Here's what an ACTUAL genius looks like! [Archive]

eden

8th January 2005, 01:42 AM

Observer_is_back & vijayr,
Nice links and observations.

However, the term Genius is not limited to only this person of superior musical talent. Please check the following from dictionary.com (it also has many other definitions like IQ of 140 etc.):
---------------------------------------------------------
Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

genius

n 1: someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality; "Mozart was a child genius"; "he's smart but he's no Einstein" [syn: mastermind, brain, Einstein] 2: unusual mental ability [syn: brilliance] 3: someone who is dazzlingly skilled in any field [syn: ace, adept, champion, sensation, maven, mavin, virtuoso, hotshot, star, superstar, whiz, whizz, wizard, wiz] 4: exceptional creative ability [syn: wizardry] 5: a natural talent; "he has a flair for mathematics"; "he has a genius for interior decorating" [syn: flair]
-----------------------------------------------------------

By these definitions, there may be 100's of genius personalities right now in Chennai:-)

vijayr

8th January 2005, 01:51 AM

eden, now what is considered "exceptional" is the question :-)

8th January 2005, 04:07 AM

There cannot be a single defintion of what is considered 'exceptional' as it differs from individuals.

While Observer is back intention to point out that the attached links demonstrates how he evaluates genius is acceptable, an intention to belittle those who consider their favorite MDs as genius based on thier standards exposes an ignorance.

Aferall, genius is an adjective rather than a degree conferred by an institution based on thier established set of standards.

kiru

8th January 2005, 04:49 AM

Yes, this kid is a 'child prodigy'. (prodigy as in prodigious means 'more' ) I dont think he can be called a 'genius'. Even his professor, Sam Adler, was a child prodigy. Not all child prodigies turn into a 'genius' later on. Einstein is considered by many as quintessence of a genius, but I dont think he was a 'child prodigy'. Above all, the quoted articles themselves, only say, the child has the POSSIBILITY of becoming a Bach or Beethoven or a master composer of that caliber.
Anybody is free to call anybody a genius, if there are more people calling one particular person as genius, only then it takes on a serious connotation. Ofcourse, when we were in the university, didn't we call one of few our smart classmates as genius ?.

Observer_Is_Back

8th January 2005, 07:02 AM

"Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc."

A familiar debating strategy in these parts. Pull out all meanings a given word has ever possessed in its entire etymological history, and exploit whichever meaning allows one to cling to one's current attitude-set, thus evading larger-world implications. Parochialism rules. All hail online dictionaries!

"to belittle those who consider their favorite MDs as genius based on thier standards exposes an ignorance. "

I have no beef with "favorite" MDs. My intention is to situate frequent claims made for "genius" in a larger context of musical achievement.

Observer_Is_Back

8th January 2005, 07:30 AM

kiru:

"prodigy as in prodigious means 'more'"

Thanks for the semantic assist, who would have known?

I and the article used the word in the sense most people use it by common consensus, to refer to a young person of startling talent and unusual achievements.

"Anybody is free to call anybody a genius, if there are more people calling one particular person as genius, only then it takes on a serious connotation. Ofcourse, when we were in the university, didn't we call one of few our smart classmates as genius ?."

No offense, but this is just sophistry. Twist the word "genius", resort to the subjective argument, talk of "genius" classmates and so on. To me this appears transparently like a flight away from engagement with the larger world. I wouldn't continue to call my smart classmate a genius after encountering the world-class brilliance of an Einstein. If I did so I'd be considered incapable of discrimination and judgement. I've no trouble seeing why you, on the other hand, would like to retain the ability to continue to refer to both the classmate and Einstein as geniuses.

Observer_Is_Back

8th January 2005, 10:05 AM

eden, kr, kiru:

Seriously guys, ponder with me for a moment on this phenomenon: Why do we puff up our chests in pride when the international community stoops down to lift, embrace and exploit one of our proclaimed "geniuses"? Isn't it because we do accept a larger world of evaluative criteria, a world we hope for admittance into?

