On appreciating music Irrelevant Stuff	9/30/2006 1:17:37 PM
There is a certain superior kind of person who is frequently fond of making scandalous remarks in order to appear unconventional and witty with the equally frequent consequence of appearing merely impertinently conspicuous. He1 insists upon being decidedly disagreeable - solely counting upon the possibility that the contrary opinion will often prove to be the correct one. While this is found to be so in the general case (and all generalizations are of course, false, not excluding this particular one) when given that most of those who are party to an argument participate in it merely on account of a habitual inclination towards exercising their vocal chords rather than a genuine desire for expressing original opinions, one would err to rely entirely on it if he wishes to maintain credibility. When the topic under discussion is music for instance, this superior person will be found waxing eloquent in resolute criticism of artistes the public in general considers as being masters of their art. He will further extol upon the virtues of other, sometimes lesser known equivalents, who in his opinion are better deserving of the public adulation. Now, it goes without saying that we live in an unfair world where all too frequently factors that have little to do with music or with ones proficiency in it are the factors that in the end contribute towards an artiste's success (success by popular definition that is). It is certainly tragic that deserving practitioners are often not paid their due. That is however no justification for the vilification of artistes who do become successful on account of genuine musical ability. It is the bane of mankind (and sometimes a blessing too!) to occasionally err. An artiste in this respect is no different. But to seize upon such instances paying little attention to all of their other innumerable successes is, to say the least, being shockingly myopic apart from also being a dreadful display of lack of compassion. Appreciation of music, in my opinion, demands a certain kind of open mindedness that is willing to acknowledge excellence where it is found. If the patron is unable to influence mediocrity in a positive manner then he would do well to ignore it. Now, this is not to be mistaken as an appeal for toleration of incompetence (as might happen if you were made to put up with my singing for instance); merely that a greater display of compassion is in order when considering brilliant but fallible priests of that most divine of art forms - music! [1] No gender bias is intended with the use of the pronoun "he" and is used here merely as a matter of convenience. The reader is free to read all instances of it as "she" if she so chooses to.

Proloy	10/4/2006 12:50:31 PM
You are 'occassionally' erring without being the subject of any 'villification'. Must be music to your ears! This post is too vague. Almost a rant without showing the inclination to identify the object of the rant, or the immediate provocation. Almost as if fearful of losing the argument to the Yesudas-Haters' club! (I'm not a member, mind you!)
Ranju. V	10/4/2006 1:44:16 PM
Oh well, I type my posts in HTML directly and do not have the services of a spell checker as I compose the post. But the point is taken; will run my posts through a spell check before posting. As for the object of the post, you seem to have managed to accurately grasp it in spite of its apparent “vagueness”! While the "provocation" for the post does originate with the undue criticism of Yesudas encountered on Orkut.com and elsewhere the post is not intended as a defense of his proficiency in his trade. It is a rant - a rant against narrow minded purists who are unwilling to consider anything outside of their realm of knowledge.
Proloy	10/4/2006 2:49:24 PM
As long as you wish to project it as a rant -- by definition nothing to pay serious attention to -- it's fine. But if you wish to make a point or present a case, it'd be better to actually lay down what exactly you have the beef with -- what is it that you disagree with and *why* -- and then leave it for readers to compare the respective merits and judge. Without it, no reader can make any assessment whatsoever. Moreover, I don't know how aware you are of it, the treatment above would in debating parlance be called as an ad-hominem attack, which is generally considered poor skill, apart from being logically fallacious. You have to illustrate your point, and not merely expect readers to accept things at face value. Without it, nobody knows what 'scandalous remark' was made, what 'conspicuous impertinence' was practised or what 'shockingly myopic lack of compassion' was on display. Besides, just because somebody has been frequently making scandalous remarks -- never mind the fact that readers have no way of figuring out its truth -- does in no way prove that the said person's evaluation of Yesudas, or some specific points about Yesudas's art, can be considered incorrect on its basis. Add to it the fact that you are not countering those arguments on the forum/forums where they were originally made, so that people whom you have complained about could have an opportunity to come up with a rejoinder. By calling such people 'purists' you might even be unwittingly be according the people in question some sort of status, when it's quite possible that they could just have been trolling.
Ranju. V	10/4/2006 10:59:49 PM
I seldom say anything that deserves paying serious attention to! Rant or no rant. As for presenting my case, I think I have sufficiently done so and have even been somewhat excessively verbose about it. To re-state what's there in the entry: - My beef is with the making of inconsiderate remarks in an attempt at discrediting competent artistes who, it must be remembered, are only human and therefore not invulnerable to the occasional error. - I disagree with such remarks as they only have the effect of belittling and discouraging the artiste. - I didn’t know there was a “debating parlance” in the first place. And I didn’t know what an “ad-hominem” was (till I looked it up on Wikipedia that is). An ad-hominem attack is logically fallacious because it tries to pass a personal fault of the debater as a valid counter argument. If you’re referring to my indication that inconsiderate remarks are frequently made by the said “superior” type of persons, well it’s a generalization. And again, as I have mentioned in the entry, all generalizations are false. To point this out as an instance of an ad-hominem attack is just nit picking. I was certainly not trying to suggest that the possibility of the speaker of these inconsiderate remarks being a “superior” person somehow discredits his opinions. - What illustration is required for the contention that a little exercise of compassion while criticizing artistes is advisable? “Cultivate a little compassion, Proloy; and you will become quite a remarkable man”. - This entry does not attempt to counter the various arguments put forth by members of the “Yesudas haters” community on Orkut. I have found the members of the said forum to be musically well informed and their comments tend to point out fine technical deficiencies in Yesudas’s singing (while these deficiencies may very well exist, they certainly do not present a strong enough case for hating Yesudas). I myself am not sufficiently qualified musically to counter them. - I call them (i.e. the members of this community on Orkut) “purists” as their primary argument appears to be that Yesudas is unconventional and resorts to “gimmicks” aimed at popularizing carnatic music. I was speaking with Satish (of Live QA team) the other day who mentioned an instance of how a keertanam rendered by Yesudas in the movie “Sindhu Bhairavi” features an improvisation where all the notes were sung so that they were continually increasing in pitch. At no point would you find Yesudas falling down to a lower pitch from a higher one. Satish felt that this is the kind of gimmick that purists find offensive. I counter that by saying that the only thing that any self-respecting music lover should find offensive is when the attempt is made to pass noise off as music. The only rule that must be conformed with is the rule of ensuring that what is called “music” must be pleasant to the ears. By this rule even heavy metal rock can (and is) be called music. Each type of music (regardless of genre) has its appeal if only the patron is willing to listen with a mind that is even more open than the ear!
Ranju V	6/28/2009 9:54:46 PM
I can hardly believe that it is I who have created this blog post and the subsequent arguments in the comments - how patronizing I sound! I am sure I thought I was being quite clever when I came up with this stuff. Now it seems pompous, misinformed and mostly pointless. Sigh!

Please fill this form and click on the "Submit" button to post a comment. All fields except the comment box are optional. You don't have to give me your name and email, but if you do then that might allow me to follow up with you on your comment. Also, I won't publish your email address here or anywhere else.