no way "Karnataka" could possess the retroflex nasal. A very simple test for determining the etymology of the term for music is to figure out which nasal is used. That was the reason I was particular about the Devanagari diagram as well. I think for the moment it's OK to retain the figure as it is; perhaps some Sanskrit literary guru could clarify things. Ambarish | Talk

Even that wouldn't clear the confusion completely; as noted above, the name of the state is pronounced with a retroflex 'n' is some rare cases. The etymology of the name of the state is also ambiguous - "karu"+"nādu" is one accepted etymology which results in a dental 'n'- but there are also other etymologies, such as hyper-correction (a common way non-sanskrit terms were sanskritized) from the term Kannada to Karnataka, or that it is a compound word formed by the phrase "Land of Kannada" ("Kannada Naadu", etc. Dictionaries treat the two "Karnataka" pronounciations (dental 'n' and retroflex 'n') as synonyms. See this link (http://www.ourkarnataka.com/states/history/historyofkarnataka6.htm) for a discussion of the etymology. ashwatha

KARUNADAKA SANGEETHAM can be split as Karu+Nadu+Aga+Sangeetham. Karu - in Tamil means Nucleus, core, main or black. Nadu -means country or land, Agam -means inside,belongs,from. Thus 'Karunaadaga Sangeetham' obviously was coined to mean 'Music from/of Main land' referring to Tamil Nadu. Carnatic music was prevalent in Tamil nadu from early times of Alwars and Nayanmars with compositions set to different raga (known as Pann in Tamil) and tala systems mostly on Lord Shiva and Vishnu. More on this topic can be read from http://www.carnatica.net/tmusic-main.htm

The above link is an article about Tamil music; would you know any citations for the above etymology for "Karnataka Sangeetham"? Ambarish 02:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carnatic music is named after the Southern region of the Indian subcontinent named by western colonists as Carnatic. This name was used to refer to the region between the Eastern Ghats and the Coromandel Coast encompassing much of what is called today as South India. Thus the term carnatic music was used to denote South Indian music.

See: Carnatic (region) Robin klein 17:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History/Instruments

Are the nagaswaram and tavil purely historical in relation to Carnatic music? That is to say, they are not used in classical concerts today, and their use in weddings and religious functions is vestigial. -- Solipsist 11:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it is improper to claim that Carnatic music's rules were written 4000-1000 BC. I think there is little evidence for this. It is better to say that the rules of Carnatic music were written hundreds of years ago by unknown people.

-- User:thaths

Theory

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to move the Theory section to a page of its own and replace it with a much shorter overview. Its good information, but quite dense and technical. I suspect its more likely to turn away the average reader, and not help them understand what Carnatic music is. -- Solipsist 11:36, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that some part of the monstrously long article needs to be moved to its own article. I like the idea of "theory" getting its own page because I think it is what people need to "understand what Carnatic music is."

However, can you make the case for Southern and Northing Indian music and music theory to be so different that they require seperate articles from the beginning? A "Indian music theory" page would be preferable as it would nicely balance the predominately European influenced theory articles (hm...). Hyacinth 21:49, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. There is already quite a few statements contrasting southern and northern music in the theory section. I suspect a combined theory page could address these distinctions nicely (I'm 100% sure I don't know enough to do it though.) -- Solipsist 21:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not mean to suggest that there is some grand unified tradition of Indian music theory that could make up an article. There are differences between Northern and Southern theory, and we may need single contributors knowledgable in both areas. I'll make it a priority to research, but no promises when that will bear fruit. Hyacinth 22:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tonic Vs. Key

I have noticed the usage of the word Key in a number of places which I think tonic would suit better. Key involves a key signature, in other words the pitch differences seperating the notes in the scale / raga, even though the term "Key of X" can be used to specify a tonic of X since key signatures do not correlate well, in most cases, with ragas, I think that the concept of a tonic is very applicable to both western and carnatic music. Does making this change seem appropriate?

