An ‘Aberration’ may perhaps be too strong a word for what is proposed to be discussed here. While according to the dictionary, it may also denote a moral slip, here it is used in the sense of ‘straying from the traditionally accepted path.’ The following examples will make this clear:
Abheri raga, according to classical texts, is supposed to employ only suddha dhaivatam as in Dikshitar’s ‘Veenabheri,’ but virtually every musician, with the possible exception of a few from the Mudikondan school, sings it with chatursruti dhaivatham though the latter version has been given another name, viz. Karnataka Devagandhari or Bhimplas. Musiri is said to have claimed to be the author of this change (though others say that he was capable of claiming so even if he did not do it!).
Tyagaraja’s ‘Gnana mosaga radha’ was supposed to have been composed in shadvidha marghini though everyone (again, with the exception of a few from the Mudikondan school) sings it today in Purvikalyani. ‘Seethamma mayamma’ was supposed to have been composed in Lalitha and I have heard Mali play it in this raga. But almost all musicians today sing it in Vasantha.
Two versions of a raga
Tyagaraja’s ‘Prana natha birana’ is supposed to have been composed in Sulini but everyone sings it in Sankarabharanam today. ‘Hamsanadam’ is supposed to employ shatsruti dhaivatham but most musicians avoid it totally. GNB has, however, employed it in his kriti ‘Dasa satha dala.’ ‘Rama nee yeda’ is said to have been composed by Tyagaraja in Dileepam, which has totally disappeared from the Carnatic music scene and the kriti is being sung in Kharaharapriya. Dileepam also gives rise to a controversy regarding its arohanam-avarohanam, with two different versions.
The kriti ‘Chethulara,’ is sung in Bhairavi as well as Natabhairavi. Tarangini is supposed to belong to the Charukesi melam but everyone sings it in the Kharaharapriya melam. I was fortunate to listen to it on the veena in the Charukesi melam played by Prof. Satyanarayana of Mysore. Dikshitar’s kritis largely escaped such deviations.
Syama Sastri’s kritis, except for the Chintamani ‘Devi brova,’ sung by almost all musicians in the Shanmukhapriya melam but in the Gamanashrama melam by the Parupalli school, and ‘Ninnu vina mari galada,’ sung both in Abheri and Ritigowla, have also largely escaped such deviations. (The Parupalli version is not understandable because Chintamani is virtually Bhairavi with prathi madhyamam and, in my guess, must have been the result of Syama Sastri experimenting).
Musicologists, including SRJ, are of the view that the Expert Committee of the Music Academy has already determined the correct way of singing these kritis in their Raga Lakshana discussions and that this should be followed by all musicians. In the absence of written notations in the past, there could be many reasons why these changes occurred. To make a few guesses:
In management training courses, exercises are done to show how oral communication is notoriously liable to distortion when it is transmitted from person to person. This could easily have happened when kritis were orally transmitted. This is particularly likely because in the past, gurus rarely sat down with sishyas to formally teach them but it was for the sishya to listen to the guru whenever the latter was singing and pick up the music.
In the absence of formal teaching and a written notation, everything depended on the mentally alert and musically sensitive sishya to pick up correctly and precisely what was being sung by the guru. Each sishya must have transmitted to his sishya whatever he picked up! A casual mistake in intonation made by the guru or one sishya might have got perpetuated by repetition.
Changes might have happened in order to make singing of the raga easier or, in the opinion of the musician, more appealing. What view should one take in respect of such ‘aberrations?’ When there is a reasonably broad consensus on any version, it should be respected and followed and should not be tampered with on any ground as it will open the floodgates to indiscriminate tampering. Moreover, tradition should be respected. It is illegitimate and culturally disrespectful to any composer to tamper with his composition or its raga. If any musician thinks that the structure of a raga should be changed, he should himself compose a kriti in the new structure and not tamper with the original.
When there is no consensus on the original version, or if the original music is lost (as in the case of Purandaradasa, Annamacharya and Jayadeva), or the composer is not a tunesmith (like Periasamy Thooran or Ambujam Krishna ), musicians are free to set these songs to any ragam of their choice. If the products are beautiful enough, they will survive.
When there is reason to believe that there is some distortion, it is good to preserve both versions and not allow either to disappear as heritage has its own value. In fact, it would be a good idea for a musician to present ‘Nagumomu’ with suddha dhaivatham and also with chatursruthi dhaivatham in the same concert. (Maybe T.M. Krishna will do it one day!).
The writer is a retired IAS officer
