Відео

Hello, thanks for the kind words! You can take a look at my blog at srijan.scrollstack.com and contact me from there. Thank you!

Thank you for the anonymous criticism :)

Hello, thanks for the question. So if you sing a particular sa, it will generate all it's harmonics in the harmonic series, but if your filter configuration is such that particular harmonics are boosted or attennuated, then the *perception* of the sung tone can change. We're talking about perception here, that is the key thing. If you want to get into this in detail, take a look at this paper: pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/article/86/S1/S58/637407/Timbre-and-tone-height

@@srijand-satyasheel Oh okay. Thanks for the explanation. Will definitely look at the paper.

Yes this is the one! Sir pe dhari ganga ha its Sam on Pancham, while this one has it on gandhar

Hello, thanks for your comment. I've modified the description of the video to specify the relationship between me and the speaker. I also do not disagree with your characterization of this discussion as performative, it certainly is that, and is targeted towards the non-expert musician and not the proper academic. Am happy to share my more formal work with you which (hopefully) is more adult than adolescent. Am curious, however about the historical and scientific loopholes you mention. Could you elaborate?

@@srijand-satyasheel Thanks for your response. I do welcome the edit in the video description. All discussions, especially which are meant for an audience, are by their very nature, performative. My point was more pointed: the universal performativism of this discussion failed to develop into one which is seen, let's say, in a Socratic exchange, simply because it was constantly impeded by a faux professionalism where the personal must go unacknowledged. But, you have promptly made some kind of a redressal of that now, and for that, I must say, I am pleasantly surprised. It is this part that I found a tad 'adolescent', the adjective had not been used about your research. I am sure it is very thorough and mature. I shall, hopefully, be able to find some of it by the by. As to the loopholes in the first speaker's (Sh. Satyasheel Ji) presentation: they are quite a few, some far too obvious: for instance, about the Vedic origins of contemporary khayal music. At the same time, the speaker's assertion that the khayal style has been around for only a 100-odd years is a tad below par - historically, khayals have been around since at least the court of Muhammad Shah Rangila, the eighteenth century 'later Mughal'. Further, and somewhat more disturbingly, the presentation is riddled with somewhat predictable and rather tired regurgitations (or derivations thereof) of the Brahminical reformist biases of Paluskar-Bhatkhande vintage which have been regularly thwarted in scholarship, media and anecdotal histories - for instance, the crude, wholesale dismissal of Fayyaz Khan's musical progeny as faltering on sur because of imitation of voice-production. Further there are shades of pop-science (in many ways, the opposite of real science) here - the pontification on 'anatomical purpose' of vocal chords, for instance. It is not entirely unfair, I hope, to expect a degree of rigour instead of rhetoric, especially when 'science' is purported to be a core aspect of the discussion. Still further, there is some unfortunate, socially regressive commentary here - the avoidable references to 'maids' answering telephones in the manner of their 'malik/malkin', for example. However, I do propose to be more charitable to other shortcomings, which must be attributed to the constraints of extempore speaking - for instance, there are numerous unfinished thoughts, bringing a degree of randomness to the argumentative logic, etc. Problems of that nature are passable, in my humble view. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they do make for an entertaining listen. Further in this vein, there are also some matters which are purely subjective, and to debate them is rather fruitless. In fact, it has been the bane of a set of musicologists and writers to read subjective expression objectively - for instance, the opinion that Fayyaz Khan is celebratory of the purported pain in the bandish (the insinuation therein, I can't help feeling, is uncomfortably abutting the Brahminical investment in the figure of 'the illiterate ustad'). On a more positive note, the anecdote about Vamanrao Ji Deshpande's experience of Abdul Karim Khan's Todi was beautiful. Also, I thoroughly enjoyed Satyasheel Ji's mimicry of the old artistes.

​@@r.c.g8272 Hello again, thanks. I see now why feathers have been ruffled, so let me address the points you raise one by one. Satyasheelji’s comments on the ‘vedic origins’ of khayal music are often misinterpreted. What he means to say is that the Vedic texts represent the first attempt to theorize music that is available to us. He goes to some length to clarify this in his new Marathi book that has just come out. But the point of even mentioning the vedas here is to make the larger point that in his opinion music in India has moved from being only a vehicle for ritual, performed in a group, to being a vehicle for ‘individual expression’ (to use his term), performed soloistically. He makes this point to refute the banal labeling of khayal music as ‘spiritual’. About khayal being 100odd years old, he usually says 200-250, the 100 may have been hyperbole. But he refers here to the modern khayal genre as we know it today. MV Dhond argues, for instance, that khayals have, as you say, been around since the 13th century, but close readings of such works as his show that what they’re talking to is the *term* khayal, not the raga-theka-bandish-upaj based genre we it refers to today. If memory serves, Schofield's work on the origins of khayal has a good overview of how the term was used to refer to ‘simple love-songs’ or something to that effect, you could take a look perhaps. It is strange that you read his comments on faiyyaz khan’s progeny as dismissal. He is only critical of their vocalism. Satyasheelji is actually often criticized for his bias *towards* the Agra gharana, especially Faiyaz khan, Khadim Hussain and Latafat Khan sahebs, and he has spent many years documenting Khadim Hussain in particular. But this has happened before. But for all his love of a particular gharana, I believe he reserves the right to criticize them for their flaws, and in comparison to Kirana vocalism, Agra vocalism certainly doesn't make for consistent mellifluous sureelapan. This is relative of course, and I know that he personally enjoys the Agra exuberance more than Kirana’s mellifluousness. The reference to the anatomical purpose of the vocal chords was intended as humour, not to be taken seriously. The point being made was that it is human endeavour (or, from another point of view, overambition) that leads to weird and wonderful things like solo singing performances that last hours. The objective rigour you want there to be in this discussion is there in the second half, if I may say so myself. This has been structured as an interview with a musician-scholar followed by a more academic presentation that examines claims made on a very specific area using timbral analysis. Your point about randomness is well taken. That is Satyasheelji’s nature. Some people love him for precisely this, others hate him for it. He has nothing to say about it except that that is how he is. I can say with certainty, however, that the insinuation that the likes of Faiyyaz Khan we're ‘’illiterate’ is a view that Satyasheelji certainly does not subscribe to. You can look up his other lec-dems where he regularly refers to Agra as ‘’the most vidya-dani gharana, the one that produced the most composers’ etc etc. But we live in an era in which sentiments are hurt easily, and this has happened before. Two votaries of this gharana took offence at Satyasheelji’s mimicry of the Agra idiom, but have now become his disciples after a more sane conversation, so I am not new to this. It is not in his nature to be woke all the time. And about the always-celebratory nature of khansaheb’s expression, this is said positively and certainly with a tinge of sarcasm, the same sarcasm he applies to his own teacher’s (Kumarji) expression: always in mourning. Satyasheelji is jocular and irreverent across the board, just as much as he is appreciative and respectful towards music and musicians. I agree about his referral to ‘maids’ being objectionable, but that is his lexicon, he is not familiar with the term ‘household help’. Political correctness or an always-on wokeism is not his thing. Take it or leave it. Glad you enjoyed whatever bits of it you did.

@@srijand-satyasheel thanks for your detailed response.

Hi, just checked, the link is working. It gives an error occassionally, but if you try again, it works

@@srijand-satyasheel Thank You.. and.. Thanks a lot for sharing some amazing gems through this channel.. Panditji's lec-demos are really a unique treat with lots of insightful anecdotes.. Please do convey my humble salutations Panditji..🙏

Hello, thanks. We hope to publish one soon!