Why do we recoil in anger and despair when the outcome varies from indifference (IR's never-released symphony) to embarrassing contretemps (ARR's CBSO debacle)? Why are we baffled by this? Isn't it because we are prone to hastily declare our "classmates" as geniuses on the grounds that "anyone can call anyone a genius", in short because our estimation of artistic worth is restricted to regional, or at most national, boundaries?

Did you catch the contradiction in our attitudes? We acknowledge the lure of the larger world, yet wish to gain entry to it without expanding our notions of "genius". In other words, we desire, irrationally, to munch our cake, and stash it too. It cannot work.

eden

8th January 2005, 07:42 PM

Observer_is_back,
When you say a specific person is the `ACTUAL' genius (and also challenging to be matched by another), it's only natural for one to look up the meaning of the word and try to understand what is `ACTUAL' and what is not:-) It was definitely not a `debating strategy' as I'm never interested in spending time over debates of subjectivity.

To me 2 is numerically greater than 1 and first is positionally greater than second. Other than quantitative things like that and certain others which can be logically concluded (like effect has a cause), there's simply no point in spending time arguing. Especially with `vidhandA vAdhigaL', it'll be a sheer waste of time...Hence this will be my last posting on this subjective subject:-))

8th January 2005, 10:00 PM

I do not see a contradiction. When the international community expresses appreciation of our own, I get elated only because the spread of the awareness of our people's achievements beyond our own sphere and that evaluated by another set of standards, not necessarily superior but different, the achievements are seen as extraordinary. When you are talking about a place like US, such recognition also shows the achievement was able to breakthrough in a highly competitive environment with people with a different, not superior, set of preferences.

Now when such recognition is not there, it is not really contradicting that your original evaluation of a talent or achievements are still valid under your own set of standards. The non recognition from an international community could be either from lack of awareness, comprehension or just an effect of the difference in a set of preferences. Questioning the validity of your own evaluation based on the above again will be a product of ignorance.

On another note, reading the cbs.com article, if one has knowledge of marketing in the US, one could easily see the efforts of a PR agency around the article. You have to discount the article a little with that in mind.

Observer_Is_Back

8th January 2005, 11:28 PM

eden:

"When you say a specific person is the `ACTUAL' genius (and also challenging to be matched by another), it's only natural for one to look up the meaning of the word and try to understand what is `ACTUAL' and what is not:-"

Not at all. It's obvious to anyone not attempting to justify parochialism that by "actual" genius I meant that Jay's MUSICAL achievements are significantly greater than anyone I know in India. And he has done all this at a much younger age in a musical realm much more complex, and rigorously criticized, than IFM. However I can see that you desire to opt out of the informal community for which this would be common sense. Don't let me stop you. I'm satisfied if some from that informal community have been alerted, and have more basis to make informed judgements.

Observer_Is_Back

9th January 2005, 12:43 AM

kr:

"When the international community expresses appreciation of our own, I get elated only because the spread of the awareness of our people's achievements beyond our own sphere and that evaluated by another set of standards, not necessarily superior but different, the achievements are seen as extraordinary."

I notice an attempt here to resort to the subjectivity of personal/local musical preferences as some sort of impregnable last defense, and this might help you, conceivably, to counter assertions of Jay's musical superiority. Such a line of argument holds much more water when comparing Indian classical music with Western classical music, surely not when comparing IFM to WCM.

Be that as it may, the fact is that even removing differing musics and differing standards out of the picture, the achievements of Jay are quantitatively and "objectively" greater than anyone I know. I have no intention of persuading EVERYONE of seeing the obviousness of this, of course. Feel free to distance yourself from my use of the word genius if that helps you to hold onto whatever you believe.

"On another note, reading the cbs.com article, if one has knowledge of marketing in the US, one could easily see the efforts of a PR agency around the article. You have to discount the article a little with that in mind."