I agree. Key indicates harmony, tonic indicates only centrality, importance, or originating. I edited accordingly. Hyacinth 20:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't. Look at it this way: Suppose you take a song and change the tonic. You just change which note you're calling sa. That's different from changing the sruti, i.e., modulating. I could be wrong, though; I'm no Western musician. Can someone knowledgeable in Western music clear this up?--Siva 21:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indian classical music using any "scale", raga, or set of swara may start on any pitch, always on the note sa, so long as it is comfortable for the performer. There is no modulation in Indian classical music, a drone on the tonic sounds throughout. Modulation is changing the note/pitch of the tonic, which inevitably changes the key, but the concept of key includes both tonic and scale (and thus harmony). These confluences, between scale & tonic, which creates key, and between note, pitch & frequency, do not exist in Indian classical music and thus the concept of key is unecessary and seemingly misleading. I am unfamiliar with mode mixture in Indian classical music, but it or a change of scale would better be described as such, "change of raga/mode/scale" or "a change to such-and-such raga/mode/scale". Hyacinth 03:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I quite understand anything you wrote beyond the first two sentences. What exactly is the difference between tonic and key? (Try to keep technical terms at a minimum. If you can, please explain using Indian terminology.)--Siva 21:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, neither term is quite suited to describe the concept of shruti, although tonic comes closer. A tonic is the base note of a key or musical scale. When we say things like 'oru kattai shruti' or 'sruthi saythukollir', we're talking about changing the pitch of 'sa' as the base note. This is essentially the same as adjusting the tonic; however, the difference between the two concepts - as you point out - is that any note can be used as the tonic, whereas only 'sa' is used in Carnatic music, which makes using the term somewhat problematic.

The reason 'key' doesn't work is that it's a very different concept. If you're familiar with the Natyashastra, you'll know the concept of 'samvadi shruti' and 'vivadi shruti' and how 'murchanas' and 'jatis' were built on them. Key is rather similar to that. One of the more important characteristics of a key is that a particular note 'agrees' with notes at certain intervals (exactly as was the case with 'samvadi shruti') and 'disagrees' with other notes at other intervals (as was the case with 'vivadi shruti'). When we talk about a key, we mean not just the pitch of the first note, but its 'samvadi shruti'. Changing the key means not just that the pitch of the first note changes, but that the 'samvadi shruti' which is at the centre of the piece shifts to the 'samvadi shruti' associated with the new note. That makes 'key' even less appropriate to describing 'shruti'.

I think the best solution is to simply explain what the role of 'sa' is without using the words 'tonic' or 'key', as we've done over in the nynorsk article - simpler, more elegant, and easier to understand. We can always have a separate article on Carnatic theory where we explore the relationship between Indian and Western concepts. Aravindhan 17:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This seems like a good compromise to me. We do need to explain the difference between European influenced and Indian concepts, and if using key or tonic to describe Indian concepts is innapropriate that needs to be spelled out to prevent European influenced readers from making the assumption that it is appropriate but neglected in the article. Hyacinth 19:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Concerts and Content

I made a significant contribution to the Concerts and Content. As I write other pages related to Carnatic music I see a need to link to concerts and contents. Do you guys think it makes sense to move these out to a separate article? HairyPotter 05:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure—are there articles specifically about concerts in other styles of music?--Siva 21:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not really, but there is Music Season for now that wants to explain 'what goes on' during a Carnatic Music Concert. HairyPotter 02:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need it? Also, I think "Music Season" is far too general a name for that article. At the very least it should be "Music season (Indian music)" or "Music season (Carnatic music)."--Siva 23:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Favour for me.

My Dears,

I want to know which ragam was to playback in a wedding VIDEO CD.

And tell me the title of the album IN CD.

And tell me where i will get.

Please contact me to msfelix@rediffmail.com or msfelix@hotmail.com.

Awaiting for the mail.

Do this favour for me.

Thanks from Felix.S.Stephenson

I'm sorry, but it doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedia to tell you which ragam was played on a CD. Besides, we don't know which CD you're referring to.--Siva 20:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Telugu transliterations

What's with the Telugu transliterations in this article? To be fair, shouldn't there also be Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam transliterations of all the terms?--Siva 14:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Palghat Srirama Bhagavathar

Pardon my ignorance, but how famous is Palghat Srirama Bhagavathar ? His page looks more like a family history than about his accomplishments. Tintin 09:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Can I assume from the lack of response to the question that he is not famous, and move a vote for the deletion of Palghat Srirama Bhagavathar  ? Every mention of him has been added by the same person.

My knowledge of Carnatic music is very limited, but I don't think his name sits well with the likes of Ariyakudi or Chembai who the writer has compared him to. Tintin 11:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say the article is worth deleting. Like you said, it looks more like a family history than an encyclopaedic article. It's not very well-written either; not only does it have a lot of unexplained jargon ("gurukulavasam", "rasika"), it is also packed with clichés ("breathed his last") and perhaps even a few grammatical flaws. Also note the broken links at the top of the page, neither of which would actually be the title of any article in Wikipedia. However, if the creator of the article is willing to speak out in favour of the greatness of Palghat Srirama Bhagavathar (perhaps providing us with a few links to sites containing slightly more authoritative information), the deletion of the article would probably merit reconsideration.--Siva 13:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)