-
I'm not quite sure why do we look for appreciation from westeners since their level of comprehending the nuances of Indian Music is very minimal. If the reviewer doesn't understand the fact the composition is trying to project the harmony between the western scale and carnatic ragam, then there is no point in getting serious with the review. May be someone can point to the research article in Raja.com where they have explained the nuances of the composition and the deeper resonance of the fusion. Inspite of all her paprs published and all that, she literally threw egg on her own face by comparing Mornign Raga with How to Name it/Nothing but Wind which is just a shallow music popularized by the percussion-happy people.
It would be better if we don't waste in posting these crappy reviews and inciting people to retort. I'm sure we can lots of good reviews to discuss on.
-
The plague of the incorrectly named songs on the Oriental CD strikes again. What the reviewer refers to as "Chamber Welcomes Thiagaraja" (as on the CD) is actually "You cannot be free" - it is the one based on panthuvarali ragam, starts with classical guitar and goes to jazz fusion (hence "filmi"?).
What is refered to as "Mad Mod Mood Fugue" is also a jazzy track, but its really atrocious to compare that to morning raaga. And of course it is not a fugue - cos its wrongly named on the CD. What is called "you cannot be free" on the CD is what must be named "Mad Mod Mood Fugue" (3 voices, 2 violins and a bass forming a fugue).
Check this for correct song name and description:
http://www.raaja.com/Rv-How%20to%20name%20it.pdf
The reviewers attachment for the word "filmi", and fascination with "Morning raaga" makes the whole review sound weak. So its best taken with a pinch of salt.
As for the NBW part of the review, the sentence "If one judges them according to the standards of Western art music..." says it all. There is no way to get a decent view by starting from the wrong viewpoint. And I don't realize how, after listening to just the last 2 minutes of "composer's breath", anyone can call it "bland" - certainly not a serious listener. I do agree with "fuzzy, muffled tone quality". Wish the recording was better.
-
As long as the music appeals to one's heart and mind, why take anyone else's opinion seriously about that particular piece of music...at the max, it is like another DFer's opinion:-))
Personally I never care about all these adjectives like "scholarly" "acclaimed" etc when it comes to reviewing art, unless the person reviewing himself /herself is a great performer in the same field...like Naushad's opinions on MSV/IR means much more to me than some university professor / PhD... (In science, technology and business it's a different matter where I greatly value the PhDs, again as long as they stick to facts, not presenting mere "theories" as facts - for e.g. evolution)...
-
A mid-1980s composition copies or reminds of a mid-2000s composition.
Wow! Is that what we call IR's music has crossed years barrier?
It seems reviewers take it for granted that music composers like IR have time-machines.