Interesting. So if US people talk about their geniuses it's just marketing, if they talk about ours it "shows the achievement was able to breakthrough in a highly competitive environment." CBS 60 minutes is very reputed, but that's not the only link I posted, there is also the Juilliard link, and I've read about this on several music blogs, none of which are financially motivated.

Observer_Is_Back

9th January 2005, 01:14 AM

kr:

"I do not see a contradiction."

There IS a contradiction if we hail certain of our composers over certain others for "successfully" composing wannabe-symphonies and dabbling in sundry Western forms and genres, yet continue to regard them as geniuses in the face of Western indifference or scorn. To use Western standards when comparing, say ARR to Anu Malik, and then using Indian/local preferences when comparing ARR to Tan Dun is contradictory and dishonest.

"Questioning the validity of your own evaluation based on the above again will be a product of ignorance. "

So you never question the validity of your own evaluation? Clearly you've attained omniscience then. I, like most mortals, am constantly open to anything that'll inform the context of my listening experiences. If ARR toys with trance I change my evaluation based on the amount and variety of trance I've listened to, if IR is "inspired" by some WCM phrase I entertain only provisional evaluations subject to modification.

Observer_Is_Back

9th January 2005, 02:27 AM

eden:

"When you say a specific person is the `ACTUAL' genius (and also challenging to be matched by another), it's only natural for one to look up the meaning of the word and try to understand what is `ACTUAL' and what is not:-)"

Reading this I think you're saying, or pretending, that I said that Jay is THE ACTUAL GENIUS. I said nothing of the sort, I said here's what actual genius LOOKS LIKE. It was not intended as an invitation for music-listeners to worship THE NEW MESSIAH as a replacement for whoever was the old one. My intention was to raise the standards of the game, just as the Indian cricket team hires South African/Australian coaches to raise ITS level.

Looking up the meanings of words is a sterile exercise, my meaning is with me here, you'd be much better off asking me what I meant than scurrying off to the nearest dictionary and pulling linguistic rank on me, which is just transparently a way of avoiding the rigors of conversation and communication.

And indeed I see that you go on to sign off altogether, citing "subjective" grounds. If subjectivity is always the final answer then why even bother to participate in forums? Isn't it at least partly to see how well our subjectivity fares in the spotlight of rational discourse? There is a powerful, self-revelatory aspect to debate, and not everyone is comfortable with that.

To clarify, my use of "genius" is the one shared by many sensible music-lovers here and elsewhere. Though never formalized, I think I'd be safe to say that many of our intrinsic requirements of musical genius (as opposed to extrinsic ones like popularity, longevity, industry domination, remuneration) like complex, long-form compositions, speed, prolificity, youthfulness, versatility are all fulfilled by Jay, to a far greater degree than anyone I can think of in India. If you disagree, and would prefer to use a variant of "genius" that'll let you idolize whoever it is you idolize, feel free to do so.

Frankly, listing all possible meanings feels like a smokescreen created to intimidate and confuse the gullible, and I strongly urge posters here to avoid this tactic, and instead do their interlocutors the courtesy of asking them what they mean.

Observer_Is_Back

9th January 2005, 05:48 AM

kr:

"The non recognition from an international community could be either from lack of awareness, comprehension or just an effect of the difference in a set of preferences."

And never because the music itself lacked quality? So if we're appreciated it's because the music was extraordinary, if we're criticized it's because of their lack of awareness? Rather convenient, don't you think, the way we're avoiding the challenges posed by differing preferences? I find this attitude to be complacent and passive. How can someone who employs this evasive tactic grasp the import of "differences", and create a thinking and a music that can marry those differences and transcend them?

""When the international community expresses appreciation of our own, I get elated only because the spread of the awareness of our people's achievements beyond our own sphere and that evaluated by another set of standards, not necessarily superior but different, the achievements are seen as extraordinary."

