V. N. Muthukumar and M. V. Ramana
Few would doubt that the late G. N. Balasubramaniam (GNB) was one of the greatest musicians of the twentieth century. Though many aspects of his music and his career contributed to his status, it is our contention that the most important of these was his keen intellect and analytic approach to music. This was apparent in almost every facet of his music, and laid the foundation for his enormous influence on Carnatic music. Here, we mention some of the features that stand out in GNB’s approach to concert music that can be, and are, adopted by other performers in their music. We also discuss some other ways through which he has influenced modern Carnatic music.
GNB’s approach to music, as well as his thoughts on the future of Carnatic music are well summarized through his own words. During his presidential address at the 32nd conference of the Music Academy in 1958, GNB observed, “In music, as in other aspects of the culture we have inherited from the past, we have now come to a stage, when I am afraid, blind and unmeaning obedience and adherence to the past will no longer obtain amongst the younger and future generations. Unless we are able to understand and communicate to them the why and how of our past traditions and practices, there is every reason for our being nervous about the continuance of our inherited cultures. Therefore it behooves us to acquaint ourselves, I mean musicians, and study intimately the science or lakshana of music.”
It was this scientific approach that also guided his practical expositions of music. In that sense, he bridged the gap between theory and practice. And he did so in great style, as revealed through the single most distinctive feature of GNB’s music – his manodharma or creativity. GNB’s creativity was most apparent through his elaborate alapanas. While several other musicians may have also sung elaborate alapanas, the key difference is in GNB’s structured approach to this form of creativity, as well as other exercies of manodharma, such as neraval and swara prastara.
GNB’s approach is well described in a critique, that appeared in the magazine Sruti, of his student M L Vasanthakumari’s music: “Vasanthakumari’s raga delineation is marked by the same step-by-step development that was patented by her guru. There is in it, not only technical mastery, but also an orderliness, a cool sophistication that eschews sentimentality, an adventuresome probing of the deeper aspects and an innovativeness rooted in tradition.” We chose to quote this, not only because it describes GNB’s style of alapanas, but also because it underscores our point that others can adopt GNB’s approach to raga alapana as well.
GNB started his alapanas, especially those prior to a ragam-tanam-pallavi (RTP), with a sketch of the raga and then followed it up with elaboration of the different parts. The impression is akin to painting a picture of the raga in broad brush strokes and then developing the full picture in great detail. In ragas that are amenable to such a treatment, typically, GNB’s filling up was done in a note-by-note fashion. Examples of such ragas include Todi, Shanmughapriya and Kalyani, where the elaboration proceeds through halts at successive anchor notes. In the case of other ragas such as Natakurinji or Devamanohari, the method of elaboration is by adopting motifs – characteristic patterns that he returns to, and uses as building blocks, an approach that typified GNB’s elaboration of most ragas. One notable instance is his use of N2 D2 G3 M1 P in Kamboji, reportedly a phrase that GNB pioneered.
With respect to other forms of manodharma, we wish to highlight GNB’s brisk neravals in the early part of the concert, often the second or third song, as well as his short, i.e. 1-2 avartana length, swara prastara. Both these features that help set the mood of the concert (“kaccheri kaLai kattradu” in Tamil). Here again, GNB used motifs in the form of swara clusters during swara prastara. Going by the available recordings of GNB’s, there were a number of kritis that seem to have been clear favorites for this “slot”: saketa nagaranatha (Harikamboji), manasa etulo (Malayamarutam), sri rama ramani (Mohanam), paraloka (purvikalyani) as well as a number in Pantuvarali such as sundaratara deham, ennaganu rama bhajana, and raghuvara nannu. GNB’s ragamalika swaraprastara at the end of his RTPs was also something to look out for. In the case of pallavis set to tisra nadai (apparently another favourite of GNB), the switch in nadai and pace when starting ragamalika swaras created an electric effect.
GNB was also very fond of singing elaborate ragamalika viruttams. In singing these, GNB usually selected Sanskrit slokas, but elaborated the raga in alapana style. It seems as though he employed viruttams as a proxy for alapanas in multiple ragas.
We mention these features of GNB’s manodharma, as illustrations of GNB’s innovativeness within the confines of tradition and to emphasize the point that musicians from other schools can adopt these features as well.
GNB was also a master at “setting up” and popularizing kritis. To “set up” means to perfect a kriti with appropriate sangatis, so that it sounds “just right”. This is an art in itself ; not all musicians are good at it. When one hears vatapi in Hamsadhvani or sri subramanyaya in Kamboji, part of the credit for what one hears should go to Maha Vaidhyanatha Iyer (1844-1893) who added attractive sangatis and changed the kalapramana. Similarly GNB polished several Tyagaraja and Dikshitar kritis, often learning them from relatively obscure vidwans, and popularized them on the concert platform. Examples are raka sasivadana in Takka and chintaye mahalinga in Paras. Other kritis that have the “GNB stamp” are tamadamen swami and ananda natesa in Todi, himagiri tanaye in Suddha Dhanyasi, rama ninne in Saranga, ekadantam in Bilahari and ma ramanan in Hindolam. One could, of course, add many more.
