Comments on Outlook article & other TiS criticisms
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp...+%28F%29&sid=1
Is the above
a) a review of the composer's work?
b) just a human interest story?
c) a passing remark on someone's personal life?
d) Or simply an attempt to kick up controversy?
Make your pick!
The article by S. Anand contains some factual inaccuracies. For e.g., it says that the English lyrics in the album are penned by GU Pope, but these were actually written by Stephen Schwartz. The first English translation of Thiruvasakam was done by the former.
Outlook S. Anand / IR's Oratorio / Bob Marley et al
It is sad to see that S. Anand (and his piece on IR's opus) has been turned into a pinata by all sorts, completely oblivious of the role of "context" in criticism. It is the first time I have encountered this journalist (thanks for sharing the link) and I am happy to say that I do not refract my take through the prism of his (previous) textuality (call it baggage?)
The last question in his piece seems to have ruffled some ardent feathers, leading to typical knee-jerk reactions - not so unusual in these fora.
What do Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, G8 have to do with IR's Oratorio?
Those who are familiar with the biographies and discographies of BM, BD et al, would have no problem with the question: These western (and west indian?) artistes, given their personal struggles with power and disenfranchisement, gave voice to the status (or invisibility) of the "underdog." This was their cause celebre. Voices from the Margins, whether you like it or not, are essentially a "protest" or "cry" against the oppressive grip of the status-quo. This impetus is indispensible in what can be termed as "resistance literature."
Now, I urge those of you who so easily fly off the handle, to give pause.
S. Anand delienates the literary origins of Thiruvasagam, and points to the "catholic" influence in it's translation history:"The meek shall inherit the earth." In this regard, IRs origins (his religious conversion) are integral to the question posed. The Dalits of India are the meek and oppressed, and IR's geneology, in this respect, is crucial.
Now the G8:
The G8 concerts were used as lightning rods to pry the world's blindspot to the plight, poverty and the wretched indignity of the downtrodden and forgotten people of Africa. Hence, the concerts (and not necessarily the bands or songs) were undeniably Political.
Here's how it comes together: Is IRs use of Manickavasagar's verses in a cross-genre exercise an attempt to reiterate, in spritiual terms, the christian ethos of "the meek inheriting the earth"? Is it an anthem to the "meek" (underdog) that they can transcend the man-made categories of caste, class, creed and culture through spiritual engagement? Is it a call to resist these walls and barriers of Power and Subjugation through supplications to a Higher Power that/who is above and beyond the politics of everyday human oppressions?
I think so.
And I thank S. Anand for this contextual insight.
PS: IR's Oratorio is yet to make it to the stores here. I've only heard one segment on the net. This response is exclusively about the Outlook article, and should not be conflated (or read) as a review of the entire work.
Outlook / S. Anand / IR's Oratorio /
Alwarpet Andavan (gotta love the alliteration! :-)) -
I thought I'd had my say here on this topic, but since you address your reply to me, I owe you a proper response.
As I stated in my previous post, I am not familiar with S. Anand's writings, and as such, am completely clueless about his literary tropes, pet peeves, and his "dalit" badge of honour...So thanks for filling me in on the things I didn't know.
There are many constituencies here, and some more passionate (and passionately biased) than others. As evidenced by some of the posts in this thread, a discussion of IR's "dalit" origins is off-limits. While Denial is not a river in Egypt, I find the vehemence of this negation abundantly peculiar. I sense a collective shame on the part of IR's fans to broach this subject. Obviously, they believe that IR is part of the "status-quo" now, and that's the end of that. As someone summarised "review symphony or keep (his) mouth shut." How's that for succinct?
Yes, IR may have stated his objectives / motivations for the project a long time ago, but if criticism only depended on "artiste statements" then there would be no other engagement with the work. For instance, if IR had said that the reason he took on this project was his personal boredom and exhaustion with film music, then where would that leave us? A critic's job is not just to address the liminal, but also unpack the subliminal. S. Anand's final question, in my reading, was both astute and relevant. Even if you don't see the Oratorio as being "political," you have to bear in mind that the origins of the genre (Opera, minus sur-titles, sets and movement) are devoutly "Christian" (the faith IR renounced?)
What the Oratorio does (and does with elan) is blur man-made distinctions of religions and hierarchies. A profound Hindu text is merged with amazing grace into a Christian music form. How cool - and beyond human categories - is that?
This is the crux of S.Anand's question: A man of "dalit" origins gives us a work that CHALLENGES arbitrary distinctions of faith and form -
Not Religious Music, but RELIGION OF MUSIC.
All identities are subsumed, and what emerges is not Oppression (which is feature of institutionalised religion) but Liberation. Isn't that a wonderful connection to make?
On an entirely different note: If Freedom of Speech were a Right only for the people we agree with, then what we are really practising is Censorship. Oppression by any other name still is?