You emphasize "different, but not superior" quite a bit, understandably so, since that constitutes your subjective last stand. Yet, seriously, how different are these "standards"? We're talking about various kinds of pop musics, and variants of WCM after all, and all of those happen to enjoy worldwide currency. The separate sets of "Indian" and "Western" standards that you take recourse to are not impermeable black boxes. There is a great deal of cross-pollination going on everywhere in all directions, with the West-to-East direction being much more marked.

In short at this point we can't take refuge in our different-ness, certainly not in the genres that IR/ARR have chosen as their crossover platforms. If we continue doing so when will we get our Tan Dun, our Sakamoto and our Joe Hisaishi?

9th January 2005, 07:19 AM

Despite the explanations for each of my points, I disagree with everyone of them. As stated, your opinion differs from my mine - which to me is fine. However, the reason I started a response in the first place was a veiled belttling of opinions who might hold thier favorite MDs as geniuses because it may not agree with someone else's evaluation of the same. I am going to stop here since it doesnt matter.

With regard to the 60 miniutes and shows like that, I have first hand experience of how to place stories, manipulate them etc. If you think you hear facts in these shows, i could only hope you get a chance to learn how these things work, With regard to the website of Jullian, I think they probably are one of the promoters of this guy because of his association with the website - so not really an objective source. I am not necessarily arguing PR is bad, I do marketing for a living in the US. It is critical to spread awareness and manipulate perceptions. However, when one is talked about and another is not, if you are analytical, you would be well served to differentiate the influences of these factors before you are ready to validate your hypothesis. The Cbs.com may be validation enough for you but I would use a more analytical approach myself.

Some of the stuff in the story about drawinga cello when only 2 and to play when he was two, seems a little far fetched for me.

kiru

9th January 2005, 07:22 AM

Observer,
I dont know what is your intention in starting this thread. Maybe you should have started a thread 'Why IR is not a genius ?" or 'Why ARR is not a genius ?' and Could have used this content in that thread. Using this thread to make indirect slights at our MDs does not seem like a nice thing to me.
I think kr has quite a few good points, especially about different set of standards. The composers you have given as examples are working with pure western idioms. MSV or IR never worked this way. I am of the opinion that our film music is a genre by itself. This, like what kr, says may not just appeal to the western audience. Currently, Western classical is not popular music and when you given them our film music - a genre that has indian classical and western classical, the unfamiliarity does not invoke any immediate appreciation.
Anyways, please start a topic on why our film music is inferior than say <whatever western genre you like or feel is better>. I probably will take some time to post there.

9th January 2005, 08:54 AM

Kiru:

Nice points.

Also, if you analytically look at this Jay as quoted in the article, there are a few things that are being quoted as why he stands out.

a. He is only 12
b. He began exhibiting an exceptional talent for music from 2 year onwards
c. He has composed 5 symphonies already while people write 5 over a lifetime
d. He can write a sonata in 25 minutes
e. Music fills up his mind and he can write a entire set of notations just sitting down
f. Generally the score he writes does not need any or manay corrections.

These are great. However, just because these things have been said about Jay does not necessarily mean that our TFM-MDs are inferior.

On d, e and f, Observers who have dealt with IR have said the same thing about IR.
On point c, I have two thoughts - why is that the only standard for determining a genius? Why i it wrong to classify as standards for a genius - the quantity of indian folk composed, or carnatic music composed or number of film scores in a year or the versataility of excellence in all forms of music? Why is it that if someone has not composed 5 symphonies by the age 12 that he is a not a genius?

The second thought on that is that our TFM-MDs have not just focussed on just composing symphonies. They have done that along with thier composing of other music. So, to call them that they are not worthy of a genius, you do not have the data points as to how many symphonies our guys would have composed if they had just concentrated on that form.

On the point, I have said sme of the stuff that is written is far fetched. However, unlike Jay, why cant it be that the same for TFM-MDs as to thier childhood probably have not been well recorded or publicized.

