Indian Music Forums

The completely dismal state of Sitar playing today MELODIC INSTRUMENTS
Reply
599 posts sitarman 599 posts
sitarman
I totally agree.
Reply 0 0
sitarman 599 posts
sitarman
Beenkar,
I understand your reasoning on the difference between learning ICM as if playing from sheet music, as opposed to the subtleties of masterly performance which of course goes beyond what one can write, but from my experience, even westerners who study ICM do not just generally learn from a written perspective- writing down phrases, gats, etc. is merely a shortcut if one does not have the means to spend hours upon hours with one's guru. I have not met, nor have I heard on this forum, students of ICM who do not realize that the writing of ICM, or the memorization of techniques and melodies (gats, taans...whatever) is merely a "guideline". The improvisatory nature of ICM, and the many different ways of performing the same raga, is obvious for most from the start. I agree that the vocal background one has in having grown up in a native environment is an advantage but in today's world, unless one literally wants to be a vocalist, the meanings of the words and the vocal idiom, is not the only way to master an Indian ijstrument. If one has a great ear, a truly inborn talent for music, and one immerses himself in any musical tradition, native or not, and if one practices, practices, practices, one can become a great musician in that idiom. I believe it of non-westerners who play western music, and I believe it of westerners who play Indian music. I think to say otherwise is a bit of unintentional prejudice towards one's heritage, kind of being protective of it. The "sheet music" type of learning is used in the Westerner classical music system as notes and phrases are adhered to from performance to performance, but anyone with an ear can hear that ICM has improvisatory aspects that preclude learning strictly from written guides. Those guides are, however, a good memory tool, as a jumping off point, when a westerner does not have the time or means to spend years with ones guru listening and copying- and even here the goal is not to perform exactly like the guru, but to learn the inflections and create one's own voice on the instrument.
Reply 0 0
haldamos 221 posts
haldamos
Quote:
unless one literally wants to be a vocalist, the meanings of the words and the vocal idiom, is not the only way to master an Indian ijstrument.
Respectfully, Sitarman, I disagree with that portion of your post. Though I would never allow myself the delusion that I speak for the gharana that I study, I would say that within the context of bandishes used by the Imdadkhani's, one should know what you are "singing" on the sitar. Afterall, the Imdadkhani sitar players are vocalists as well. It was UVK's love of vocal that led him to create the style he is famous for, and it should be noted that UVK was a master vocalist; all of his students are trained in vocal. Almost all of my lessons are vocalised (taught by singing). With vocal knowledge, one can apply flourishes and ornamentations, correctly accent relevent phrases, or the modulate the volume and use the stroke to comply with and complement the meaning of the words. As many vocal bandishes are played on the sitar, this knowledge adds yet another layer of depth. There are many examples of vocal bandishes that have melodies that complement the words. The two are inter-related. Sitarists and instrumentalists in almost every tradition use vocal as the source. Many years ago, when I was visiting AACM, Ustad Ali Akbar Khansahib sat with a harmonium, singing phrases that were emulated by the students using various instruments. So there is something to be said about learning vocal, as it is the fountainhead of ICM. I can't think of any major masters that have not been trained in vocal.
haldamos
Reply 0 0
jaan e kharabat 1,401 posts
jaan e kharabat
sitarman,

alot of what you say rings true with me but one thing should be mentioned. The pedagogal process in instrumental music makes immence recourse to the voice. Teacher's simply teach with the voice. This is a long established tradition. The Ustad and Pandits swear by it and see it as not only the ideal way but well nigh the only way of learning in order to eventual play correctly.

Use say all it takes is in born talent and interest and an amount of dedication and basically one can just take a few lessons and go off on tangent listen to recordings and make it. Well if this was the case, why did Yehudi Men., who possessed an abundance of talen, interest and probably at least some dedication since he spoke up about the music so much, play such mediocre ICM when he tried?
If there are just ''six tones'' in an octave [sic] then why have frets for tones that don't exist?
Reply 0 0
Anonymous 987 posts
Anonymous
sitarman wrote:
The improvisatory nature of ICM, and the many different ways of performing the same raga, is obvious for most from the start.
Sitarman,
I trust you're aware that ICM is not "improvisational" in the same manner that jazz music is 'improvised'. ICM isn't another kind of western music, and western students would be wise to make a greater effort to learn ICM and spend less time translating it.
Re: jek: This is precisely the mistake that Yehudi Menuhin makes; instead of listening to what Raviji is playing he counters with something along the lines of eastern European folk music - in his mind the only familiar equivalent.
Reply 0 0
indrajit12sitar 71 posts
indrajit12sitar
Few points..

