Visible and the Invisible

A Carnatic Musician, known for his contrarian views said something like this, sometime ago- Our appreciation of music depends on the looks of the musician.(I am not quoting him verbatim, as I do not remember the exact words and I do not intend to watch that video again, at least for the time being).

I am in awe of the musician’s voice and musicality and yet I choose to disagree with him on certain things, in spite of the fact that his political views almost match that of mine. In any case, I am not going to talk about what I like about him and what I dislike. But I feel I must express myself on that particular view of his, as a very normal rasika and more so as a common man.

When we listen to a piece of music, what attracts us? The answer could vary from person to person because after all, music is subjective. At the same time, a simple answer is likely to be ‘the pleasantness’. We like a piece of music because we feel it touches something inside us. We like a piece of music because it makes us emotional. We like a piece of music because we derive pleasure. We like a piece of music because we empathise with it. We like a piece of music because we feel calm.

But do we really care if the musician, who produces it, has a sharp nose or a small nose, if he/she has large eyes or eyes of an elephant, if the person’s skin colour is fair and lovely or is just simply dark? If we had done so, then less than 0.1% of the musicians-and this includes classical, pop, rock, film- would have survived in this field.

A musician is a musician not because he/she is handsome/beautiful, but because we feel his/her music is beautiful.

The beauty in the act of listening to music is that it sets us free and makes our imagination run riot. We care less for the looks of the musician and more for the looks of music-that is, the images the music creates in our mind.

This takes me to something which would seem to be unrelated to this topic but nevertheless is closely related. Imagine you are listening to a musical piece which is part of a background score in a movie. Now, let us take two scenarios :

(1.) you have watched the movie,

(2.) you have not seen the movie.

In scenario (1.), you probably know as to where the piece appears and can easily relate it to the story and the sequence. In (2.), neither do you know the story nor do you know the sequence. So, how do you react to the piece? Do you try relating it to the hero/heroine or any other actor who you know has acted in the movie and then base your like/dislike on this factor? In (1.) too even if you know the sequence, would you look at the piece as just being part of the movie or would you see it as a musical piece which makes you see your own images and gives you pleasure like how a song would give you?

Think about it.

Now, let me take up a piece which is the Title Music in a 1981 film called ‘MeeNdum Kokila’. The piece starts with the sound of the aeroplane followed by the sound of the train. It is at the 20^th second that the music really starts-that is, if you don’t consider the sounds of the vehicles as ‘music’. To ILaiyaraaja, these sounds are musical anyway. That is why, he leaves them untouched and most importantly, keeps them as the base.  Doesn’t that flute, sound like the horn of the train and the bass guitar sound like an aircraft? To add to this, he also gives the sound of the train in the background (played by instruments).

What is more amazing is the fact that the flute plays in pure Mohanam. The violins which appear a little later, echo the notes of the flute in their own impeccable style.  Suddenly the piece undergoes a change with the vamping of the guitar and synth sound(0.34) with the violin continuing the Mohanam(0.38) in a slightly different manner-different from that of the flute. If the flute handled Mohanam(in the beginning) as if it was fondling a tiny tot, the violin handles it with a touch of romance, as if it is conversing with a Lady love. 

Together, the three (synth, guitar and the violin) take us through a journey of joy. Until now(0.50) there is no percussion instrument.

The mridangam jumps into the fray with a bang(0.51) playing a quick korvai for half aavartanaa. The guitar, synth and the violin continue, playing the same melody again for exactly one and half aavartanaas with mridangam entering again after that and yet again playing a korvai for half avartanaa.

The shrill flute joins(1.01) and continues Mohanam with the mridangam now backing it with its pulsating sound. This goes on for 4 taaLa cycles(aavartanaas). A new instrument enters now(1.17) adding a touch of S.E.Asian music.

The Laya Raaja conceives and executes a ‘mini tani aavartanam’ now(1.23) between mridangam and (surprise surprise!) a western percussion.

Creativity coupled with innovation is what differentiates a genius from ‘also rans’.

After that ‘laya vinyaasam’ which also has the traditional ‘kuraippu’(where the number of syllables keep reducing), the violins play Mohanam (1.39) with the mridangam responding in chatushram.

The piece starts undergoing a transformation now, with the keys playing a different melody(1.46) and the strings backing it. The melody from the strings to the backing of pizzicato(1.56) indicates a different raga(Sri). Most importantly, the strings in higher octave take us to an ethereal world.

Ethereal world it is from 2.15 as the veeNa plays like the veda mandiram to the backing of the sympathetic strings. If you think that the piece will end here or that it will continue the mandiram, it means you have not understood the ‘O’Henry Raaja’.

The strings join at 2.48 and drench us in a shower of melody in western classical style-though following an Indian raga- while the veeNa enters yet again(2.52) playing the raga Sri with the mridangam backing it and the strings responding. It is a pure Indian classical trip again with the flute and the violins joining at 3.10. The piece culminates with the thunderous mridangam playing a final korvai.

Now, people who have not watched the movie- What images did this piece give you?

People who have watched the movie/people who know the story- Did it conjure up images of the hero/heroine/anybody/anything?

I am sure a majority will answer ‘No’ to the second question.

As regards the first question, no response is likely to be the same and it will vary from person to person and surely from time to time.

That is why, Music is beautiful, beautiful irrespective of what our eyes see...

Check this out on Chirbit