Talk:Carnatic music/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Carnatic Music page taken hostage by hostile editors

Why are this page and related pages being taken hostage by hostile admins?

I made some really sound edits explaining with reasons today. An admin called Venu62 makes sweeping changes reversing all my edits, and says I should get permission here before making such edits.

Why is this autocratic setup allowed on wikipedia? Is there a way to register complaint against such admins?

I want people who dont like the edits I made just now to give me proper reasons for the reversal, and I request all interested parties to participate in this.

Some of them are related to assertions about a virtually unknown group called "Tamil trinity" who are depicted as torchbearers of carnatic tradition. I am a tamil myself, and I havent heard about a Tamil trinity in all my 25 years of association with this art form! Muthu Thandavar etc are by no means regarded in Carnatic Music circles as mainstream composers or on the same league as Thyagaraja and Co.

What is there to reach a consensus in this? Is citing a remote article sufficient reason to impose strange ideas based on Tamil chauvinism on Carnatic Music related data?

My mentions about Tiruppugazh, which is more related to mainstream Carnatic Music, have also been sweepingly reversed.

Does this article on carnatic music belong to Venu62 and his friends? --Kris 20:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Skris, You don't make any point except to express your baseless opposition to tamil trinity. Just because you don't know or haven't heard of them, their existence and contributions don't cease to be facts. You're simply insisting that an article on encycopedia should relfect your ignorance! Muthu Thandavar et al are very well known composers. Books and several articles are published on their compositions and many major artists have/and continue to sing their songs. --72.140.138.83 05:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Srkris,

I agree almost word for word with what you say. As far as tamil trinity is concerned, I had raised this exact same issue about a month or two ago on this very talk page. Even I was shocked that people were trying to paint the 'tamil trinity' higher than purandara dasa and the real 'trinity'. I ended up saying some things that were rude and may come across as such to tamilians. But they were all made in good faith and not out of spite. I am glad that you have reopened this issue and hope it brings some objectivity to the article.

As for Tamil music, it is really funny that people here are claiming it is a precursor to Carnatic music or even somehow related. They make the point that Subbulaxmi used to sing it once upon a time or something like that. Fact of the matter is, when MS never sang or even promoted this so called 'tamil music' of her own accord. It was the Dravidian and Tamil nationalistic politics of those days that forced her to do all those things. Dravidian political fanatics of those days were busy clamping down on everything and tamilizing things. Carnatic music being a near monopoly domain of brahmins, hence became an Aryan tradition in these people's eyes and hence was also not spared. Musicians were browbeat to toe their line and sing 'classical divine' Tamil music.

Infact, the supporters of this 'classical divine' tradition also took the pains to claim that Tamil had an independent, indigenous and thriving musical tradition(much like the literary tradition claimed today), the so called tamil isai and even tried to revive it by having pure tamil isai kacheris which however didnt become popular with the connoisseurs. That was 40-50 years ago and today, I am amazed to see a different(infact, totally opposite) spin being given to the same thing.

And then there was someone who started splitting hairs and started questioning whether purandara dasa, kanaka dasa et al were carnatic composers at all!! His/her premise was that they hadnt composed Carnatic music at all because what they had composed were not kritis!!

I mean, I dont want to sugar coat this as doing so might undermine WP itself, but I really request some Tamil editors here not to lose sight of objectivity. Though not an accomplished musician myself, I am no stranger to Carnatic music. Right now, I am not editing this article because, I dont have the time. But I am certainly pained at the directions this article has been taking. I will certainly make a WP:BOLD edit someday with necessary citations and some people will only have themselves to blame if they end up wasting their time. Sarvagnya 21:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My question about the compositions of kanaka dasa etc. are valid and it is still not answered.

As I said earlier, I am a Tamil myself. I dont know any other south Indian or north Indian language, for me to be biased against Tamil. In fact I run huge communities on Tamil on social networking sites like Orkut. That is as far as my own personal objectivity is concerned.

But what I dont agree with is this Tamil chauvinism some people show everywhere. Carnatic Music is by no means "Tamil Music", and there is no Tamil Trinity known in Carnatic Music circles. Carnatic Music includes songs from all 4 main southern languages plus sanskrit, and the languages that are most popular are Telugu and Sanskrit, with Kannada and Tamil coming next.

You're confusing Tamil music system and Tamil language kritis. Again you're making comments without any basis. Modern day ( > 1850) Carnatic music is certainly a recent evolution of ancient tamil music and the modern era again was propelled by Muthu Thandavar et al. The later trinity also lived in tamil nadu and in tamil milieau.

Another issue is who gave the right to some admins to make sweeping reversals like how Venu62 has done to my edits today? Some of them are not even discussed here. This admin immediately reverses my edits and advises me to first reach a consensus, as though he has a personal agenda here. Why not him reaching a consensus with others first and raising a discussion on portions of my edits that havent been discussed so far, before reversing my edits?

Why don't you read up the discussions that took place here? Venu62 is to be congratulated for his contributions to maintain some neutrality.

Can the larger carnatic music community come forward and discuss here about abuses of authority made by admins like these and decide on how to institute complaints against their autocratic actions? Does wikipedia articles belong to these admins that they make unjustified and sweeping reversals like these without remorse? Is there a history of such edits as these by Venu62 available (which clearly establish his chauvinism and autocracy) so that we can go to the wikipedia arbitration committee and ask them to take appropriate action?--Kris 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and complain, if you must. But based on the past history of reversals here and the anti-tamil bias exhibited and the ignorance of many basic facts by some, it would be easy to make a point of why Venu62 reversed.

Kris the point is, nobody other than a Tamilian could have made the points you are making without their intent being questioned or their actions being attributed to bad faith. That is partly the reason, I(a Kannadiga) left the debate after raising my point for a short while. I always intended and intend to come back to editing this article when I find time. But that may be more than a couple of months.

Please go through my earlier comments buried somewhere on this very talk page. Please ignore the harsh language and just examine the points I had raised. User:Bharatveer had also raised similar concerns - infact, I guess he was the first one to raise the issue. But then, I am a Kannadiga and Bharatveer is a Malayali and there was no way atleast I was going ot explain anything to these guys, particularly Aadal, without them assuming bad faith on my part. I request you to take it to its logical end and remove all traces of chauvinism from the article. the so called tamil trinity cannot even be mentioned in the same breath as the Haridasas or the real trinity or even infact, later composers of stature. Just the fact that this so called tamil trinity preceded the 'real' trinity is no excuse to elevate them to pedestals. This tamil trinity is like you say virtually unknown in Carnatic music circles and I daresay, unknown in Carnatic music circles outside Tamil Nadu. Sarvagnya 22:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is good to see that Wiki is educating a few users.

I believe they (Muthu Thandavar) are worth a mention somewhere, since they have also composed songs which are sung in some Carnatic music concerts in Tamil Nadu, but those compositions are more in the realm of Ancient Tamil Music than in Carnatic Music. A clear distinction needs to be made between Ancient Tamil Devotional Music and Carnatic Music. The compositions of some Tamil composers like Ambujam Krishna, Oothukadu Venkatakavi etc are "better" recognised as Carnatic Music. This "Tamil trinity" concept is virtually unknown. It is one thing to give valid references and another thing to give questionable references based on chauvinistic ideas. These composers are not considered mainstream like say Thyagaraja etc. They can be mentioned somewhere but not shown as the pioneers of Carnatic Music. Likewise people like Mysore Vasudevacharya, Gopalakrishna Bharathiyar etc are more well known than Muthuthandavar etc. I'm thinking these admins are abusing their powers to promote biased content. We will dig up examples and ensure Wikipedia is not hijacked by chauvinists of any language. Where is objectivity here? Please keep contributing your thoughts here and ask the wider community of carnatic music editors to respond here. Thanks. We need to end this menace (if these admins dont demonstrate their neutrality) once and for all. I am not an idiot to make substantial edits to remove bias and have them all reversed sweepingly by some biased admins. My time is valuable.

Another thing is why does Venu62 want us to accept what he commands? Why doesnt he (and his friend(s) try to convince us that they are right before reverting to their POV edits? I have been listening Carnatic Music for about 25 years now and I have listened to most old as well as current performers and even know some of the great names personally. So let him come here and convince that he is not biased! I am not going to give up this fight against bias and linguistic chauvinism. --Kris 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply:

• I'm not an admin, rather a lowly but useful editor
• The mention of Tamil music and Tamil composers who existed prior to the great composers Purandaradasa and the trinity of Tyagaraja, et al is relevant and has been extensively discussed above by User:Aadal and others. These mentions are fully cited according to WP:CITE
• The article does not claim that Tamil music was and is Carnatic music. It merely says that the evolution of Carnatic music was influenced by the long traditions of Tamil music

Please refrain from namecalling. It is considered a personal attack.

Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that consensus has been reached is inaccurate, it is a lie. Saying that it is a lie is not name calling. Let Aadal substantiate her claims. "Tamil trinity" or "Adi Trinity"does not ipso fact make them "Carnatic Music Trinity". This is a page on Carnatic Music, and a mention of them on par with the "Carnatic Music Trinity" in the "Carnatic Music" page tantamounts to misleading the reader. Such information should rather be made available in "Ancient Tamil Music". Carnatic music is not synonymous with Ancient Tamil music, and Tamil music trinity are not synonymous with Carnatic music trinity.--Kris 00:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you dont know the difference between Tamil devotional works and classical music, at least read this and know:

The works of Tamil saints were never intended to be classical music. They were more of a set of devotional verses. Azhwars (vaishnavite tradition) and Nayanmars (shaivite tradition) have done a lot of good to ancient tamil music and religious aspect. Their compositions are devotional verses only, irrespective of the fact that they are sometimes included in a few carnatic music recitals. Whereas the works of Thyagaraja, M.Dikshitar, Syama Sastri, Oothukadu Venkatakavi, Purandara dasa etc were set to ragas and they are set by the composers themselves to classical music. Although classical music pieces may exhibit a devotional flavour, they are not the same as Thiruvasagam or Divya Prabandham which are not set in classical music by the composers. Their composers such as appar, sambandhar etc are therefore not composers of carnatic music, much less a "trinity of carnatic music". I will help in expanding the Ancient Tamil Music page and there we can include all these saints. Please dont hijack them into Carnatic Music, and dont mixup carnatic compositions with devotional verses. In classical music, music is more important than emotions, whereas in music of appar etc, it is the devotion which is more important than the music. It would be funny to call the Vedas as carnatic music compositions even if some verses from them are sung in concerts. Please see reason, nanRi.--Kris 00:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thevaram songs are set to panns and they are not much different from Ragas. These are the oldest authentic songs set to systematic music in India. They are not just devotional music or plain folk music.

I still see Venu62 plays the blame game by calling me (a Tamil who doesnt know any other Indian language, and running huge tamil communities on some social networking websites.) as anti-Tamil. I dont need to prove him or anyone about my love for Tamil or my level-headedness in these matters. Please dont "talk crap like this" if you dont have facts. Read my previous posts. The reference you have cited (to the carnatica website about Tamil Moovar) is owned by a friend of mine. I can have him remove the erroneous reference to stop you from naming them as "Moovar of Carnatic Music" or any such contortions which you are arriving at. But I wont go so low to please you-folks. So please stop twisting references to suit your POV. Carnatic Music's history had influences from Ancient Tamil Music, but saints who created devotional works in Tamil are not carnatic music composers by any stretch of imagination. --Kris 01:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This has gone beyond the ridiculous. I never called anyone anti-Tamil or pro Tamil. Read my reply to the discussion above. I did not refer to you at all. Again please stop your personal attacks. If you don't, I will have no option but to request you to be banned. You may have influencial friends in Carnatic circles, but according to WP policies, we have to report what is out there in public domain. You cannot indulge in original research. If you have proof that Tamil music did not have any influence in the evolution of Carnatic music, then please provide it. If you claim that Carnatic music simply appeared one day in the mind of Purandara Dasa, then please provide proof for that. Appar and Sambandar's songs may not belong to the modern Krithi format, they did not even belong to the CArnatic music family, but there is no denying that they used Panns to sing their songs. Panns have had very strong influences to the evolution of Ragas. All we are talking about is did Tamil music have an influence in the development of Carnatic music. The answer is yes. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:Srkris where you have mentioned that "It seems to me that you and Sarvagnya have a POV against Tamil contributions to Carnatic music".

This discussion is not for or against Tamil music's contribution, but about treating certain religious saints as carnatic music composers. Please understand the difference --Kris 01:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of personal attacks, but readers will know I was told that I have a pov against tamil and its contribution to carnatic music. And did I get personal in return? No! I asked you to understand the difference between Tamil's contribution to carnatic music and calling certain religious saints as "composers of carnatic music" or grouping them as "trinity of carnatic music" which they were clearly not. Carnatic Music refers only to what is generally known as carnatic music today, and does not extend back to the vedic period etc even though vedas and tamil poems have influenced the development of carnatic music. --Kris 01:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also note we have not reached a consensus on this topic at any point of time in the past. No one would reach a consensus on such clearly inaccurate data of calling appar etc as carnatic music composers. They might have composed devotional poems at best, they were not known to anyone as classical musicians or classical music composers at any time. Even Sikh gurus composed kirtans (very similar to kritis/kirtanas of carnatic music) but their work is not called carnatic music, wondered why? Carnatic Music is classical music, and it is distinct from purely devotional verses. --Kris 02:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Appar et al are musical composers in the classical music sense, with musical instruments accompanying as well.