And then on point a, it only shows that this guy is a prodigy. But also, let us think about it, if in 10 years there is another child prodigy who does similar stuff but by age 10, does that mean this guy is a not a genius anymore? That is where the tendency to discount other just because you read this story is ridiculous.

This guy jay and achievement are truly amazing. But just because of that, let us not undermine what the others have done.

Observer_Is_Back

9th January 2005, 09:35 AM

kr:

"On point c, I have two thoughts - why is that the only standard for determining a genius? Why i it wrong to classify as standards for a genius - the quantity of indian folk composed, or carnatic music composed or number of film scores in a year or the versataility of excellence in all forms of music? Why is it that if someone has not composed 5 symphonies by the age 12 that he is a not a genius?"

I've already described the criteria I've used. If some Indian composer has composed an equivalent amount of folk/carnatic at that age growing up in a non-musical family, please name him, I'll anoint him a genius and sing his glories.

"So, to call them that they are not worthy of a genius, you do not have the data points as to how many symphonies our guys would have composed if they had just concentrated on that form. "

So what about the fans who claim genius precisely on the grounds that the composers they idolize have incorporated Western forms? If instead they emphasized the pure Carnatic/folk component they could've avoided these odious comparisons, but of course they can't really afford to do that since in that realm they can't compete with the seriousness of the real Indian classical masters.

Sure you can establish a pure film composing genre where you can exult in your own standards, but you've thereby lost the opportunity of claiming parity with masters of WCM and ICM. The music will always strike the international audiences you court as filmi and light. Indeed the TIS project certainly demonstrates the truth of this observation in its efforts to present itself on the same level as WCM/ICM masters and not the usual filmi fluff.

Observer_Is_Back

9th January 2005, 09:55 AM

kr:

"As stated, your opinion differs from my mine - which to me is fine. However, the reason I started a response in the first place was a veiled belttling of opinions who might hold thier favorite MDs as geniuses because it may not agree with someone else's evaluation of the same."

As I already said my intention is to enlarge the scope of the term genius. Let's not get into belittling of opinions and the like, you're belittling my opinions as much as I'm yours. This exaggerated sensitivity about one's opinions is ridiculous. I've no fanatical investment in my opinions, I aim to observe the real world and constantly re-evaluate my thoughts.

Regarding you disagreeing with me, of course you already indicated that several times. That fact does not necessarily cause me sleepless nights. My links were posted for a certain community who share similar ideas about genius.

"With regard to the 60 miniutes and shows like that, I have first hand experience of how to place stories, manipulate them etc. If you think you hear facts in these shows, i could only hope you get a chance to learn how these things work, With regard to the website of Jullian"

This one is funny, having carried out the usual strategy of attacking and questioning your opponent's source, you throw in the phrase "not really a objective source" for good measure. What would constitute an "objective source"? Any opinion, award, article can always be refuted as the writer's subjective opinion, or the reporter's biased take, or the site's marketing tactic. The opinion of posterity might possibly qualify as an "objective source", but we'll all be long gone by then. In the meantime, no one is stopping you from declaring the achievements of your idol as world-class genius, and the achievements of all others as mere marketing.

Observer_Is_Back

9th January 2005, 10:31 AM

kiru:

"Observer,
I dont know what is your intention in starting this thread. Maybe you should have started a thread 'Why IR is not a genius ?" or 'Why ARR is not a genius ?'"

What reason is required other than the sheer shareability and the wonder of that information? Isn't that good enough reason? Why, would you rather not have known about this boy?

But at the risk of repeating myself to the point of general boredom, I wanted to bring what the larger world (and I) consider geniuses within the orbit of the discussions here. I gather that this irks you. But, given how often the topic of WCM pops up here, I'm sure some were interested, and are glad to have been informed.

"The composers you have given as examples are working with pure western idioms."

What composers? Do you mean Tan Dun, Sakamoto and Hisaishi? These gentlemen, if you care to google them, are by no means working solely in pure Western/pure classical idioms.

