Choosing an uncommon melody for his hour-long main suite, Madurai N. Sivaganesh’s treatment of Hamsavinodini proved the youngster’s overall scholarship. The Ragam Tanam Pallavi further displayed the vocalist’s capacity to incorporate a school outside of his lineage. Sivaganesh broadened his general allegiance to T.N. Seshagopalan to accommodate M. Balamuralikrishna. The first half of the detailed alapana was particularly eclectic, adding to the quality of his 150-minute concert for Mudhra.
Hamsavinodini is a derivative of raga Sankarabharanam, but sounds like a curious blend of two other fellow janyas — Kannada and Maund.Sivaganesh’s introductory phrases stuck closer to Yamunakalyani. Shortly after the raga became was clear, Sivaganesh unleashed bumps and slides, typical of BMK, whose unique ornamentations have almost given the late maverick the status of Hamsavinodini’s custodian. The changed singing style made violinist Tirucherai Karthik more a listener than follower. His solo reply on the instrument was impressive. with dashes of Vasantha.
Sivaganesh commenced his tanam placidly, emphasising on the sowkhyam quotient of Hamsavinodini. It marked a second exploration of the raga, whose development was as steady as during the alapana. The pallavi, ‘Sada nigama sudha vinodini’, changed speeds happily along the 16-beat Adi talam cycles. Somewhat constricted was the vocalist’s trip along certain higher portions of the swaraprastara. Nevertheless, the end-tract was refreshed by three ragas — Varali, Darbar and Vakulabharanam. A 12-minute tani avartanam was a the neat contribution from Punnur Aravind Kaushik (mridangam) and D.V. Venkatasubramaniam (ghatam).
Swati Tirunal’s ‘Panimatimukhi’ in raga Ahiri was the first post-tani number, in highlighting the tenderness of Ahiri raga, and was rendered as if sustaining the core spirit of the RTP. Not different were the moods from the subsequent Hamirkalyani (‘Annalum nokkinan’, Kamba Ramayanam) and the concluding Sindhubhairavi (Muthiah Bhagavatar thillana).
Earlier, Sivaganesh commenced his concert for Mudhra with a self-composed shrutibheda varnam. The Mohanam base made the Adi tala piece pleasing, though the surfing along Madhyamavati, Hindolam, Suddhasaveri and Suddhadhanyasi was so momentary, and he risked the chance of sounding merely off-key. Tyagaraja’s ‘Undedi ramudu’ was packed with too many sangatis, often not tidy in execution. Yet the niraval (around ‘Tamasadi gunarahitudu’) and the patterns over pacey solfas captured Harikamboji’s essence with an evident influence of TNS — mentor of Sivaganesh’s main guru R. Kannan.
The TNS signature emerged all the more obviously along the subsequent Gowlai. Thoroughly imploring passages defined much of the alapana that paved the way for ‘Bhajare manasa’ (Venkataramana Bhagavatar). The swaraprastara vacillations carried a Semmangudi-ish throb — another of Sivaganesh’s teachers is C.R. Vaidyanathan — who trained under Srinivasa Iyer’s frontline disciple P.S. Narayanaswamy.
Contrastingly, Dwijavanti lent the kutcheri the necessary sedateness. Restraint defined Dikshitar’s ‘Chetasri balakrishnam’, delivered with bhava-enriching pauses. The 11-minute alapana in sub-main Shanmukhapriya was emotionally charged. The niraval (’Sannutanga sree’) in ‘Marivere’ (Patnam Subramania Iyer) had cleaner lower portions vis-à-vis the upper. Tyagaraja’s ‘Dayajuchuta’, a TNS hit in Ganavaridhi, was the quick bridge to the central Hamsavinodini.