For the last time: nowhere did we claim that the ancient Tamil music, the Saiva saints or the nayanmars composed Carnatic music. The list of Composers contains these names for a complete historical view. All I'm saying is this:The evolution of South Indian music into what we know as Carnatic music had many influences, of whom Tamil music has had an important influence. I did not say Appar and Sundarar composed carnatic music. Muthuthandavar and Arunachala Kavi composed Padams, a precursor to the Krithis. Muthuthandavar in fact was the first to experiment in the Pallavi-anupallavi-charanam format which we now know as kritiss. If you want to ignore the fact that Carnatic music slowly evolved into its current form with a variety of influences, then IMO, you have a very limited view of the history - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me categorically state that I have no POV for or against anything. Point is, a deliberate attempt has been made in this article to blur the lines between tamil isai and Carnatic music and pass off composers of tamil isai as seminal contributors to Carnatic music. That is POV-pushing. Bringing in the so-called tamil trinity into the article and mixing up their names in the article with those of real seminal contributors to Carnatic music is an exercise towards this end. So is framing the article to suggest that panns were precursors to ragas, talas etc.,. Infact, the earliest forms of classical music in India goes back to the Sama Veda, after which it changed beyond recognition(to start with there werent even seven notes in the beginning) for the whole of the first millenium of the CE.

So, Sama Veda is classical music to you but not Thevaram which is set to panns?

Then around the 11th or 12th century AD, it was Sharangadeva who wrote the most definitive work (Sangeeta Ratnakara) in classical music and he was infact, the one who codified and gave some shape and form to classical music. Both forms of Indian classical music that exist today trace their origins to this work. After Sharangadeva's Sangeeta Ratnakara, in North India, the muslims exerted their influence(Persian) on these traditions. Out of these influences came Hindustani Music. The traditions in the rest of India(most importantly, South) continued as such.

Quote me a 100 songs based on SR! I'll quote 9000+ tamil songs set to panns hundreds of years earlier than SR

Then again, around the 16th century, Purandara Dasa further codified this music and pretty much set everything in stone including the basic exercises like Sarale varse, janti varse etc.,. Since then, Carnatic music, hasnt changed significantly. Barring superficial changes like different formats in Kacheris, length of kacheris etc., the theory of Classical music has not changed much. That is the reason, Purandara Dasa is called the Father of Carnatic music. Nobody said Purandara Dasa just dreamt up classical music overnight. Purandara Dasa did not invent classical music, so to speak. But for all practical purposes, he can be 'considered' the inventor of Carnatic classical music, if there ever was one. What I mean to say is, in Carnatic classical music, Sama Veda to Sharangadeva was a humongous leap and Sharangadeva to Purandara Dasa was another giant leap. There havent been such giant leaps since then notwithstanding prolific composers and contributors which included the trinity(the real trinity). Even the trinity(the real trinity) pretty much composed and sang their compositions within the framework that Purandara Dasa laid down.

In short, just exclude tamil and you have Carnatic music?

So where does tamil isai come into all this? Well, common sense will tell us that music is ingrained in all peoples everywhere. Even if we didnt have the Sharangadevas and the Purandara Dasas and the Thyagarajas, we would still be singing. Not Carnatic music, but something else, but surely we would be singing. And it was precisely this something else that tamil isai was. In Karnataka the traditions of singing for the Yakshagana, bayalaata etc., are the counterparts. Folk and devotional traditions of music have existed all over the world. These cannot and should not be equated with classical music.

Tamil music is not just folk music and this comment shows you have not understood the tamil music at all.

And in the case of tamil isai particularly, dont be surprised if I tell you that this very concept of 'tamil isai' is hardly 70-80 years old and is a product of the Dravidian politics of tamil nationalism. Dont jump at me. I am not saying the compostions of Alwars and Nayanmars are 70 years old. What I am trying to say is that, the compositions of Alwars and Nayanmars

• a) were not composed in adherence to any strict rules of music but more in adherence to poetry and meter.
• b) While it is anybody's guess whether the composers of these songs actually 'sung' the songs, the fact is that traditionally these songs survived by way of 'recitation' in temples by Oduvars. When I say recitation, I dont mean they were chanted. They were sung, but it was more like chanting and it was minus any aalaapane, nerval(or any practices we take for granted in carnatic music today) etc.,. Panns werent ragas per se. They were more like emotive 'styles' of singing. This tradition survived in temples where the oduvars or the archakas would render it as a part of their pooja. This tradition survived even into the 20th century but was on its wane. That is when, Dravidian politicians took over and sought to give it a fresh lease of life. And they used the most popular singers of the day including MSS as vehicles for this. Some singers agreed to sing these grudgingly while some others did so voluntarily. And these singers sang it in accordance with Carnatic music ragas and talas - not paNNs. And once they started doing this, what happened in course of time was, any tamil composition sung in a Carnatic concert started being called tamil isai. Other than the compositions of the Alwars and Nayanmars and a few others, many of the other compositions that pass for tamil isai are compositions of the last few decades.

Basically, it is not proper to call any music(devotional or otherwise) composed before Purandara Dasa as Carnatic music. For that matter even Basavanna's Vachanas and Vachanas of other Sharanas/SharaNaru are sung in Carnatic concerts today. That doesnt mean we can call Basavanna a composer of Carnatic music or go ahead and randomly dub Basavanna, Akka Mahadevi and Allama Prabhu as a 'trinity' of classical music, much less Carnatic classical music. Please understand this distinction. Sarvagnya 03:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Venu62, you said "For the last time: nowhere did we claim that the ancient Tamil music, the Saiva saints or the nayanmars composed Carnatic music." So far, so good. Even Kamba Ramayanam verses are sung in some carnatic music concerts. That doesnt make Kamba Ramayanam a carnatic music composition or Kambar a Carnatic composer. I have already mentioned in no uncertain terms that to label muthuthandavar and arunachala kavi etc as composers is OK for me, because their compositions are rendered in some concerts. But labelling them as "adi trinity" or "original trinity" does not do justice to this art form. While Carnatic music "may" have borrowed from old Tamil music, it IS NOT tamil music or even close. It wholly depends on works like Sangeeta Ratnakara and other works which are common for both Hindustani and Carnatic. Dont tell me Hindustani music also descended from Ancient Tamil Music. For all matters related to Indian Classical Music as a whole, the Sangeeta Ratnakara is considered authoritative, not the compositions of muthu thandavar or arunachala kavi Carnatic Music is an independent art form that is not related to Ancient Tamil music except by the borrowal of a few concepts due to familiarity with Tamil music. --Kris 10:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to continue this pointless argument, but I would like to correct a couple of your points. The article never claimed that Tamil music was Carnatic music. I only said, rightly in my opinion and in the opinions of a number of others e.g.:[1], Tamil music influenced the evoutions of Carnatic music. It didn't say that Tamil music was the only influence, but, because of the proximity of a number of composers to Tamil Nadu, Tamil music was the one of the major influences. Appropriate citations were given, which you ignored and discounted them as 'one of your friend's website'. I never claimed Kambar was a carnatic composer. The context of Ancient Tamil music was only used in the History of carnatic music. If you and Sarvagna want to add other influences such as Basavanna, etc, please go ahead and do it. I have no knowledge of them. This is how a WP article develops - with inputs from various sources. It is a fact the Muthu Thandavar, Arunachala Kavi and Marimuthu Pillai composed songs that are now called padams before the krithi format was established. This is pertinent to the History of Carnatic music, whether you like it or not. That does not mean that these three were superior to the Carnatic trinity. It is simply that these three lived before the Carnatic trinity and have composed songs in a genre that eventually evolved into the current Crnatic music. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 10:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnatic Music wholly depends on works like Sangeeta Ratnakara and other works which are common for both Hindustani and Carnatic. Dont tell me Hindustani music also descended from Ancient Tamil Music. For all matters related to Indian Classical Music as a whole, the Sangeeta Ratnakara, Sangraha Chudamani, Chaturdandi Prakasika and Sangita Sampradaya Pradarshini are considered authoritative, not the compositions of muthu thandavar or arunachala kavi. Carnatic Music is an independent art form that is not related to Ancient Tamil music except by the borrowal of a few concepts due to familiarity with Tamil music.

Padam singing in Carnatic Music concerts is a recent phenomenon. Padams are not the life blood of carnatic music but rather rendered as thukkadas or light pieces at the end of the concert. Muthu Thandavar and Arunachala Kavi are not considered mainstream carnatic composers even in the same league as other tamil composers such as Gopalakrishna Bharathi, Oothukadu Venkatakavi, etc.

The History of Ancient Tamil Music has affected Carnatic Music due to proximity of geographic area. That's all there is to its similarity. The various carnatic music instruments were not exclusive Tamil music instruments nor did they feature in ancient Tamil music. --Kris 10:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Venu62, look at what you have said User_talk:Aadal#Carnatic_music_article. Now you are talking about things as if you know them as facts. My advice to you in all cases is to use google and not give references which brazenly contradict common knowledge unless you plan to also say that no one believes in such references (which makes the reference pointless by the way). --Kris 10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kris, thanks for your advise on using Google. It never occurred to me! BTW can you provide some citation that says Carnatic and Hindustani music descended from Sangeeta Ratnakara? May be from Google? Regarding Padams, did you know that all songs were called padams before Purandara Dasa. Perhaps you don't. I haven't come across it in Google. On a different matter, when are you going to reinsert links to your Carnatic forum websites in all the various articles. Looking forward to that! - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 10:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would again request you to open your eyes when you use google - http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=sangeeta+ratnakara&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

From the above link you can find 'n' number of articles on both Hindustani and Carnatic Music which cite the Sangeeta Ratnakara as very authoritative and defining. In case youre still having difficulty finding references, take the first link from the list - it talks about Sangeeta Ratnakara in Hindustani and the second which talks about SR in Carnatic.

All songs were called Padams before Purandara Dasa? Indeed that is a bit of information which perhaps no one knows yet.

Look who is getting personal! All my (and perhaps) others respect for your NPOV is now lost, so youre getting personal. First calling me a spammer indirectly, then calling me anti-tamil indirectly, now this! --Kris 11:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a musicologist, but my layperson's impression has always been as follows:

• That Hindustani and Carnatic had a common origin is not a given. It's been refuted by people as eminent as Dr. N. Ramanathan (former head of the Music Department at Madras University, and the author of one of India's leading experts on the sangita ratnakara).
• From my reading, what little we know of ancient Tamil music (I mean the Sangam period music - the Parippaadal's paans, the Cilappithikaram's music system, etc) is that it seems to have been very different from the type of music discussed in the Natyashastra. People have tried to draw connections between it and modern Carnatic music, but my impression has always been that we really do not have enough material to assess this reliably. If there are reliable sources to the contrary, I'd assume there's place to discuss the theory - and its critics - in a detailed article on the History of Carnatic Music.
• Mediaeval south Indian music is an entirely different matter. The opinion which Dr. N. Ramanathan (amongst others) advances is that Carnatic music evolved from the fusion of the tradition represented by the Sangita Ratnakara, the style which developed in the Vijayanagar Empire, and the general musical tradition of the south (not the "Tamil" musical tradition, but the shared musical tradition, of which Tamil music was a part as was mediaeval music in all the southern languages). Classical music didn't "disappear" between the Sangita Ratnakara and Purandara Dasa. It didn't become "Carnatic" music until Purandara Dasa, but there was a classical tradition - it wasn't all just folk music.
• Most of my limited understanding of this point comes from what I have read in printed books. A lot of what is online is written by amateurs with little academic musicological training. Rasikas, no matter how enthusiastic, are not theoreticians or academicians. There are some online articles by experts (such as this one by Dr. N. Ramanathan[2], which adverts to some of the points I've made above), but if we want to do a good job on this article we have to consult print resources written by leading Indian musicologists. I do not have any of the books with me, which is why I am not participating (and do not intend to participate) in the writing of this article.
• In my opinion, it makes little sense to call anything pre-Purandara Dasa "Carnatic" as far as the sections on composers, etc. go. Pre-Purandara Dasa personalities should go in the history section, to the extent their contributions helped shape Carnatic music..
• There are also a lot of non-controversial edits that can be done to improve the article. Venkatamahi - the father of the mela system - is not even mentioned in the article as it stands. The Sangita Ratnakara isn't mentioned the Chaturdandi concerts of Vijayanagar aren't mentioned.
• I have no particular axe to grind here. I'm Tamil, but I grew up in a time when we believed that South India had a common culture, which was the product of centuries of cross-fertilisation, mingling and fusion within the region. I guess that informs whatever inherent biases I may have. -- Arvind 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Arvind, thanks for your support in the cause of objectivity. I agree that a whole lot of data (on Venkatamakhin, SSP, CP etc) which are considered foundational as far as Carnatic Music is concerned, are simply omitted to be referred here. Please add all factual data, we can find genuine references on the internet for everything soon. You might be aware that carnatica.com has made the entire SSP available online. That's a very good reference for Dikshitar. --Kris 00:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arvind, please try to improve the Mayamalavagowla page which I created yesterday. It needs some more data I feel, but I'm unable to pinpoint to say what it lacks.--Kris 01:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that the article (carnatic music) has not improved in any significant way, but the discussion page here is growing at an alarming pace. It appears that some people here are so opposed to simple facts merely because it is something to do with tamils. I asked several questions pertaining to Sangita Ratnakara, I wonder why are there any serious answers to those. It should be borne in mind that before SR thousands of musical songs with technical intricacies very similar to carnatic music were in vogue and they are available even today. Cite me some 100 musical songs with technical intricacies based on SR from around SR's time. There is no point in denying the role of panns and tamil music on Carnatic music. As much as one can claim that Carnatic music evolved from Sama Veda, one can say with greater integrity that it evolved from tamil music. Thanks to Venu62 the carnatic music article is maintained at least in this state. --72.140.138.83 04:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I already said that the composers mentioned as "Adi trinity" enjoy no special recognition as Carantic Music composers, leave alone as a trinity. Blame it on your own poor comprehension skills for twisting my words and making them sound anti-tamil, which it is not. Discussions are always between two groups, and if you dont want discussion page to grow, please dont discuss!--Kris 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in making such vacuous claims. The facts stand whether you like it or not that the Adi Trinity did compose numerous songs and they do enjoy recognition. Can you answer the question about SR, citing some 100 musical songs with musical intricacies? --Aadal 05:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