"MSV or IR never worked this way. I am of the opinion that our film music is a genre by itself. This, like what kr, says may not just appeal to the western audience."

The problem with this approach, as I already pointed out above, is that it deprives you of the opportunity to lord it over other film composers, and also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to apply for equal consideration as the great WCM/ICM masters.

"Currently, Western classical is not popular music and when you given them our film music - a genre that has indian classical and western classical, the unfamiliarity does not invoke any immediate appreciation."

I can't say I catch your drift here. Are you using that to justify the failures (or lack of definitive success) of our composers on the international stage? Certainly Tan Dun has also (f)used Chinese classical and Western classical with spectacular results, so it's been proven it can be done. The fact that Western classical music is not popular is certainly true, but the critics addressing the music in any case do not originate from mainstream camps, they're classical/filmscore/worldmusic critics, and as such their taste is likely to be well-informed and wide-ranging.

In other words we can't keep shifting the onus onto critics, different standards and so on. Let's also for once take into consideration the quality of the music we're putting out there. Or are you saying that our efforts are invariably beyond all reproach, because, well, we're genuises in our neighborhood, and that's the end of the matter?

Mohan

9th January 2005, 11:46 AM

Observer, Hi !! I have just joined the TFM site, may be It may take me some time to take a grip of the situation and the intensity of the debate.
But I would like to add my comment.
Fine this 12 year old is a Child prodigy, may be he has had the exposure to this kiand of Music from birth , why birth, may be whilst in his mothers womb. Possible . The new generation of children we see off-late has been exemplary.
Irrespective of the Field they excel. quite possible these days.
Please consider ur thoughts being out of the ring, I mean take a nuetral platform and analyse , may it may throw a new dimension to ur thought process.
Yes , I still maintain that this Little guy Jay is gonna create a niche for him in the years to come.
Yes this what we say " Evolution ", of life, species, genus,and what not.
It also aplies to contemporary music .
Hope I have made my point in short

thanks

Mohan

Observer_Is_Back

9th January 2005, 08:01 PM

Mohan:

Welcome to the forum, and to this debate.

You say: "Fine this 12 year old is a Child prodigy, may be he has had the exposure to this kiand of Music from birth , why birth, may be whilst in his mothers womb."

None of the reports on the boy indicate he heard WCM during his gestation. Even if he did, don't you agree that millions of kids experience some sort of music or the other in the womb, yet few become musicians, fewer still become geniuses?

"Please consider ur thoughts being out of the ring, I mean take a nuetral platform and analyse , may it may throw a new dimension to ur thought process."

What is "neutrality", Mohan, in your opinion? Why do I strike you as being biased? Biased in favor of what? I'm not an adherent of any one composer unlike most of the other participants here. I also expressed my willingness to accept an Indian genius at the level of Jay, so I can't be biased for the West or against India.

"Yes this what we say " Evolution ", of life, species, genus, and what not. It also applies to contemporary music."

So you're saying that evolution is leading to a higher order of genius today? Well, the article about Jay compares him with Mozart, Mendelssohn and Saint-Sans, it doesn't say he surpasses those past masters. In any case, evolution doesn't move this fast unless some dramatic mutation or climate shift has taken place. Have you heard of punctuated equilibrium?

Observer_Is_Back

9th January 2005, 08:40 PM

kr:

"On d, e and f, Observers who have dealt with IR have said the same thing about IR."

So whatever Jay has in common with IR is true, everything else is marketing? What if I say that you're just "planting" those above claims on IR, being in the marketing profession yourself? Why should I believe you but "discount" an experienced composer like Sam Zyman? See, once we commence undercutting each other's sources, nothing is left standing.

"On point c, I have two thoughts - why is that the only standard for determining a genius?"

Indeed. Did I ever say that you MUST share my standards for genius? You don't, some do. Fine. Let's move on.