GNB was also good at reinterpreting old kritis in unusual ways, especially in the manodharma portions. As examples one could list his neraval at the phrase sumati tyagaraja in nidhichala sukhama (Kalyani), or at the phrase, tapatraya harana nipuna in sri subramanyaya (Kamboji). At the end of a 1956 concert in Delhi where GNB sang sri subramanyaya, Justice T L Venkatrama Iyer, a musician well known for his knowledge of Dikshitar kritis having learnt them from Ambi Dikshitar, the composer’s great grandson, is reported to have said : “I have heard this kriti handled by so many illustrious vocalists including GNB. Still, when today GNB skipped the usual niraval of vasavati, I was a bit disappointed. But when he chose the phrase, tapatraya harana nipuna for niraval and swaraprasthara, all of us were lost in the melody, transported to a different and more sublime world. I couldn't imagine that there was such a fine passage with 'Swarakshara Samyoga' in the charanam. Only a genius like GNB with an inquisitive mind can make such 'discoveries' in time-tested kritis. One will not like to hear any other passage for niraval after tasting the nectar-like niraval of GNB in the charanam”.
GNB was also instrumental in introducing and popularizing rare and new ragas on the concert stage. Mridanga Vidwan T. K. Murthy Iyer recalls an instance when GNB sang Harikesanallur Muthiah Bhagavatar’s creation, Gaudamalhar. Muthiah Bhagavatar, who was in the audience, stood up and said he felt he had created this raga for GNB to sing, and presented GNB with a golden bracelet (toda). Many of the kritis that GNB was particularly identified with were in ragas such as Andolika (raga sudharasa), Malavi (nenarunchi), Chenchu kamboji (vara raga laya), Dipakam (kalala nerchina) and Kiranavali (eti yochanalu). These ragas acquired a special sheen when handled by GNB. It is gratifying to note that several younger musicians of our generation have followed this practice of handling uncommon ragas and compositions.
It is interesting, and perhaps instructive, to note that while GNB pioneered several ragas, he strictly avoided singing RTPs in these ragas. For the elaboration of RTP, he usually chose ghana or rakti ragas. Ragas such as Todi, Bhairavi, Kalyani, Kamboji, Shanmukhapriya and Natakurinji featured prominently. At the same time, GNB also resuscitated and propagated the singing of RTPs in some rakti ragas that were not very commonly used for RTPs during his time. Among other ways, he did this through a series of programs on All India Radio where each concert featured an RTP in ragas like Anandabhairavi, Ritigaula and Devamanohari.
GNB also composed many kritis and varnas. Some of these have been published in the two volumes of the Ganabhaskara Manimala. As a composer, GNB’s contributions may be divided into three categories. First, GNB composed new kritis in ragas that Tyagaraja had pioneered. (Tyagaraja was, after all, the composer he held in the highest esteem.) Examples of this are his kritis in Nalinakanti (nee padame), Malavi (marivere gati), Hamsanadam (barama) and Malayamarutam (niravati sukha). Second, GNB composed varnas in uncommon and new ragas that define the lakshana of the raga. Once again he was following the example of earlier composers such as Muthiah Bhagavatar. Examples of this are Ranjani (amboruha padame), Andolika (nee daya) and Gavati (kamalavasini). Third, GNB created new ragas and composed in them. Examples of this are Sivasakti, Amritabehag, Sarangatarangini and Chandrahasitam. Of these, Sivasakti is noteworthy in that it uses just four notes in the arohana. Once again, he was following Tyagaraja, who was the first to create ragas with less than five notes in the arohana or avarohana.
Finally, GNB’s role as a teacher has also contributed to his influence on modern Carnatic music. It is to GNB’s credit, and that of his prominent disciples such as M. L. Vasanthakumari, S. Kalyanaraman and Trichur Ramachandran, that even within his lifetime, a distinctive GNB school, with its characteristic bani came into existence. It is evident that he must have been a good teacher because he established a strong and thriving musical lineage. Many anecdotes about his teaching also reveal that his analytical bent of mind was evident in the way he explained the intricacies of music to his students and others. GNB was also very generous in promoting and encouraging younger or lesser-known musicians. The most prominent beneficiaries of this trait include Lalgudi Jayaraman, M S Gopalakrishnan, and Palghat Raghu.
Carnatic music has changed enormously in the past three centuries. Through their monumental compositions, the trinity – Syama Sastry, Tyagaraja and Muthuswamy Dikshitar – revolutionized music in the 18th and 19th centuries. But it was not until the 20th century that the modern concert format (kaccheri paddhati) as we know it evolved. Though Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar is the one who is often credited with introducing this format, the roots of the paddhati go back to musicians like Ramnad Srinivasa Iyengar and Konerirajapuram Vaidhyanatha Iyer of the previous generation, and perhaps as far back to the times of vidwans like Maha Vaidhyanatha Iyer and Patnam Subramania Iyer of the preceding generation. Be that as it may, by the time GNB arrived on the scene, this paddhati had already been established as “traditional”, a tradition, one might add, that was barely a couple of decades old. It is to GNB’s credit that he innovated within the confines of this tradition. He was, to borrow a description that the musicologist T. V. Subba Rao applied to Tyagaraja, a “conservative radical.” GNB himself has praised the same sentiment in his presidential address. “Nothing new should be rejected merely on the score that it is novel. All cultural progress has been due to pioneers of new ideas and expressions, though at their own times they were called rebels.” Above all, it is this spirit of innovation within the boundaries of tradition that we hope would be the longer term impact of GNB.