SR is not a book of songs. It is a book about the grammar of classical music which later musicians and composers recognized as authoritative. Please note that the ancient Tamil composers cited above dont enjoy any special recognition in Carnatic Music, contrary to your POV. Their hymns are not set to classical music, and they were not known as classical music composers. Their compositions could be called Bhajans, or devotional verses at best. Classical music is not the same as devotional music. Classical music follows certain rules and regulations (called lakshana and lakshya aspects - ilakkanam & ilakkiyam in Tamil) which makes them different from devotional verses such as Thevaram and Divya Prabandham. --Kris 08:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I know SR is not a book of songs and I'm familiar with this work since I've read this work some years ago. My point is how many actual compositions in Sanskrit, Telugu, Kannada were known during SR's time? But the undeniable fact is - there are Tamil songs set to panns and talam (kept by cymbals) are known from the perod 500-800 AD. and the existence of such practice, including mela systems, from 200-400 AD and earlier. They are not Bhajans as you claim, but classical music set to rules, musical rules (not just mere meters of poems), including ragas known as panns. An encyclopedia should reflect facts in an unbiased manner. Thevarams etc. Muthu Thandavar et. al and

even Silappathikaram (due to the discussions of mela system) have to be included properly. --Aadal 17:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You can keep going back to remote antiquity, but it is necessary to differenciate between music that helped in devlopment of CM vs the actual CM which is practised today. Ragas are not identical to panns, nor are they called panns by singers of CM. Thyagaraja did not compose in panns. Nor did any of the other mainstream carnatic composers. The similarity between panns and ragas can be highlighted, but it is wrong to say that ragas are identical to panns or that ancient tamil music is identical to tamil music, or that all ancient tamil music composers are carnatic composers. --Kris 03:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Anciet music

Why is only ancient Tamil music mentioned in this line below?. Does it mean ancient music did not exist in other parts of South India. Ancient music is divided into devotional songs, harvest songs and so on. Did this kind of singing exist only in Tamil country? If the word Carnataka Sangitam refers to whole of south India, surely it must have been influenced by devotional songs from all over the south. Please help me understand.

Dineshkannambadi

You are free to add other relevant articles about art forms that have facilitated Carnatic Music's growth in its early days.--Kris 20:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Dineshkannabadi, Ancient tamil music is not just devotional, they are set to music including ragas and talas (with cymbols) and there are more than 9,000 tamil songs available from 700-900 AD. There were other devotional songs, boat songs, harvest songs, etc. in tamil too but they are not the ones it is talked about here. There were systematic mela systems in tamil. The recorded music history one can learn from Tamil goes back to 300 BC, the most wellknown is from Silappathikaram (200-400 AD), and of course later period from 700-900 AD. They are systematically set classical compositions. This is why Tamil music is mentioned and ought to be mentioned. If you have music literature, repertoir of classical songs set to ragas and other musical features from Kannada, Sanskrit, Telugu, before 1000 AD you should by all means mention them here. Much is known from Tamil and hence they are mentioned. Please don't take it as Tamil versus Kannada or Telugu or Sanskrit. It is important to reflect truthfully. --Aadal 13:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between Ancient tamil music of sangam period and what we call carnatic music today. This is a difference you cannot refuse to recognize. Ancient composers of Tamil music are not carnatic composers. Your assertions are not considered mainstream views but that of a fringe minority. --Kris 03:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Carnatic composers and The Trinity of Carnatic Music

Hi all,

I mades some changes to the first article mentioned above and created the second one. Please take a look. The second article can do with some improvement. Sarvagnya 23:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Muthu Thandavar

Extensive discussions took place earlier and with utter disregard to the facts, users Kris et al have deleted refrerences to Muthu Thandavar, Arunachala Kavi and Marimutha Pillai. They are known as Adi Trinity or Tamil Trinity. Refrences were provided and they were deleted too. Restored some of it now. Facts have to be stated in encyclopedia.

Aadal, the real issue is that there is a dispute about whether music before Purandara Dasa can be called "Carnatic music". There was a tradition of classical music (or "art music", to use the more correct term) in South India before Purandara Dasa, as the Sangitaratnakaraka and other mediaeval sources attest. However, is it appropriate to call these composers "Carnatic" composers, or were they just part of the pre-Purandara Dasa tradition of South Indian classical music. Is the term "Carnatic" actually used in a wider sense in academic literature, to encompass the pre-Purandara period? If so, from what period can music be called "Carnatic"? I don't know the answer, but it seems to me that establishing the meaning the term has in academic usage is probably the key to resolving this dispute. -- Arvind 14:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Arvind, the problem I see is that there is a serious lack of openness and fair academic debate to settle issues. I honestly question why Purandaradasa, who sang only namasakirtanas to be considered as a Carnatic composer and not Appar, Sambandar, and Sundarar? If modern form of carnatic music is to be emphasised, then Muthu Thandavar et al have to be rightfully mentioned. So, my questions are what are the 'carnatic compositions' of Purandaradasa, Kanakadasa, Vyasatirta ? Books written by such authorative authors as Prof. Sambamurthi et al clearly recognize Appar et al and Muthu Thandavar et al. I find that there is a strong anti-tamil and anti-telugu bias and a strong pro-Sanskrit and pro-kannada bias in the way the article is written. User Skris has made so many outrageous comments it is hard to know even where to start. If this user had not heard of Muthu Thandavar, do they become 'unknown' and their compositions and contributions are not to be mentioned in an encyclopedia? I contributed the first few lines on the Tala, including the citation of NS definitin, but they have removed my references from the ancient PanjaMarabu on the subtlety of Tala in Tamil. So is the policy to include sources only if they are found in Sanskrit or Kannada?. I cited a whole book of Carnatic compositions of Muthu Thandavar et al and the citation was removed (I've restored now). Any issue can be debated and the debates and dialogues are useful only if there is an opennes and a willingness to consider the points. --Aadal 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Purandara Dasa identified himself as a classical music composer. He has set not only namasankirtanas but also the beginners lessons in classical music. Carnatic Music is identified as a classical form that follows musical treatises considered authotitative and defining. Later carnatic music composers have not referred to muthu thandavar or to panns etc of the ancient tamil music system as authoritative. I would request Aadal not to make knee-jerk unilateral changes that are in contradiction to mainstream views, without first discussing them here. 99% of carnatic music fraternity do not use tamil names fo swaras. Even western music system has names for the seven swaras, but it is not necessary to confuse these with carantic music. I repeat, if you want to go against mainstream scholarship, please discuss and arrive at a consensus here. We will not tolerate a high-handed unilateral approach specially where views go against mainstream scholarship.--Kris 03:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So, according to you if Oothukkadu Vekatasubbaiyar is not referred by later composers, he is not a carnatic composer? What about those who sing their songs, is it not 'refering'? Muthu Thandavar's compostions are sung - sure not as often as Thyagaraja's these days, but there are people who claim that even Thyagaraja must have been influenced by Muthu Thandavar's songs. If I remember correctly MS sang a Muthu Thandvar compostion in the famous UN concert in Carnegie Hall, and musicians have been singing to this day. I'm seeking arbitration on your unreasonable attitude and edit wars and abusive language. Who is this we in //We will not tolerate//?? --Aadal 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oothukadu Venkatasubbaiyar is considered a carnatic composer since he set his own kritis to classical music. Muthu Thandavar had nothing to do with classical music and his hymns were set to classical music by the flautist Tiruppambaram Swaminatha Pillai. The "we" in my previous message stands for those who accept the mainstream neutral view that holds only certain people as composers of classical music as distinct from ancient tamil music composers or composers of devotional hymns.--Kris 02:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Muthu Thandavar not only set his hyms to carnatic music, he is the earliest known architect of Kriti format. It is well known that he was a pioneer of Carnatic music and an influencial singer. It is true that his popularity diminished after the arrival of Thyagaraja et al. That Swamintha Pillai collected *some* of his songs and perhaps set to music later is a different matter. Your assertions about Muthu Thandavar are totally out of line. You can hold on to whatever opinion you wish to, but an article in the encyclopedia has to reflect the true contributors and he is recognized by such people as Prof. P. Sambamurthy and others. --Aadal 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All the above has nothing to do with facts or with the mainstream views.--Kris 03:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV needed

In Swara names table, I reverted to my version. I believe facts have to be reflected in an unbiased manner in an encyclopedia. These swaras were known with these Tamil Names from very ancient times (prior to 200 AD) and music books do mention them. --Aadal 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Another point pertaining to accuracy and NPOV: The article right now says, //Carnatic music saw renewed growth during Vijayanagar Empire by the Kannada Haridasa movement of Vyasaraja, Purandara Dasa, Kanakadasa and others.[7]// Since I have not heard any hard evidences for Carnatic compositions of Vyasaraja, Kanakadasa et al, in response to the questions I reaised here, I'm going to remove these references. The reference to Vijaynagar empire also is not relevant if haridasa movement itself is not a carnatic music movement. Why are the songs set to panns by Appar et al. during Chola, Pandiya rule are not carnatic music but haridasa movement of Vyasaraja, Kanakadasa et al during Vijayanagar rule are. There should be some neutrality and accuracy in the write up. I'll be removing references to Vyasaraja and Kanakadasa unless there are compelling evidence to show that they composed carnatic music songs.--Aadal 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

These swara names used in ancient tamil music lend a historical perspective to the issue. Since they are not used by mainstream performers, learners or musicologists, they are out of place in today's mainstream CM circles. These can be mentioned under "Historical development of carnatic music and its similarities with ancient tamil music"--Kris 03:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The solfege of western system is said to be known from the time of Guido d'Arezzo (995-1050), and the indian solfege system is known with two sets of names and it is proper to mention them for a NPOV. If you believe only one set is to be represented it is POV. The names kural, thutham etc. were known prom pre-200 C.E. and the sa, ri, ga set is known from Narada Parivajaka Upanishad of unknown date. Although I can quote from Silapathikaram (200-400 C.E.)and other works for the names kural, thutham, kaikkiLai, uzhai etc. , one verse from the 8th C.E known as Centhan Thivakaram would help to clarify (meaning is provided below after the quote):
குரலே துத்தம் கைக்கிளை உழையே
இளியே விளரி தாரம் என்றிவை
எழுவகை இசைக்கும் எய்தும் பெயரே

சவ்வும் ரிவ்வும் கவ்வும் மவ்வும்
பவ்வும் தவ்வும் நிவ்வும் என்றிவை
ஏழும் அவற்றின் எழுத்தே யாகும்

(In summary, this verse says that the names of seven musical swaras are kural, thutham, kaikkilai, uzai, iLi, viLari, thaaram and their letters are sa, ri, ga, ma, pa, da, ni.). These names are mentioned in several modern books and articles. There are descritpions of 22 srutis etc. as well. For NPOV, one should represent truthfully and not show any bias. I will be revising the table and if you revert it I'll seek arbitration. --Aadal 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Taking no stand either on the scholarship of your source or the veracity of your translation, let me say this. Even if we assume for a moment that Ancient tamil music had the seven swaras and the 22 shrutis etc., ie., even if we were to take your claims at face value, all this information does not belong in this article. This article is about Carnatic music and ancient tamil music is NOT Carnatic music.