1. No doubt ICM instruments are more popular than ICM vocal outside India (should be or should not be is different issue)

2. One of the main reason why sitar is accepted and popular outside India is Pandit Ravi Shankar.

3. The instrument is more popular outside India because it is a machine -- if you have Hiren Roy or Rikhi Ram or other good quality sitar, even the basic playing will be pleasing to ears. For vocal, one needs to have a good voice in addition to his talent to make it acceptable for general audience.

4. Vocal classical music is essential for learning the instruments properly. In addition to raga rups, one needs to know ragpradhan songs and bhajans -even the kirtans and folk songs are valuable.

5. With the availability of more video or DVD, learning ICM from home has becoming easier-- of course learing from Gurus or teacher are preferred.

6. As it is ICM, naturally the majority of the teacher is in India. With time the other part of the world will have more professional teacher if the sitar popularity remains unchanged.

7. But its becoming hard for sitar professionals to live on this profession alone so quality is suffering.

8. If sitar survives (no fusion) then western world will see more and more talented player. The time has not come yet-- but will lkely be in future if the enthusiasism remains same.

regards
regards
Reply 0 0
sitarman 599 posts
sitarman
Bobu, this thread may have run it's course in opinions of how important vocal training is to learn Indian music but I'll throw one more logon the fire :? - I know that the VK tradition and heritage is based upon his vocal training, but I do not think that it is essential to be able to perform ragas and dhuns on sitar- sure it helps to know the vocal bandish if one is going to play an instrumental version of one- that is a no brainer- but one hears so many gats and bandishes that are strictly instrumental conceptions as well (maybe more so outside of Imdadkhani ). Even in western music, vocal traditions led the way before instrumental music, but instrumental interpretation stands on its own. I am not belittling the importance of a complete musical education, and if that includes vocal training so be it, but one can learn from a guru who sings the phrases, even if one can't sing them and knows not what the words mean.
Now- point that I disagree with you on, respectfully, is that ICM is indeed VERY improvisational. In a typical Hindustani raga, most of the material is variations, created on the spot based on the raga and the gat. As with any improv, there are learnt patterns and methods (templates if you will) around which taans are built, but improvisation means NOT playing verbatim what you played before. No real Yaman is a note-for-note clone of the previous night's Yaman, as opposed to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata which, though interpreted differently as per tempo, dynamics, etc. contains exactly the same notes each time it is performed. The thing that seperates ICM from jazz is the fact that jazz has no boundaries as to note selection, and follows no set rules for structure and development. However, like much jazz, the theme/gat/melody/head is stated, improvised upon, and returned to. For me, the beauty of Indian improvisation and performance is in its balance of improv and structure- it's rules of ascent, descent, and the challenge of creation within those boundaries, which shows the ability of the performer. It is a very improvisational music, taken as a whole.
Reply 0 0
Anonymous 987 posts
Anonymous
sitarman wrote:
The improvisatory nature of ICM, and the many different ways of performing the same raga, is obvious for most from the start.
Bobu wrote:
I trust you're aware that ICM is not "improvisational" in the same manner that jazz music is 'improvised'.
The difference may not be so obvious. Let us simply agree that ICM allows for a progressive and logical measure of creativity within certain boundries. However, I repeat; ICM is not "improvisational" in the same manner that jazz music is 'improvised' nor does it follow strict notation in the same manner that western classical music is notated. My point is that ICM is ICM, and that western concepts such as scales, notes, tonic, melody, tempo, etc. are applicable only in a very crude comparative sense. It would be just as silly to attempt to define a symphony, a concerto or a song using terms such as raga, sur, laya, pakad, gat, taans, or bandish.
Reply 0 0
Reply