"However, unlike Jay, why cant it be that the same for TFM-MDs as to thier childhood probably have not been well recorded or publicized."

So I'm required to invent brilliant childhood anecdotes, and hail them as geniuses based on that? I think fans/press have done a pretty obsessive job of trivia-hunting on IR and ARR. I'm sure they'd be shouting from the rooftops if they had similar stories to tell. And, of course, if they did do that, some would still dismiss it all as just marketing.

"But also, let us think about it, if in 10 years there is another child prodigy who does similar stuff but by age 10, does that mean this guy is a not a genius anymore?"

And what if someone comes along tomorrow who's composed 5 symphonies by his fifth birthday? What if someone after that composes 100 symphonies as a foetus by dictating notes via kicks in the womb? Let's not go crazy here. There is not much room left to manouevre in terms of age after this. In any case, Jay's youthfulness is ONE factor among others like his prolificity, versatility, speed, complexity and compositional quality as judged by his teachers/critics. If someone comes along who beats him in the age stakes, an overall evaluation might still favor Jay. Or not. Even if Jay ends up ranking behind, he'll continue to belong to this class of genius.

kiru

10th January 2005, 11:42 PM

Observer,
I just posted because this kid fitted the description of a child prodigy. He surely will be hailed as a genius, when his work becomes well-known.
The reason I discourage talking about indian film MDs here in a negative tone is because, whenever you want to praise/appreciate somebody, you do not want to belittle others. The tone of the discussion should be positive all the time. If we talk positive about worthy people, just the silence on others, should convey who are the real talented. We dont really have to talk negatively.

Still, I am irked by the references here to film music as an inferior art form and people doing that are less capable. I take exception to this, this betrays a gross ignorance of the genesis of various music forms. One does not classical overnight. Classical usually means one which stood the test of time. And usually, the one which stands the test of time are the ones which are more structured and has serious work with attention to detail to all aspects of that craft.

I do not have the time to substantiate my points more elaborately. But let me lay it out so that others can contribute it as well.

1) Indian film music was started (by some englishmen) with the goal of integrating the grandeur of western classical music with indian music so as to be a backdrop for the impressive medium of cinema.

2) Strings section of the western classical orchestra was the first to find immediate usage.

3) In tamil, MDs like G Ramanathan started giving 'light' versions of indian classical music. To this day, the pallavi/anupallavi/charanam structure of the indian classical krithi is still followed.

4) Film music being a popular music format. Not much attention is paid to nuance/details of classical music. Still a good percentage of the works of indian film MDs can be considered 'classical'. (According to a rough estimate, 30% of IR's songs strictly follow a single raagam)

5) Indian music is monophonic (single voice). Western classical music is polyphonic. All MDs in indian film music have contributed in adding more elements of WCM into film music, while retaining the indian character of the music.

6) The main aspect of indian film music or genre deals with melody based compositions (using raagam and WCM orchestrations). This aspect can be considered classical. Interesting thing is, this form, is also a very popular format in India, unlike in America/Europe only things which are 'rhythmic/with percussions' is considered 'POP. Ofcourse, I am generalizing here (as I am not sure where Jazz falls into place, which is close to indian classical music concerts).

7) All MDs including Rahman, use the indian film music idiom atleast while composing 'melodies'.

8) All our MDs are working, to relatively different degrees :-), in evolving this genres.

9) The best of our MDs compared should be compared with rock/POP musicians of the west. And I am pretty sure they will fare very well.

10) Indian MDs recognize classical music as a serious form and do venture into it. Even Rahman, who spelt out his area of interest as world/pop and even let others 'arrange' the string section is taking active interest in orchestral scores. Our MDs have melodic talent and only have to learn some techniques and structure of WCM to start contributing in that form.

Anyways, the point here is to show that the work of our MDs is not inferior and that the lack of recognition as enjoyed by comparable people in the west, does not mean they are lesser contributors to the art of music.