• Even the sources you mention do not claim that those terms are used in Carnatic music. All that they say is that those terms were used in Ancient Tamil music. And while your sources may see parallels between ATM and CM, even they do not go so far as to say ATM = CM. For that matter, one can observe parallels between Hindustani Music and CM. Or even, between Western Classical Music and CM or even between Rock and Roll and CM. That doesnt mean we infest this article about CM with terminologies and histories of HM, WCM, Rock n Roll etc.,.

• You are free to create a new article Ancient Tamil Music or Tamil Isai and edit it whichever way you see fit.

• Also btw, note that your ref [12] provided on the article page does not cite any source. I will be reverting the swara edits and request you to please refrain from reverting until discussions are over and some sort of consensus is reached. Sarvagnya 19:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comments clearly reflect your bias and POV. Don't make any references then from Vedas NatyaSastra, Brhdesi etc. because they don't claim to be Carnatic music. The quote I added about Tala (Natyashastra defines Tala as svarataala-padaatmakam.) should be removed then. Carnatic music is not what you and Skris are deciding to be. I can quote when exactly the word Carnatic was used, when the systems of north and south indian music diverged etc. The present article on Carnatic music is so impoverished today due to unproductive edit wars. It is important to have NPOV and enrich the article with valuable information. An encyclopedia should reflect authentic and diverse information and should stimulate the reader. I'm saying all this in the best of intentions. Please be more inclusive and constructive. I'm seeking arbitration in stopping this unreasonable edit wars. Time is precious for everyone (both you and me) and such reversals purely dissipative.--Aadal 20:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The sa-ri-ga-ma-pa-da-ni have their names derived from shadja, rishaba, gandhara, madhyama, panchama, dhaivata and nishada (which you may already know). The tamil tradition is an independent tradition that gives different names for the solfege. The authority of ancient tamil music does not bind carnatic and vice versa. This is the mainstream view. The verse you quoted above exemplifies the belief that these two traditions are distinct and one is sought to be likened to the other through this declaration. It is good that you are seeking arbitration. If that is going to let NPOV prevail, I welcome it.--Kris 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

சவ்வும் ரிவ்வும் கவ்வும் மவ்வும் பவ்வும் தவ்வும் நிவ்வும் என்றிவை ஏழும் அவற்றின் எழுத்தே யாகும

This shows that - this declaration above, was necessary even in the 8th century, to show the similarity between ancient tamil music solfege names and carnatic (mainstream Indian classical) music. It also means the sa-ri-ga-ma-pa-da-ni is not dervied from the tamil names. Natya Shastra of Bharata Muni, dated roughly between 400BCE and 200CE, also speaks about Indian classical music. Please understand Wikipedia is a democratic set-up and POVs cant be pushed unilaterally. Indian Classical music (as a whole) is "not" an offshoot of Ancient Tamil Music, although it can be said that Ancient Tamil music has helped partly in the growth and development of Carnatic Music. Gopalakrishna Bharathi and Oothukadu Venkatasubbier are classical music composers (even though they composed entirely in Tamil) because their works are classical music works. Muthu Thandavar's works are not carnatic music, even though Tiruppambaram Swaminatha Pillai has set them to classical music. I have no problem in calling Muthu Thandavar as a composer, but he was not a part of any carnatic music trinity. --Kris 04:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for Vyasatirtha and Kanakadasa's Carnatic Kritis? (retrieved from archive)

I wonder whether someone can show evidences that Vyasatirtha and Kanakadasa composed Carnatic Kritis and whether their Kritis were popular or prevalent with singers. I do know that Kanakadasa was a revered saint and Vyasatirtha was a Sanskrit scholar, but my questions are about Carnatic Kriti. Were their compositions Kritis? I've not read in any of the books that they were Carnatic Kriti composers. On the other hand Annamacharya's Kirtanas, though discovered late, had Pallavi, Anupallavi, Charanam parts. Taallapaakkam (1400-1500) composers were among the first to have Kirtanas with the three parts (P,A,C).--Aadal 13:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hindu reference, though very selective, still does not support the claim that Vyasatirtha and Kanakadasa composed Carnatic Kritis. The present citation is misleading.--Aadal 13:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why there is no response to these questions. Are the statements made in the article correct?--Aadal 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait for a couple of days. I'll answer before the weekend is up. Sarvagnya 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

See for Kanakadasa - http://www.karnatik.com/c1288.shtml, http://www.karnatik.com/c1324.shtml, http://www.karnatik.com/c1134.shtml, http://www.karnatik.com/c1190.shtml, http://www.karnatik.com/c1303.shtml, and for Vyasaraya http://www.karnatik.com/c1298.shtml (one of his famous songs). Can you show evidence that Muthu Thandavar composed kritis with pallavi, anupallavi and charanam; and set them to ragas and was recognised in his time as a musician or a composer of classical music?--Kris 03:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Going by your own standard of references, here are some of Muthu Thandavar's kritis: aaraar aasai, aaDikkoNDaar anda, teruvil vaaraanO and unai nambinEn ayyaa. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 04:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kshetragna did not write his songs in the pallavi-anupallavi-charanam format : [3] - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are giving a journalist's news report as a credible reference? About Muthu Thandavar's songs, they were set to classical music by Tiruppambaram Swaminatha Pillai (Eminent flautist). Muthu thandavar himself has nothing to do with classical music.--Kris 07:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Venu62 quotes from the same website source that Skris is quoting from and yet it is declared by Skris, that Muthu thandavar himself has nothing to do with classical music. Muthu Thandavar was one of the earliest known architect of Kriti format and one of the pioneers of Carnatic music. Read Prof. P. Sambamurthy's books (for example on page 135 in the History of India Music, The Indian Music Publishing House, Chennai) and you will see that Muthu Thandavar is listed under the section Prominent composers. It is very well known fact the Muthu Thandavar is a pioneer. It is surprising that you have such a bias against a great composer. It is also well known that many of the Kritis of Thyagaraja were not sung like they are today either by Thyagaraja himself or by others during Thyagaraja's time (Telugu notations of earlier periods are available).

Skris, you still have to show that Kanakadasa and Vyasaraya composed Carnatic Kritis with Raga and Tala from reliable soures. I can show that people have set songs from Purananuru (a 200 BCE to 200 CE) to carnatic raga and sung in Carnatic style. But Purananuru is not a carnatic composition or their authors carnatic composers. What you show does not prove that Kanakadasa and Vyasaraya were Carnatic music composers. Clarification needed. --Aadal 20:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Very quickly, Pallavi-Anupallavi-Charana alone is not Carnatic music. Stop saying that. Right from sarale varse, janti varse, chitteswara, alankara, geete, varna, to krithis, to suladis to ugabhoga - everthing that is composed and sung according to the rule and conventions of Carnatic music is Carnatic music.

This is the reason why vachana sahitya of the Veerashaivas is not strictly Carnatic music but the corpus of the Haridasas' work is - though both(vachanas and dasa sahitya) are today set to Carnatic style and rendered in concerts even by the biggest names in the business. Sarvagnya 16:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, so, what are the //everthing that is composed and sung according to the rule and conventions of Carnatic music is Carnatic music.//. What are those rules and conventions of Carnatic Music?! Who decided them?? Who gave them the authority?? --Aadal 19:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

History section

At present we have the following as the leading para:

//Carnatic music developed gradually from the ancient musical traditions of India, upon which Samavedic learning had an important influence.[2] The Yajur-Veda, which mainly consists of sacrificial formulæ, mentions the vīna as an accompaniment to vocal recitations during the sacrifices.[citation needed] The concept of Sruti and Tala are based on the Vedic pitch/accent (also called sruti), and Vedic meter (called chandas).[citation needed] The Vedas are themselves called sruti, as they are recited in the pitch-based Vedic language.[citation needed] The chants evolved into two main notes with two accents forming the first concept of the tetrachord (four notes).[citation needed] Three more notes were added to the original tetrachord resulting in the first full scale of seven notes//

While I believe Sama Veda needs to be mentioned in this article on carnatic music, several statements above seem to paint a one-sided view. For example the claim that the concept of Sruti and Tala are based on Vedic pitch/accent. Concepts of Sruti and Tala are arrived at by many people independently and the statements paint a narrow one-sided view (POV). The lines following that amplify the same POV. If this should be there I would be modifying the text to include views about muththamiz (threesome nature of tamil known as literary-music-dance Tamil) and citations and quotations from 200 BCE to 1500 CE. Please don't get me wrong, I am in favour of a truthful account of the development of musical ideas, but it should be even-handed about the narration. Remember that the ancient Tamil was extolled as musical tamil (isai thamiz) and all those will have to be mentioned for balance! I suggest that you please tone down and mention the facts in a balanced manner from Sanskrit/Vedic and Tamil and where available from Telugu and Kannada and Malayalam. --Aadal 22:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)--Aadal 00:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you accept the assertion that the Samaveda is the foundation for Indian classical music, you need to also know how one is historically linked to the other. If you are really interested in knowing things, please read extensively on sruti (Vedic accent), chandas (Vedic meter) and the Vedic language itself. The vedic corpus is itself called sruti. Indeed there was no Carnatic or Hindustani music prior to the Islamic invasions. There was only an Indian Classical Music, and it is wrong to say that this early Indian classical music system substantially evolved out of Ancient Tamil Music or from Muthu Thandavar's works. All your findings should go to Ancient Tamil Music, which is distinct (although similar) to Carnatic--Kris 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What you say above is exactly POV. Vedas are called sruti in a sense of being 'heard' (inner revealing of Truth) and not in the musical sense of Sruti. You are trying to provide a misleading sense of Sruti to the uninitated. If you have any respect for Vedas, you will speak truth and not abuse the word Sruti. Read Prof. P. Sambamurthy's books, he does say that the Tevaram is a rare only example of true indian classical music system and it is prior to Persian influences. Your view that there is only one Indian Classical Music and that is Vedic is POV. Carnatic music, whether you like it or not, evolved from a diverse set of ideas and the foundational base was Tamil Music system with 7 swaras, 12 swara sthanas and 22 srutis, with systems like alapana, arohana, avarohana, pallavi, niraval, tala etc. and even today carnatic music is more than 80% Tamil music (System). When the discussion is about evolution of music, just as one would talk about Sama Veda (which is not Carnatic music but the development of Saman is a distinct stage in the realm of musical ideas), one has to talk about the developments in indian classical musical systems, such as Tamil music, that lead to the current form of the south indian classical music, known as Carnatic music. I will be modifying the leading para to relect NPOV If you don't wish to modify it to relect a NPOV.--Aadal 04:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

'Sruti/Shruti' in sanskrit means 'pitch'. Vedic language was a pitch based language, while classical sanskrit (later dialect) was not. Being heard is directly related to the pitch. In this sense Vedas are themselves called sruti/shruti. There is only one word called "sruti" in sanskrit, and it means 'pitch' both with reference to the vedic language, as also with the music. All the classical music terms which you have mentioned above, such as tala, sruti, arohana, avarohana, alapana, pallavi, niraval etc are based on classical music treatises that are common to both Hindustani and Carnatic Music. Indian classical music split into carnatic & hindustani in the 13th-14th centuries, and this is a fact to which I have provided multiple references in the main article (I can provide more and more references if necessary to support the NPOV). Edits done by you which not in conformity with mainstream views and which are not properly referenced, will be considered POV pushing. --Kris 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Every language is based on pitch. Consult with a speech analysis specialist if you have difficulty in comprehending this concept. The term Sruti as used for Vedas is a sacred one though technically it means inner hearing of spiritual truths. The term Sruti as used in music is a technical term in the audio (sound, aural) sense. It is common to have one word to mean different things. The classical music treatises were not only in Sanskrit, but also was found in Tamil and I presume in Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam as well. For NPOV, one should not blank out one. You can't censor Tamil sources. You're the one doing the POV pushing, I'm trying to be inclusive. I have provided quotations and references fron NatyaShastra etc. I can provide appropriate references from both Sanskrit and Tamil. --Aadal 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that Carnatic music evolved over many centuries and was influenced by many different styles. Infact, not just classical traditions but folk traditions also have influenced it. That doesnt mean we start describing in detail all those traditional styles and infest it with terminologies from all those various styles that influenced it in an article that is dedicated to Carnatic music. And how did you calculate the percentage(80%)??!! Thats laughable. For that matter even WCM has influenced Carnatic music in its own way. Shakti sahita ganapatim shankaraadi sEvitam - Guruguha is a case in point. The use of violin another. That doesnt mean we stamp Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti all over the article. Like I said, create an article dedicated to Ancient tamil music and write whatever you want. Go ahead and call tamil music the mother of all musical traditions all over the world in that article. I couldnt care less. Stop infesting this article with your POV. Infact, its blatant POV!! For starters just do a google search and read what respected artists like L Subramaniam, Amjad Ali Khan et al have to say about the origins. Your POV is as unbelievable as it is ridiculous. Sarvagnya 04:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If one can come up with an authentic list of 100 characteristics of Carnatic music, I can show that a vast majority of them are (~80%) same as Tamil music. Sanskrit songs set to raga in Carnatic music are of extremely recent origin (perhaps since Muthuswami Dikshatar). I have been asking for evidence of 100 classical songs set to raga from around SR's time and I've not heard any positive answers. It is well known that more than 9,000 songs in Tamil are known from 700-900 C.E. period. The point I'm trying to make is such classical songs set to music are to be included in the history section. I'm not a starter and I know what I'm talking about. Your arguments about WCM. Do Re Mi etc. are irrelevant. We are talking about Carnatic music, the south indian classical music and Tamil Nadu is a part of that region with a significant contribution. The terms for the solfege are relevant. --Aadal 06:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal, you say every language is based on pitch, which is totally incorrect, perhaps you are not familiar with linguistics. See Vedic_Sanskrit#Phonology, Pitch_accent, Tone_(linguistics), and svarita (remember svaras used in classical music?). This pitch accent has survived in classical music in the form of svaras, sruti, while chandas evolved into talas etc. I have also mentioned about Yajnavalkya Smriti which mentions all these terms and its relevance in classical music. Read each of these linked articles here to get some idea of what I am talking about. Vedic concepts being used in classical music today (including same words and their meanings) are not coincidental or something to do with spirituality. For someone who understands the stuff, the trail is there hard as rock, you only have to broaden your view to understand all related concepts--Kris 08:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you say Vedic chant is pitch based, you should also know that chants in almost all languages are pitch based. If you mean that the Vedic language (spoken, perhaps before 1000 BC??) is pitch based (in the sense of being composed of pitches, not musical pitches), so does every language, no? And by your own admission you say that Sanskrit is not pitch based and so what is the relevance of all this to Carnatic music ? Carnatic music is not Vedic chant. Is this not some extreme POV?--Aadal 17:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont have the patience to teach you about languages, you have your own distorted views, but you have no right to make reversals in topics which you dont understand, merely because they contradict your distorted views. Vedic language itself is pitch based, not merely the chants. I am sorry, but you need more reading about stuff before acting smart. Dont call my edits POV when you dont know what it is.--Kris 19:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Origins of Indian classical music and Carnatic music.

This site is as comprehensive as a site can get. Please go through it. Sarvagnya 04:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Contributions of Purandara Dasa to Carnatic Classical Music

Much as I cant believe that someone has to actually make a case for Purandara Dasa's contributions to Carnatic music, I am doing just that for the benefit of User:Aadal. I wonder if there has ever been a book printed about Carnatic music that doesnt recognise, acknowledge and heap unbridled praise for the role played by Purandara Dasa. Anyway, here are just a few links.

Purandara Dasa and his Contribution to Carnatic music
Sri Thyagaraja's(no less) praise for Sri Purandara Dasa
Purandara's role in the theory of Carnatic music
Purandara Dasa - Thyagaraja's Adi Guru

And if you note, I dont think any of these sources are Kannadiga. Sarvagnya 05:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

To Prove Purandaradasa or not to prove Purandaradasa

When I was growing up, My mother sometimes quoted "Its like listening to Ramayana and asking, who is sita?". Mr Aadal has done exactly that by asking that contributions of Purandaradasa , Kanakadasa and their Guru Vysatirtha be proven. In effect, The person who asked for their contribution to be proven has essentially not only degraded the quality of this page and arguement but has also cast a gloom over the very greatness of Karnataka Sangita sampradaya (Karnataka Sangeeta Sastra : Theory of Carnatic Music/A.S. Panchapakesa Iyer). What a SHAME!!!. link[4]

Dineshkannambadi

Not so fast Dineshkannabadi and Savagnya! Go back and read my comments. Sarvagnya and others were claiming that certain criteria had to be fulfilled to declare (in their view) someone as Carantic music composer and in that context I mentioned that Purandaradasa was known to have composed Namasamkirtanams (alternatively described as 'pada-s' and 'devaranama-s') and not Carnatic Kritis. The discussion brought a little bit sense and Savagnya then admitted that it need not be just Pallavi, Anupallavi and Charanam. I know quite well the position of Purandaradasa, and you're just misunderstanding the question and the import. The whole question was to point out how unreasonable the objections of Sarvagnya and Kris were due to their arbitrary declarations. I mentioned about Tallapakkam composers and asked why they were not included. Such pioneers as Muthu Thandavar, Arunachala Kavi and Marimutha Pillai were excluded. If Kanakadasda and Vyasatirtha ought to be included, Appar, Sambanthar and Sundarar, and a few others have to be included. The quality of any discussion and dialogue will be good and constructive if the participants argue without bias and adhering to truth. If I were to use arguments like Kris' Purandaradasa can not be considered as a Carnatic music composer since Mysore Karigiri Rao (1853-1927) wrote down the notation of the songs (some 200) of Purandaradasa. Please note that IF in my previous statement. --Aadal 20:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, for the 'nth' time - Appar, Sambandhar et al., did not compose Carnatic music. Infact, they did not compose music at all. What they composed was akin to poetry or verses. Okay, even if I were to take your word and agree/assume that they composed music, we still have to agree that they did not compose Carnatic music. They composed ancient tamil music. They supposedly set their songs to panns not ragas. And panns are not ragas. However similar panns may be to ragas or vice versa, it doesnt make ATM = CM. ATM != CM

And as for Karigiri Rao vis a vis MT, there is a difference. KR dug up and rewrote notations of Purandara Dasa in the authentic way Purandara Dasa is supposed to have sung. And even those notations are in Carnatic music. For example, in KR's notations the songs may be in one raga and they might be being sung in a different raga today. But they were both ragas. KR's notations are not in panns or some kannada equivalent. They are also in terms of ragas and talas just like CM. I am not sure how you are unable to see the difference! Sarvagnya 23:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Again let me state (with authority derived from almost all references available on the internet and printed books) that Ancient Tamil Music and Carnatic Music are not identical. They both have similar features, and ATM helped partly in growth of CM. But CM is not a descendant of ATM. User:Aadal's views are fringe views and not supported by facts, nor is it neutral. One or two persons cannot hold an article hostage like this against mainstream views. Please do not make statements out of thin air and always make it a habit to substantiate your statements with credible references, if you want any serious attention to your views. Even slokas and devotional verses such as Bhaja Govindam, are sung regularly in concerts, but they are not carnatic music compositions, and their composers (Adi Shankara composed Bhaja Govindam) are not carnatic composers.--Kris 04:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Compositions by Vyasatirtha

Krishna_Nee_Begane_Baaro is a good page to start from. Haridasas of Karnataka] gives more info on compositions and works.

Dineshkannambadi Dineshkannambadi, this is one of my most favorite songs, but I would greatly appreciate it if you can answer the following questions:

• Was it Sri Vyasaraya Tirtha who himslef set the song to yamunaa kalyaaNi or someone else did later? Could you please help with a citation?
• What are the other carnatic compositions (Kirtanas? Kritis? not Namasamkirtanas) that Sri Vyasatirta contributed?

Thanks/--Aadal 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Compositions

I have added a list of later Haridasas from the link Haridasas of Karnataka to the page on Carnatic composers. Going into this page and into the haridasa/yatidasa index gives one an opportunity to find the list of famous compositions and works of each saint.

Dineshkannambadi

A comprehensive list of [Haridasa |Haridasas] and their compositions of Haridasas may be found at this site. Sarvagnya 05:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Solfege and Kudumiyan Malai Inscription

Added a reference that the solfege sa, ri, ga, ma, pa, da, ni, is from Narada Parivrajaka Upanishad and the Tamil terms known from pre 200 C.E. Added a small detail from the 7th century C.E. stone inscription in Kudumiyan Malai in Tamil Nadu with supporting document.--Aadal 01:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Carnatic Music and Ancient Tamil Music

It should be clearly understood by the users who are deleting my edits repeately that in the history of Carnatic music, the contributions from Ancient Tamil Music should be mentioned. I'm not equating that Carnatic Music (CM) is 100% Ancient Tamil Music (ATM), but CM is greatly influenced by ATM. In the whole of India, only Ancient Tamil Music gives us authentic examples of classical music from the time 700-900 C.E. It is not uncommon in a history to describe developments leading up to the current state of the art. Natyashastra does not describe CM, but we mention it, quote from it, to show the devlopment of ideas and terminologies. Vedas are not CM, but we mention them and quote from them. Mentioning and quoting from Tamil works is nothing different. If you quote from Tamil it does not mean it is equating CM and ATM. It is extremely unfair to repeatedly delete my constructive edits. In Westerm Classical music the solfege is only from 10th C.E., I believe, whereas the solfege terms in Tamil and Sanskrit go back to pre 200 C.E. It is a matter to be proud of. --Aadal 02:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal, I just looked at the recent edit history of the article. I need to understand the issue better before intervening. Specifically, I want to know the following:

• Right above you say that you're not equating CM with ATM. But the reverted version states that the Tamil Trinity composed Carnatic music. To reconcile both, the possibility that I see is when the Tamil Trinity also composed Carnatic music during their lives. Is that true or was that a mistake?
• If you don't want to equate CM and ATM, wouldn't ==History== be a better choice than ==Composers== to state the AT?

Please give me answers to the above and provide further references if possible. Then, let's work out a consensus. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, thanks for your comments. (1) I reitrate that I'm not equating CM with ATM. (2) On the same token it should be clearly understood that SamaVeda, Vedic Chants, the music of NatyaShastra etc. are not CM. (3) The Adi Trinity or Tamil Trinity are Carnatic Music Composers with Pallavi, Anupallavi and Charanam and they composed in ragas and not in panns. They are known as Tamil Trinity (and I've given a reference containing a whole book of their compositions. Muthu Thandavar and the other two are mentioned in Prof. Sambamurthy, the famous musicologist (I've provided citation including page numbers). Again it should be clearly understood that the Adi Trinity (who are all born in Sirkazhi, Tamil Nadu) are not Tamil Music (system) composers, but they composed Carnatic music in tamil and they are absolutely among the pioneers. No one can take away the credit of Thyagaraja and Muthuswamy Dikshatar and Shyama Sastri, but the facts and truths have to be stated. Srimathi M.S. Subbulaksmi even sang Muthu Thandavar's Aar aar aasaip padaar in the famous UN concert in Carnegie Hall. I'm not aware of any ATM songs using panns composed by Muthu Thandavar. (4) It is not just pioneering composers like Muthu Thandavar, but pioneering Tallapakkam composers from Andhara are also not mentioned. (5) Now, coming to the history section, along with description of key musical ideas from SamaVeda, SatyaShastra, the contribution of ATM such as from Silapathikaram has to be mentioned and a link to the ATM page can be provided. Here musical ideas from Silapathikaram, and the only authentic indian classical musical compositions with raga-like panns of Appar, Sambanthar, Sundarar, and Nalayira Divyaprapandham etc. are worth mentioning if not the musical ideas from earlier Paripadal, and other Sangam literature and Tolkapiyam. I've provided my material with ample support. Finally it is not about being chauvinistic about Tamil, but about the need to present facts. Here being a Tamil or Marathi is not anything to do with these. Should we truthfully represent the facts or not is the question--Aadal 13:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification:

• ATM, which is the music of the Saiva saints and the Alvars was not exactly Carnatic music. Our argument is that this music, along with the other ancient musical traditions of South India such as the music of the Ancient Andhra Pradesh et al, contributed to the eventual evolution of the South Indian Classical musical tradition which is currently known as Carnatic music
• The Tamil Trinity, composed songs that are now called padams which followed the tradition of the day. Similarly other contemporaries such as Kanakadasa composed not exactly Carnatic kritis in the pallavi-anupallavi-caranam format, but Namasangeerthans or padams.

We just want to record that Carnatic music simply did not come into being one fine day when Purandara Dasa formulated the structure for teaching music, but had been undergoing constant evolution over the centuries with influences from multiple sources.

Some of the editors seem to want to delete all reference to any influence of Tamils or ATM in the evolution of CM

-Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we should create a separate article about similarities between ATM and CM since they are not identical. We should stop infesting the CM article with tamil names of swaras, since they are not used at all in CM. We should stop referring to the so-called Adi-Trinity since they are not recognised as such in mainstream scholarship. We should stop claiming falsely that CM evolved mostly out of ATM, when that is not true. Further we should stop being chauvinistic about Tamil and giving non-credible references, and seek to portray a balanced view which is that CM had its patrons throughout south India, not merely among the Tamil people. இதை கூறுபவன் ஒரு தமிழன் என்பதை மறந்துவிடாதீர்கள்.--Kris 09:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So, which all languages do you suggest that we retain in the article? (By the way, I don't like the usage of the word "infest" here. Don't know if you really meant that.) And, do you want no references to the Adi trinity itself or would you settle for a consensus prose? And what would be a good prose that reflects a "balanced view"? Please put it forward here. By the way, your allusion to chauvinism here appears to be misdirected angst. For the record, Parthi is an editor who has helped remove a lot of chauvinism, autochthonism, and self-antiquation from articles like Tamil language and Tamil literature and he insists on removing unreferenced claims. On the top of my head, I can cite the example of dating Ati chudi. There's a lot of chauvinism when it comes to any nationality, but these are not among those. For one, I have been accused of being anti-Tamil by a Tamil editor and was threatened legal (and possibly legislative!) action against me. So, I would urge all of you to assume good faith and help arrive at a consensus. We all have our POVs, but when people are ready to talk, there can be tighter prose and accurate facts. Check out Talk:Tamil language for some examples. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before, saying it again. Nobody is claiming that Purandara Dasa dreamt up Carnatic music overnight. CM ofcourse evolved into its present form over several centuries. It was influenced by musical traditions from across south india since the last 700-800 years and across India before that. ATM has also played its part. So have other ancient musical traditions. But what we have here is Aadal arbitrarily fixing a percentage of 80% to quantify ATM's influence on CM!! which is ridiculous to say the least. It almost like having people believe that there was a point in time when Tamils alone knew how to sing and had musical traditions - which is pure nonsense. It is commonsense that the smallest and most insignificant of tribes be it in remote africa or our own nilgiris or andaman have musical traditions. And I can cite dozens of authors who have written about the evolution of both forms of Indian classical music and nowhere do they mention the so called adi trinity or even discuss ATM's role. And even when they do discuss ATM's role, it is only a passing reference while referring to influences from across south india.

Mainstream scholarship is unanimous that the first instances of Indian classical music can be traced to the Sama Veda. They are also unanimous that the Natyashastra and Sangita Ratnakara are the two most definitive and authoritative works on Indian classical music of all time(these were the works that gave us the raga and tala - the very foundations of ICM and CM in particular). Purandara Dasa built on this, consolidated many things and laid down a framework which is followed more or less 'as is' till this day. Venkatamakhin was another seminal contributor who gave us the melakarta system. The trinity(the real trinity) were the most important composers of this tradition. This, in short, is the sum and substance of most scholars, except the fringe ones Aadal is citing and Parthi is blindly supporting hold. With all due respects to the editors, whatever their editing records may have been, I have to say that this particular case is nothing but an extreme case of POV pushing. Sarvagnya 10:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, there is no such phrase as "Adi Trinity" or "subsequent trinity" in CM. There is only one set of trinity recognised by everyone. See what google offers about Adi Trinity, Tamil Trinity, and about Carnatic Music Trinity. Try finding just one reference to the (so-called but non existent) tamil trinity from Carnatic Trinity

Appar, Sundarar, Muthu Thandavar etc are saints similar to Adi Shankara or Azhwars. The compositions of these saints (Bhaja Govindam, Thiruppugazh, Thiruppavai are sung in carnatic concerts, but these are not strictly carnatic compositions, nor are their composers, classical music composers. Facts and NPOV dont have, IMHO, anything to do with giving equal representation to pro-Tamil views. Aadal's claims are totally incorrect and unsubstantiated, and opposed to mainstream scholarship. Ancient Tamil Music has similarities with Carnatic Music and has helped its development in a certain period and to a certain extent, but CM is not the same as ATM, nor is CM descended from ATM.

Venu62 has been actively siding with Aadal and participating in POV-based revert-wars, whatever may be his track-record in other articles. Aadal is behaving very offensive and his replies dont seem to be consistent, pls read Talk:Carnatic_music#User_Aadal.27s_unreasonable_and_offensive_behavior and Talk:Carnatic_music#User_Skris.27_.28Kris.29_unreasonable_and_offensive_behavior. I hope you will advise those concerned to maintain some decorum and stop calling everything they see as "Tamil this" or "Tamil that", and recognize that CM was not limited to TN alone at any point of time.

My other suggestions about this article are contained in my previous message above.--Kris 13:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to clarify before, but was held up. My comments do not seek to make any judgments on the merits of the POVs, but a testimonial on user behaviour. I haven't had much interaction with Aadal, but I still stand by my comments on Parthi. I find that several users have been using very confrontational language right when they started discussions. And their refusal to discuss is unhelpful. Perhaps your POV is the most wideheld one. That's no reason why it can't be discussed. Arvind whose inputs I value most has indicated that emphasising the Tamil trinity may be an overkill a far-fetched idea.

Now, I've asked several questions above and Parthi has stated his position that he doesn't want to equate CM with ATM, but just mention their influence. What's your stand on that? By way of reply, I've only got rhetoric above except a specific claim that Aadal has quantified the Tamil music contribution to be 80% Where was that? (inserted subsequently: This claim was a statement in the talk page as I realise now. Previously, I had just looked for it in the article.) I'd like to see answers to my questions above. Particularly, I want to know what your stated "balanced view" is. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The compositions of Appar, Sambanthar and Sundarar are musical compostions with pann and several components of a classical music. It is Tamil Music (following ATM) and not CM. But Adi Sankara's are not based on panns or ragas (correct me if I'm wrong). I had not claimed anywhere that Appar et al composed Carnatic Music compostions. Their music the only authentic Indian Classical Music available from such an early period 700-900 C.E. is TM (Tamil Music System, not that it happened to be tamil language compositions). Carnatic Music didn't suddenly spring into existence from Purndaradasa or Thyagraja. My comment about ~80% of CM is same as ATM is about the music system and musical ideas-swara, swarasthanas, relationships between swaras, arohana, avarohana, 22 sruti, sclaes, modal shifts, gamakas, talas, numerous percussion ideas etc. - and they are about 80% same as Tamil Music. If the view is that only 60% or only 40% is common, it is fine with me and that can be debated, but the view that CM is nothing to do with ATM or TM is utterly false. I've asked numerous other pertinent questions in this talk page but no satisfactory answers are provided. --Aadal 14:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User :Sundar , It would be better if you stop playing devil's advocate for one relentless Pov-pusher here.I have seen many times you helping him out.It will be better if you can just discuss issues about this article , instead of wasting time proving his credibility .-Bharatveer 13:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bharatveer. If you wanted to talk about the content, why not answer my questions above than advising me to "stop playing devil's advocate"? I didn't even take any stand on the article content and wanted to know your answers and this is what I get. This is exactly the confrontational approach that I talked about. Just search for rhetoric, beating a strawman, or for unwarranted use of words like "nonsense" in the whole discussion and you'll know who's refined. It's only that quality that I wanted to encourage in this discussion. Now, discuss content in specific points. Let me watch. With whatever time I have with me and your trust in me, I don't think I can mediate in this. But, I'd advise you all to approach the mediation cabal and discuss it assuming good faith. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, I have already made clear what the balanced view is (along with implementable suggestions). The point I am trying to emphasize here is that a balanced-view is not mine or yours or anyone-else's. The balanced view is the mainstream view which most people have accepted and recognized over a great span of time, and authorised by scholars in their works. We merely can choose to support that or oppose it. Aadal says ATM has many things in common with CM, but I wish to state - "that doesn't mean he can superimpose ATM on CM or vice versa". ATM had been "a limited lender of certain concepts" for Indian Classical Music in the south for a particular period of time, but ICM or Carnatic Music is not a seamless descendant of ATM. ATM's nomenclatures and terms have not, and cannot, be used in CM (and vice versa) without proper explanations, and that too in its respective pages, not in the main Carnatic Music article.

The name kirti (kriti) appears first in the Rig Veda (last mandala, rik 54) as "tAM su te kIrtiM maghavan mahitvA..." which means "I sing your glory, Maghavan...", and the word kIrtana is also found in the Mahabharat, which are all dated well in the remote past beyond the start of the Christian Era, and thereby having nothing to do either with Tamil saints or with any other saints.--Kris 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to evolve a consensus and that's why I wanted your balanced view i.e. a draft prose that can be used in the article if accepted. I fully understand that a balanced view is neither yours nor mine; I simply used your phrase. Since you said that CM had influences from all over south India, I wanted to see how you'd put that in prose and when you do that, I wanted to see if Aadal would agree to that. This is how consensus builds (of course, with the caveat that we can't state something for just political correctness' sake unless backed by reliable sources.). In any case, I'm now in no position to mediate. I'd urge both parties to assume good faith and approach the mediation cabal. Sarvagnya already has experience in participating in a discussion to evolve consensus at Talk:Tamil language. And Aadal too has agreed to ediation. Why don't you give it a shot? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(1)The words kriti or kIrti in your quote are not relevant to the carnatic kriti. Here what we are interested is in the musical form known a kriti. (or kIrtana, Varnam etc.).(2) Ragas are not known or forumulated in Rig Vedic times or Sama Vedic times. (3)That what you claim as mainstream is not mainstream is clear even in the article in Sruti magazine by Professor D.Ramanathan that Arvind cited. (4) Even for argument's sake ICM, CM had a nearly independent development from TM or ATM, how come you are not able to cite authentic live traditions of 100-200 songs from even as late as SangitaRatnakara (SR) period (13th century)?(5) If you consider the Sangita Chudamani written by Jagadekka Malla in the 11th century, which is before SR's time, he says clearly the things that were adopted from tamil music and he himself says they are from the music of tamils. (6)I request you and other readers to consider the facts objectively.--Aadal 18:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• The whole point is, Carnatic music is an art as much as a tradition. Infact, its more an art than a tradition. And arts follow texts - definitive, authoritative texts. Whatever grammar CM or ICM follows today is gleaned heavily from authoritative texts like the Natya Shastra and Sangita Ratnakara(and many others between and after them).
• The most basic and foundational of concepts of CM and ICM - the Raga, Tala, Srutis, Swaras etc., owe their definition and origin to primarily these texts. Without a doubt these two texts tower above all other texts when it comes to contribution. Naradiya Shiksha is another work which is considered original and one of the earliest(it is dated to even before NS) but it is available only in parts and also not as comprehensive as NS. Hence NS is considered the earliest authoritative text.
• Apart from these two texts, there have been many other very important ones between NS and SR and after SR which need to be mentioned. None of these are tamil texts. Silappadikaram is only a poetic novel (if i may) which in the course of its narrative mentions music and dance. Divya Prabandams are hymns or at best musical hymns and not any authoritative texts from which CM or ICM has drawn its grammar from. Infact, these compositions of ATM were set to only ragas(paNs) and not taLas. and paNs, for all the similarities claimed, are not strictly ragas.
• Infact, most musicologists are unanimous that Jayadeva's Gita Govinda(Orissa/Bengal) represents the first instance of musical compositions that are set to both raga and taLa and hence represent the earliest instances of ICM compositions as we know them today. Even SR refers to and mentions Jayadeva's compostions.
• And if it can rightly be said that CM didnt come into being out of nowhere and overnight, it can also be said of ATM too. It is not like ATM suddenly manifested out of nowhere. Even ATM would have evolved from earlier traditions. It is also not as if tamils alone had musical traditions during the times of the alwars or even before or after that. SR itself was infact written by an ethnic Kashmiri, whose family had migrated a couple of generations before to the kingdom of the Seunas(Karnataka/Maharashtra). All this goes to show that ICM and CM the way we know it today has drawn from the musical traditions of practically every part of India - not just tamil country.
• And moreover, the earliest traditions, atleast the earliest recorded traditions in India are all Sanskrit. The earliest references we have to any kind of music in India is the Samaveda(every single book on ICM mentions this as fact or even as common knowledge). If we were to go beyond that, we'll probably end up with Darwin's assertion that music evolved from man's attempts to imitate bird and animal sounds. So to say that CM draws 80% of its form from ATM is ludicrous and certainly cant be a part of any balanced view. Sarvagnya 18:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagna has put it very well above. Aadal is trying to force his POV in vain. I (and others) can give hundreds of other references where the very same words (such as kriti, which means "song" regardless of where it is used) and meanings are used and cited. And yes, certain books like Sangita Ratnakara, Chaturdandi prakasika, etc as mentioned above by Sarvagna are considered most authoritative by all sections of carnatic musicians and musicologists, not to speak of connoisseurs and even rasikas in general. Nowhere does Silappathikaram or Muthu Thandavar feature anywhere in all this--Kris 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest making use of WP:MEDCAB, and holding off on edits until someone from there has the time to step in and lend a hand? -- Arvind 07:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the way out given that people son't seem to be prepared to discuss first and then make edits/reverts. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 10:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss and arrive at a reasonable consensus. A discussion and dialogue will be highly fruitful if they are conducted with an open mind and in a constructive way. I've not deleted anyone's contributions even though I had a different view in several places (I had discussed some of these in the talk pages). My constructive edits, containing information about the 7th Century Kudumiyan Malai Inscription on music (one of the rare ones), several citations etc. are just summarily deleted/reverted. --Aadal 14:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC) I should add that if the articles are well written with valuable, balanced and factual information it would be of much benefit to the reader and add great value to WP. It should contain stimulating new informtion, of course well supported information. Just my opinions.--Aadal 16:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Protect

I was reviewing the 3rr report but William M Connoly got there just before me; but looking through the confusing edits and stuff I decided that this page could do with protection. The above talk looks promising so maybe it need only be for a day or two. It might help force discussion, or at least start some off. --Robdurbar 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Balanced/Neutral POV

Sundar, I am creating this new heading since the earlier one is too large to handle.

The current article appears to reflect a balanced view. If people want to do original research to prove that ATM gave birth to most of the Carnatic Music concepts, Wikipedia is not the place for that. I dont believe in giving much weight for solitary or non-credible references which are not based on good research or logic.--Kris 08:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If one sees what had been deleted repeatedly, it is the following (everything is a fact and not any POV view):

• Mention of Muthu Thandavar, Arunachala Kavi and Marimutha Pillai and a reference which containes their compositions.
• A rare 7th Century stone inscription on Music in Kudumiyan Malai in Tamil Nadu and a reference to a publication of Govt. of Tamil Nadu Archeology dept.
• Name of the work containing the solfege, Narada Parivrajaka Upanishad
• Solfege terms and their symbols used from pre-200 C.E and a reference to a work in 800 C.E. which gives name of these terms and letter-symbols used (this happens to be from Tamil)

The description of Muthu Thandavar et al as Tamil Trinity seems to be not favored by User:Skris and a few other users. Tamil Trinity is a standard description in many books, articles and websites discussing Carnatic music. Regular Concerts and Competitions (for young ones) held in many countries for Carnatic music, including India, do refer to them as Tamil Trinity. One can check this by googling. Facts should not be suppressed. No one can take away the inspiring fame and glory of Tyagaraja, MD, and SS. The article does not claim that Tamil Trinity is superior to Thyagaraja et al. I also believe Tallapakkam composers should be mentioned and they were among the first to use Pallavi, Anupallavi, Charanam format. Tallapakkam composers are Telugu composers.

Now, the point of contention may be the following:

• How the works such as Vedas, Natyashastras, Brhdesi, SangitaRatnakara, Silappathikaram, Panja Marabu, Paripadal, Thevaram, Thiruppugazh etc. have to be discussed and described in the article.

• Using terms known in the two ancient and classical languages of India: Sanskrit and Tamil. Certain terms are known in both languages, certain terms are known (or popular) only in one of the two languages. I hold the view that Marathi, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam and other indian languages are indeed classical languages with tremendous traditions in their own right. Sanskrit and Tamil just happened to go to greater antiquity. Some people resent factual status of Tamil, but accept Sanskrit, but that should not govern or influence the content of an article, in my view.

• If we talk about Gandharvas, should we talk about professional human musicians known as PaaNar and Viraliyar? Should we mention in the history section about the famous string instrument Yaazh (which is similar to Gottuvadyam, though the holding positions differ). (I'm not saying Gandharvas, PaaNars, Viraliyars or Yaazh etc are to be discussed. Skris had brought in Gandharvas in the article recently and hence I'm bring these up).

It is my view that the article should contain facts, be inclusive if views differ, balanced and above all informative and interesting. When someone comes to read this article, they should get a clear idea of what it is and its history and development without bias (or with multiple viewpoints if no consensus can be reached).

I'm happy that this page is now protected and I wish that it remains protected for some more time. I've discussed my points at length here but what I added in the articles are facts, with supporting citations, and not my point of view. The present article needs to be revised significatly to achieve NPOV.--Aadal 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys sure at all, about who invented kriti format? See these quotes of Aadal and Parthi taken from this page.

Parthi says:

1. Muthuthandavar and Arunachala Kavi composed Padams, a precursor to the Krithis.
2. Muthuthandavar in fact was the first to experiment in the Pallavi-anupallavi-charanam format which we now know as kritiss.
3. It is a fact the Muthu Thandavar, Arunachala Kavi and Marimuthu Pillai composed songs that are now called padams before the krithi format was established.

Aadal says:

1. Muthu Thandavar was one of the earliest known architect of Kriti format and one of the pioneers of Carnatic music.
2. I also believe Tallapakkam composers should be mentioned and they were among the first to use Pallavi, Anupallavi, Charanam format.

Make up your mind.

Mention of Tamil composers is no way wrong or objectionable. But not everyone, (not even a sizeable minority in TN, to say nothing of other states) considers Muthu Thandavar & Co as a "trinity" of Carnatic Music, whatever be their individual merits. There is a unanimous acceptance of only Thyagaraja & Co as the one and only "trinity" of Carnatic Composers. Anything else is unilateral POV.

Mention of Kudumiyan Malai and related finds is not wrong per se, but deriving secondary unsubstantiated inferences therefrom (that it is a proof for CM taking birth from ATM etc) is what is objectionable. If the inscriptions dont talk about CM as we know it, but rather about ATM, it better go to ATM page.

"Pre 200CE" timelines are mentioned for existence of tamil solfege indiscriminately here without proper substantiation or references, perhaps with the dual objectives of proving ancientness of ATM at any cost, and thereby also forcing the POV that ATM is the parent of CM. Pre 200 CE, even the birth of Tolkappiyam becomes doubtful, but here we find such timelines being used to prove ancientness of ATM (i.e tamil solfege) without any sort of substantiation.

Silappadhikaram etc are regarded as jain works and what they contain cannot be reliably adjudged as representative of pre 500CE Tamil culture or music. Even if it reflects growth of ATM, it should be mentioned in ATM, not here. If panns etc are mentioned in certain works, straightaway they go to ATM and have nothing to do with CM.

ATM had its own traditions and CM has its own traditions. While they may have influenced one another, one is not a parent or child of the other. To people who want to understand this as a Sanskrit vs Tamil thing, my commisserations. It is undeniable though that authoritative books exclusively on Carnatic music or ATM (like the Sangita Ratnakara) were never written in Tamil before the 19th century - I request drawing my attention to any facts to the contrary.

We cannot talk about Paanar and Viraliyar because they had nothing to do with CM. Gandharvas could not have performed in some other unrelated genre than in Indian Classical Music, so the history of Carnatic Music (which owes its origin to the Samaveda and common ICM), must mention Gandharvas, the celestial musicians of the vedas.

I have already mentioned that NPOV's balance does not come by mentioning everything under the sun under the sole pretext that it is distantly related to the topic at hand. -- ॐ Kris 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal reply-2:

• Let some 10 unbiased people read what I've said and Kris's comments. I'll register my comments later. The tamil works on Classical Music are many: icai nuNukkam, panjamarabu, perungkuruku, perunaarai, thaaLavakaiyooththu, pathiRaaRu padalam, thaaLasaudaram, inthirakaaLiyam, panjaparathiiyam, icaththamizh ceyyuLthuuraRaik koovai etc. Anyways, I'll register my comments later.--Aadal 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• If mentioning facts are objected, how are we to conduct a discussion? Kris says ..Thyagaraja & Co as the one and only "trinity" of Carnatic Composers. Anything else is unilateral POV.. So, one can see who is pushing for unilateral POV? No one can deny the inspiring fame and glory of the Trinity, but it is unrelated to the fact about Tamil Trinity who happened to live earlier. If Kris's fear is somehow the Trinity's fame would be affected, by mentioning Tamil Trinity, he is mistaken in my view. The consensus should be based on facts and not some unfounded fear, in my opinion. The Trinity lived in Tamil Nadu, just as the Tamil Trinity.

• Muthu Thandavar composed kritis and padams.

• In Skris' response to the Kudumiyan Malai Inscription, again he is worried about inferences. The oft-repeated claim and argument by Skris that something does not talk about CM is untenable. If that is so, Vedas don't talk about CM, Natyashastra(NS) is not about CM , SangitaRatnakara(SR) is not about CM because it doesn't talk about 72 Melakarta Ragas, Kriti format etc. I am not arguing against mentioning Vedas, NS or SR, but only pointing out the fallacious argument of Skris.

• The pre-200 C.E. references for solfege are aplenty. Let me just for now quote from Silapathikaram. I'll transliterate the letters in bold for everyone to see. It occurs in the section called 'arangkERRukkaathai' lines 72-80:

வன்மையிற் கிடந்த தார பாகமும் thaara(m)
மென்மையிற் கிடந்த குரலின் பாகமும் kuralin
மெய்க்கிளை நரம்பிற் கைக்கிளை கொள்ளக் kaikkiLai
கைக்கிளை ஒழித்த பாகமும் பொற்புடைத் kaikkiLai
தளராத் தாரம் விளரிக்கு ஈத்துக் thaaram, viLari
கிளைவழிப் பட்டனள், ஆங்கே கிளையும்
தன்கிளை அழிவுகண்டு அவள்வயிற் சேர
ஏனை மகளிரும் கிளைவழிச் சேர
மேலது உழை யிளி கீழது கைக்கிளை uzai, iLi

• Problems about dating the works is common to all indian literature including Sanskrit works, but the dates are fairly reliable with the broad ranges usually specified. About being a Jainist or buddhist work, or christian work etc. are irrelevant. Vedanayakam piLLai, who was a christian composed carnatic music with secular theme. Jesudas is a well known Christian carnatic music singer. This should not be a place for religious bias or reservations of the kind expressed by Skris.

• About Skris's opinion that '..books never written in Tamil' is incorrect. I have cited many books previously. In fact I quoted a verse from Panjamarabu in the section on Tala, which was again repeatedly deleted. Anyone can take a look at the leading para of a few line under Tala that i wrote kind of defining what Tala is and I had quoted this verse from Panjamarabu to indicate the subtlety of Tala, but m quotation in the reference section was repeatedly deleted.

• Skris's view that Professional (human) Classical Musicians known as Paanar and Viraliyar should not be mentioned, but Gandharvas who are supposed to be celestial musicians should be mentioned shows his POV. I have no objection to mentioning Gandharvas, but if so, PaaNars and Viraliyars ought to be mentioned as well.

• I hope the neutral readers can come to their own conclusions. I would request to reinstate my constructive edits which are all based on facts with proper citations. I'm willing to discuss further. --Aadal 19:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)--Aadal 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A better quotation:

• Although the quotations for the solfege terms are aplenty (from works belonging to 200 B.C.E. to 200 C.E.), the following from Silappathikaram is a better cite than the one I quoted.

குடமுதல் இடமுறையாக் குரல் துத்தம்
கைக்கிளை உழை இளி விளரி தாரம் என
விரிதரும் பூங்குழல் வேண்டிய பெயரே
(-Silapathikaram 17:13-8,9,10.)--Aadal 21:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)--Aadal 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Are any of the works referred to by Aadal above, used as authoritative treatises by Carnatic Musicians today or in the past? Not at all! Almost all of them are totally unknown.

2. As I already said, mainstream view holds that there is only one trinity universally recognised (in all states and even outside India) in CM. In TN, aggressive pushing of fringe views about anything concerning Tamil is not new. I am not surprised that Silappathikaram is pushed back by Aadal to the period between 200BCE and 200CE, when it is well known it was composed roughly during the 5th-6th century, and stated as such in the WP Silappathikaram article itself

3. Why Vedas etc needs to be mentioned, and not perunkuruku or perunaarai etc, is because Indian Classical Music (the common ancient form of CM & HM) did not evolve out of perunkuruku or perunaarai.

4. Jain works (in common view) may be more representative of Jain culture and music, which did not originate in TN. This is not a religious reference as much as it is a cultural reference. The "adhikaram" in "silappadhikaram" is a sanskrit loanword. The kappiyam in "tolkappiyam" is a sanskrit loanword. The "panja" from "panjamarabu" is sanskrit. The "tala" in "thaaLavakaiyooththu" and "thaaLasaudaram" is a sanskrit word appearing in Mahabharata, well before 200BCE. Both the words "indra" and "kaaLiyam" in "inthirakaaLiyam" are sanskrit loanwords. The seven words of first thirukkural "Agara muthala..." contains 4 sanskrit loanwords. One of the earliest pair of Tamil words "ilakkanam & ilakkiyam" are loaned from Sanskrit "lakshana & lakshya" via Buddhist/Jain influence morphed through Pali "lakkhana & lakkhya" by well known phonetic change rules, adding the prefix இ when imported into tamil, as per Tamil borrowing rules. Why could there have not been early ICM influence on ATM instead of vice versa?-- ॐ Kris 08:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal reply-3:

• The timeframe 200 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. is not for Siliapathikaram, but for the earlier Sangam works like Paripadal, ciRupaaNaaRRupadai, perumpaaNaaRRippadai, pathiRRup paththu, naRRiNai etc. Silapathikaram is between 200 CE to 400 CE, and is known as post-sangam literature. I cited Silapathikaram to show how it was used and not as a proof of earliest. I'll provide examples from Sangam literature later.

