Hypothesis

About 3 years ago, I read this in the front page of the morning newspaper and instantly fell in love with it:

Our mind has become conditional not to believe anything that challenges our beliefs.

Isn’t it somewhat strange that this statement appeared on the first page where one always gets to see the statements of our ‘leaders’ and have a hearty laugh early in the morning (a bright way to start the day!).  Rather than making me laugh, this one made me think a lot.

Like it or not, the fact remains that our thoughts and therefore the beliefs are always coloured and biased. When we come across something which is totally in variance with what we have believed all this while, we question that which questions our belief(s) and not question ourselves. This is because we believe what we want to believe and continue to believe it.

Does this mean that we should never have a firm opinion on anything and that our opinion should change based on what we read/see? Should our mind then be like a pendulum? Then where is the courage of conviction?

Indeed, there is nothing wrong in having opinions (strong ones too). However, this should be formed based on not only our intuition but also on certain logical factors. This is where reasoning comes into play. If we are asked as to why we like certain things and hate certain others, we should be able to postulate and clearly articulate the reasons. If we don’t do this, there are dangers from both the extremes. At one end of the spectrum, we will be clinging on to our beliefs and even lose our sleep if this is questioned by others. We tend to become defensive and say to ourselves ‘What does that fellow know?’.  We react too and question the person’s authenticity and capability.

 At the other end, we would simply believe what is being said by others and change our opinion. The percentage of the latter is comparatively less though.

Both these are blind and only show a weak mind. A strong mind on the other hand, doesn’t accept anything at its face value. It investigates –first before forming an opinion and then when that belief is questioned. This of course calls for objectivity and an open and free mind. Not that easy anyway but once we master this, we can be sure of ourselves, be confident of what we say and also counter any argument without getting defensive.

For example, what do we do when we are told that ‘ILaiyraaja is a spent force, he cannot move with the times, he can hardly score for the present generation, there is no energy in his present day compositions’?

First, we question the musicality of the person who says this. Second, we get personal and tend to attack the person with words- resulting in a verbal duel or a war of words. Finally, we give up and say ‘no point in talking to this fellow’ and keep quiet.

While I am not advocating any method or system to counter such talks (especially in the net), I can surely suggest a way, which according to me is the best option. Simply play one of his present day compositions and answer ‘accusation’ point-by-point.

Take the song ‘Chendulli Chendulli’ from the Kannada  film ‘Bhagyadha Balegara’(2009).

1. ILaiyaraaja is a spent force.

The prelude, interludes, the tune and the rendering (by the Master and Shreya Ghoshal) prove this totally wrong. His liberal use of the synth instruments without in anyway compromising on the melodic aspect, the tune that lingers in our mind, the beats in tisram with different percussion instruments and the variety in  tisram –like giving the stress on the first syllable for every alternate tisram in the Pallavi and in the CharaNams, dividing the syllables into 6 micro beats as ‘ta ka dhi mi ta ka’ in the second segment of the second interlude- , using melodic(synth) instruments in the vocals section, and singing with a punch without showing the ‘attitude’ so often seen in present day singing(isn’t that punch at the end of the Pallavi and CharaNams not enough to show the romance?), show that his composing and orchestrating skills are intact.

2. He cannot move with the times.

If it is ‘believed’ that the present day music is only electronics and computer based, then so be it. However, it is totally a misconception that he is an illiterate in this. He in fact was a pioneer in using electronic instruments and the computer in Indian Film Music. In ‘Chendulli..’, except for the Violin used in the second interlude, all other instruments-including the bass guitar and the rhythm- are synth based. Has he used all these without understanding their utility? The fact is he knows to strike a balance between synth and the original instruments and also knows to use these judiciously.

Listen to the prelude which is grandiose to say the least. One almost feels the effect of piped instruments like the trumpet, saxophone etc.,. The first interlude gives us a ‘piped experience’, a  ‘strings experience’ followed by the ‘flute experience’ while the second interlude has the violin which is backed by the different synth instruments apart from the synth percussion-which follows that ‘ta ka dhi mi ta ka’ mentioned in (1.). And how is that ‘sound’ at the end of the Pallavi(last line of the male segment) in the beginning and towards the end of the song?

3. He can hardly score for the present generation.

What is the taste of the present generation-if somebody can define this? Is it singing some alien and funny words like ‘keeya muyyaa suyyaa’ now and then (making it the leitmotif of the composition itself)? Murdering the language? Give noise in the name of sound?

If this was the case, then a majority of the youth wouldn’t be appreciating any of the old songs at all. The very fact that they do, indicates that it is the mindset which plays a role here and that this is not reality? Yes, they do get attracted to the songs with features mentioned above but that has more to do with the lack of creativity and musicality of the present day music directors and less to do with the generation as a whole.

‘Chendulli..’ may not have these ‘features’ but has that freshness which can instantly appeal to anyone.

4. There is no energy in his present day compositions.

Play ‘Chendulli’ to anybody. If they don’t move their feet and body, there is a serious problem with their listening abilities.

But in spite of all these reasons if people stick to their stand about him, then thank the economist who made the statement quoted in the beginning.

By the way, did you even imagine that the statement was by an economist? If no, then challenge your ‘beliefs’ and undo the conditioning of the mind.

Anyway, there is ‘Chendulli Chendulli’  to help you in this task..

Check this out on Chirbit