Sunday, November 01, 2009

How a Tappa can be called a “lighter” form given its complexity

A Question of Variety; Carnatic or Hindustani
from *DesiPundit* - A Little Wit. A Little Wisdom. Lots of India by uttara

Khayal and Dhrupad are the two major forms. Numerous “lighter” forms exist such as Thumri, Kajri, Tappa etc. Now a Dhrupad singer does not usually specialise in Khayal and vice versa. And while a Khayal singer may include a Thumri in a concert, there have always been singers who specialise in Thumri-Dadra and sing nothing else.

Third, a variety of different forms exist in Hindustani music, but not everyone is singing them brilliantly. Also, access to these forms remains limited. I return to my old pet peeve, there is a lot more on the net in terms of quality Carnatic music… In sum, the variety exists in the North, but differently.

Here is Malini Rajurkar singing a Tappa-Chaal Pehchaani. How a Tappa can be called a “lighter” form given its complexity I fail to see…but anyway.

Tripuraneni Gopichand is severely criticised by Marxist and Rationalist critics

Most writers in India, who grew up in the 40s and 50s received influences from different sources because that was the age of ‘imports’ from all over India as well as from the West. Tripuraneni Gopichand (1910-1962) was no exception to this; the major influence on him was his father, Tripuraneni Ramaswamy Choudary, who spear-headed the Rationalist and anti-Brahmin movement in Telugu literature. Later, he was influenced by Marxist thought, Aurobindo and M N Roy’s philosophy; as for literature, he was influenced by Bernard Shaw, Henrik Ibsen and Oscar Wilde, by his own admission.
But the best thing about this vociferous reader and prolific writer, was his openness to new thoughts and ideas. Admittedly, this openness may have given an impression of vulnerability and inconsistency; but, he was first and foremost a creative artist and only later a theoretician. Though he was influenced by most philosophers and social theorists, he did not bow in to them, without applying them to life and experience. That was where he differed from many of his great contemporaries; he put all his theories to test in life and accepted only those which reflected in his experience; and others, which remained only abstract theories without base of experience, he rejected.
In his magnum opus novel, Asamarthuni Jeevayatra (The Life of an Imbecile) this is the theme he discusses; in this exquisitely written novel (the very first psychological novel in Telugu, written in 1945) the protagonist cannot make adjustment with life and his theoretical world and ultimately commits suicide. [...]
Gopichand, cannot probably be described as a universally admired writer; he is severely criticised by Marxist and Rationalist critics of present day; but he left an indelible mark on Telugu fiction with his deep concern for huma­nity which came out in all sincerity through his novels and short stories.