• I cited those tamil works as a response to your claim, 'never written'. Read the commenatries of Sialpathikaram by Adiyarkkunallaar (AN) and Arumpathvuraiyaaciriyar (AP) to see how these works are referred and quoted from. Read Dr. V.P.K. Sundaram and Dr. S. Ramanathan's works (they are Carantic musicologists) or Dr. Angayarkanni's thesis etc. As for NS and SR, read M.R. Gautam's book 'Evolution of Raga and Tala in Indian Music, especially the first 5 chapters to see the kind of nebulous state and confusion. SR and NS are not as authoratative as you think for CM. This is not to say that they are not great works or that they are not discussed and talked about. But not the basis of CM (CM did not emerge then and CM is not based on them either, though some useful commonalities exist). If you read Gautam's book on Chapter 5, he discusses SR and for most of the examples in SR, he says it is 'jumpy', 'there is no hindustani or carnatic raga to match this' (p.126), 'are so tenuous and jumpy that a cohesive musical idea seems difficult to emerge' (p.130), 'the song is extremely confusing as its structure is in contradiction with the rules stated above.' (p.132), 'The peculiar phrasing of the above ragas appear almost wantonly discordant'(p.141), 'The notes are disjointed and it is very difficult to construct a melody out of them. (p.124), 'Even if they are sung with full miinda and aesthetic grace, the notes can not produce any pleasant music effect (p.124), 'phrasing is strikingly unmelodious' etc. If one reads carefully, one can see how much of confusion is there - Jati, Grama Raga etc. People discuss perhaps to understand more of what they were saying then, and not very much to draw from for CM. I've been asking for an example of some live tradition of singing 100-200 classical musical songs and no one has responded.

• Vedas, NS, SR might have contributed to CM, but CM is not based on them. SR is not prescriptive, but descriptive. They were trying to transcribe into Sanskrit what they observed from professional musicians (male and female), but perhaps not well enough. If you read Sangita Chudamani, a 11th century work, prior to SR, you'll see the direct influence of Tamil music. SR is 13th century work. The influnce of Tamil music on CM is undeniable.

• About your analysis of the words and their origin, it is irrelevant here, but if you must, you should read Thomas Burrow, eminent Sanskrit scholar, and he had shown numerous Dravidian words in Rig Veda. Were you not the one who expressed commiserations? For Sanskrit vs. Tamil?! Tamil Nadu was also the home of numerous and substantial number of Sanskrit works. Adi Sankara, Ramanuja and many many other Sanskrit writers wrote from Tamil Nadu and Kerala. All these have got nothing to do with our discussion about music. Neutral readers can see who is bringing up Sanksrit-Tamil issues. I can discuss these extensively, but it must be in some other fora. --Aadal 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Even Sangam works (including Tolkappiyam) are considered [posteior to 2nd Century AD], but I dont want to get into that.

2. What I mentioned as "never written" were books in tamil that were later considered authoritative treatises on classical music. You have mentioned some obscure works which even scholars may not have heard about, let alone used extensively or considered authoritative. You have quoted a lot of non contextual mumbo-jumbo ("jumpy"?) from a book by a non-descript Mr Gautam, which I dont see making any sense to the issue at hand. Sangeeta Ratnakara is a "must have" & "must refer" for any serious student of CM, and all popular CM musicians use and quote from it (among other such definitive works as Chaturdandi Prakasika, Sangeeta Sampradaya Pradarshini etc) extensively, not from Paripaadal or Silappathikaram.

3. What does the Sangita Chudamani say? Can you quote the verse with reference or point to the source of your information?

4. I know about the ideas circulating about sporadiac Dravidian words in the Rig Veda (taking from unvoiced aspirates and retroflexes etc), but all that is in the realm of falsifiable hypotheses, nothing has been proved conclusively (I have read many such papers about these ideas and even discussed long with linguists). Even otherwise, this doesnt have anything to do with history of classical music or with Tamil (Dravidian is not exactly the same as Tamil). Perhaps in your all consuming love for Tamil, you are not able to see why I highlighted the sanskrit names of tamil books mentioned by you, among others. I mentioned all that to show that sanskritic culture had started influencing Tamil works even before origin of Tolkappiyam or Sangam literature, so there is perhaps no surprise to find ICM music concepts in Sangam and post-Sangam literature.-- ॐ Kris 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal reply-4:

• My points are expressed in my first reply. There should be no objection to mentioning facts. The narrative should be balanced with NPOV. Where a consensus can not be obtained, the narrative should be non-jundemental and brief and or perhaps multiple views should be presented.

• I would think it is better to read M.R. Gautam's book than to make rash comments. He discusses in detail with swaras etc. You're still not commenting about any live tradition of 100-200 songs set to classical music from SR time. Why?

• For Sangita Chudamani, see Prof. P. Sambamurthy's South Indian Music Book VI, page 156. It is also discussed in Gautam's book. I have come across refereces to it in other places as well.

• The Sangam Tamil works are generally and reliably dated as between 200 B.C.E. to 200 C.E. See Iravatham Mahadevan's research into the archelological discoveries about evidences between 100 BCE to 100 CE which match Sangam literature details. Some parts of Tolkapiyam are known to be from a later period, but most of it is from pre 200 BCE as a conservative estimate. I don't want to get into a discussion of Sk-Tamil mutual influences, which are not quite pertimnent here. But one point may be relevant here. The Sanskrit works are written and studied by a very small section of the people and they are not generally available to general public. Due to the tremendous efforts of western scholars much of the Sanskrit works are now available in translations -in the last 100-150 years. Sanskrit scholars can absorb anything and everything from the public and codify them according to their will and wish, but it would be known only to a few. Whereas a common language like Tamil or Kannada or Telugu will reach millions of people and publically discussed and it is in common pool.

• While SR and NS are talked about so much, very little of substance is discussed. Gautam's book is one of those exceptions (not the only exception). I really think we all should stay away from this Skt-Tamil issues and focus on CM and about reinstating the facts and NPOV.

• Venkatamukhi, author of CP is not the first one to devise a melakarta and what the article needs to be modified.

--Aadal 18:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1. You say "There should be no objection to mentioning facts". I say what you call "facts" is mere propoganda. NPOV cant be established, by adding propoganda through consensus.

2. I cant give you 100 songs from SR period, because it has no relation to the topic.

3. About Sangita Chudamani - So you are quoting from hearsay, or at best, a source that is convenient though not perhaps authentic or verifiable!

4. Who gave the reliable pre-200BCE dates? Maybe you! Rudimentary tamil inscriptions are found about as far back as 4th-5th century BCE. A language cant develop that fast within 200 years. Anyways, it doesnt have anything to do with the fact that all the Sangam works were already influenced to a great extent by ancient Sanskrit culture (of which indian classical music was an integral part). Sanskrit, contrary to your claims, was not a secret language (though it was the scholar's de-facto language). Pali and Classical Sanskrit are 90% related, both being descendants of Vedic Sanskrit. Since Pali (Prakrits) was widely spoken, spoken Sanskrit could be understood easily. All words of Pali are of Sanskrit origin. You are again and again talking about things which you dont seem to know head or tail of. Pls read a lot on linguistics first.

5. The verse from Yajnavalkya smriti which I mentioned sometime back (which contains references to many classical music terms) pre-dates all known tamil literature, since Yajnavalkya was one of the oldest rishis of the Vedic period.

6. Whether you like it or not, none of the ATM books you mentioned are known in CM or considered authoritative by any musician. And its not Venkatamukhi, its Venkatamakhin. And as for your assertion that he was not the first to classify ragas in melakarta system, who was the first then?-- ॐ Kris 22:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal reply-5:

• In the first para (1) above, you've shown that you are not being reasonable. Facts are facts. We have to base any write-ups on facts. Interpretations and inferences can lead to a particular view, but it need not be a biased view. If more than one valid interpretation exists, multiple views can be presented. The intention and interest should be to present a matter in as unbiased a manner/view as possible.

• In the second para (2) above, your admission that you can't provide 100 songs from SR time proves the vacuous nature of your claims about CM being derived exclusively from NS, SR.

• Re 3), You asked for a pointer, I provided a reference (including page number) from a highly regarded Prof. P. Sambamurthy, musicologist's work. Your comments are not reasonable.

• Re 4) it is again your Skt-Tamil debate which is not the issue here. As I said, I can debate these elsewhere. I would only point to a story of a scholar who was crossing a deep river and the scholar was asking the boatman (parisal-guy) whether he had read this, read that and when the parisal-guy said he had not read those. The scholar remarked he (the boatman) had wasted half of his life. At that point the parisal-guy noticed a hole in the parisal (round sort of boat), and asked the scholar one question 'Do you know to swim?' and the scholar said. No. The parisal-guy said to the scholar, you, sir, wasted your whole life. Musicology theory and practice are different. Just wanted to point out that there are scholars who think Sanskrit took words and lingusitic features from prakrits and not the other way around. Was Pali widely spoken?! I don't think so. It is best not to get sidetracked.

• Re 5) I had not objected to Rishi Y's quote (would like to see the exact source, not a website with no details).

• Re 6) About Tamil Music and ATM works, see P.Sambmurthy, 'History of Indian Music' page 17. I had not mentioned many other works like ciRRicai, pEricai, icai marabu etc. cited elsewhere. There are many musical truths said in a very simple way in Tamil works and they have guided professional classical musicians for 2000 plus years. The citations tell how it was influencing them. Just read 10-11th Century commentaries on Silapathikaram by Adiyaarkkunallaar and Arumpatha uraiyaaciriyar. You'll see how music was practiced , what kind of insight and knowledge they had. Thousands of musicians over 1000-1500 years had this knowledge. You know SR has descriptions of gamakas, but there is a simple song of 4 lines in Silapathikaram on gamakas, which is almost a 1000 years before SR's time (I'm not trying to claim anything based on the antiquity, just stating the relative period). Thank you for correcting me on the spelling of Venkatamakhin. I have seen both spellings in English though! Melakarata had been conceived by a few musicologists earlier than Venkatamakhin, but Ramamatya's mela is the significant one and is earlier (1550 C.E.). V's CP is around 1630 CE. Venkatamakhin had only listed 19 melas (not for all 72), and only later the other melas were added. Also, the concept of vivadi was not due to Venkatamakhi, but due to Lochana Pandita (as mentioned in his Ragatarangini)(reference: Prof. P.Sambamurthy, History of Indian Music. page 40). Although Prof. P. Sambamurthy does refer to Ramamatya's contribution before V's in mela system (by the way Ramamatya is also referred to as Father of Melakarta)., the quotation from M.R. Gautam's book (page 9) is intereting. I'll quote verbatim: 'He (meaning V) criticices and abuses the author of Svaramelakalanidhi, Ramamatya profusely.' Another quote from M.R. Gautam (page 7): 'Svaramelakalanidhi by Ramamatya is available, and quite well known. It was written in AD 1550. He is the father of mela system of classification of ragas, later followed by Pt. Venkatamakhin.'----Aadal 04:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Facts are facts and propoganda is propoganda.

2. Why dont you provide 100 such songs and say how they were part and parcel of ATM traditions? What a joke!

3. When you cite Sangita Chudamani, you have to cite directly and not X's view of Y's work which discusses what Z said about the original work.

4. I have seen the film where your stories appear, and I dont need your stories. I feel sorry for your knowledge of Pali and Sanskrit and other languages, and feel that I am facing a brick wall. Better you talk about what you know or try to understand what I say. I am not responsible for your ignorance of linguistics or history.

5. I know about Ramamatya's contributions to a fair extent, but this issue is not related to Ramamatya. His information can be included as appropriate.-- ॐ Kris 07:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal reply-6:

• What had been deleted repeatedly are all hard facts and not propaganda. You're just being unreasonable.

• Thevaram songs, numbering about 9295 songs are set to tamil classical music. Prof. P. Sambamurthy, and numerous other writers readily acknowledge that it is the only body of authentic classical compositions sung to this day since 700-900 CE. The Bakthi movement thoughout India started with these highly poupular soul stirring songs. Every major Siva temple and Vaishnava temple will have vigrahas of Saivaite Nayanmaars and Azhvars. It was a musical revolution (You don't have to accept this description). It was the turning point in the Hindu renaissance. Appar, Sambanthar and Sundarar were pioneers in Indian Classical Music- that it happens to be in Tamil should not prevent anyone from seeing the truth. Ancient Image (vigraha) of Karaikkaal Ammaiyar (500 CE) with the thaaLam (cymbals) in her hands is found in far off lands (outside of India). Thiruvacakam songs are sung during the coronation of kings outside India. All these are related to music and not about Tamil per se. So, not 100 songs, thousands of songs are known. Even today in CM, kiLikaNNi, Kaavadichindu etc. are from tamil musical tradition. Tamil, like Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Marathi etc. has lullaby, dirge etc. