I would like to start off by thanking the author for engaging in this discussion, something I believe will go a long way in taking the art forward. In that spirit, I’d like to begin my response by agreeing to some of the points he has put forward. Such as this one — it’s important to involve, research and imbibe the nuance of art — to be able to contribute fruitfully to it. It applies to any art and not just Carnatic music.
However, it’s problematic if we restricted these pursuits only to the realm of one art or be selective about what should be studied and what should be inferred. For instance, trivialising or oversimplifying a potentially alien concept from a particular art’s vantage to the extent of describing it terms of the ‘lowest common denominator’ is dangerous. It leads to non-quantifiable hypotheses and further aggravates the intrinsic selection and confirmation bias that we as humans possess.
Let’s take one example from the author’s observations. Let’s look at ‘Carnatic progressive rock’ from the author’s vantage; it’s a mere tokenism often described as someone playing a Western instrument (most commonly, guitar ) over a standard Hamsadhwani keerthanam (many a time, ‘Vaathapi’) as a last-ditch effort to make sense and, thereby, become inclusive in the wide realm of Carnatic music. As a practitioner of Carnatic progressive rock, also as probably the first and genre-defining representative of that idiom, I can say with extreme conviction that such an oversimplification is ill-inferred, poorly understood and sub-optimally articulated.
Elaborating on the subgenre a bit — Progressive metal/rock music has more than a hundred (or more) commonalities with Carnatic music (polyrhythms, mixed meter time signatures, multi-step tempo variations, to name a few) and some incredible complementary facets such as harmonics, intricate chord progressions and some unique textural nuances driven from carefully chosen tones on a multitude of instruments such as guitars, bass guitars and keyboard synthesizers. Many a time, lack of exposure to an orthogonal music style and its anatomy combined with a deep-rooted sense of superiority driven by a historic position of hegemony that certain art forms inherited is what leads to this form of over-simplification.
For the sake of Carnatic music, and art in general — this form of unsubstantiated trivialisations should be challenged, countered and actively discouraged. A good first step in these kind of situations would be to have a keen ear to listen to what’s being played before getting into prematurely dismissive narratives to the tune of ‘playing a Western instrument with Carnatic music’.
What’s even more disheartening to see is a position of some art being more artsy than another form. The reality is, there are no first among equals in art — Ilaiyaraaja, Bach and Syama Sastry have a critical commonality — no force can ever stop these three from coming together. No one can predict the outcome of such a coalition, other than letting it happen and seeing how it plays out. Also, Ilaiyaraaja or Periyasamy Thooran or Harikesanallur Muthiah Bhagavathar or Dream Theater have the same position, access and rights to Carnatic music.
As musicians, it’s high time we gave up the position of custody of art and let the listener discern if it works for him/her or not. In that spirit — there is no such thing called an acceptable or unacceptable experiment — there are just experiments. More than the audience, it’s paramount that an artist should realise that no art ever competes for finding its space. It’s actually the contrary — art always has its space, and we as musicians strive and work hard to get to that space.
Hence, calling any musical experiment as frivolous amounts to belittling the very premise of art, which is constructed on the notion of inclusivity — and inclusivity in art doesn’t have to concur to a ‘terms and conditions’ document created by representatives from any subcultures — because it never will.
If the question is whether such an experiment will sound good or stand the test of time — it’s immaterial, there is always place for everything in art and what works for one doesn’t work for another. Much like how the author feels passionately about being sceptical about change, questioning change and experiments and feels the need to guard that position — in a similar spirit, from a parallel horizon, people like me will fearlessly challenge all norms, positions, grammar and idioms that stifle free flow of ideas.
Speaking about grammar as a concept in general — it is constructed and designed to evolve and expand — musical experiments are like vocabulary, they will get built come what may and some will withstand the test of time and become immortal and some will wane away.
While we are at it, we certainly don’t need guards and gatekeepers to pass judgments on what is an acceptable experiment and what’s frivolous while applying it to the art that they practise.
Lastly, speaking about keeping the fire burning — we should certainly keep it burning — let’s not stop at that, let’s nurture and catalyse that fire to make it a beacon of dazzling glory, and it’s hard to predict today what those catalysts may be.
I may or may not live to see the day, but I am certain that if some one decides to do an Alaap in Nalinakanthi and play Snarky Puppy’s ‘Lingus’ after that — no force can ever stop it. That’s because art defines the artists and not the other way round.
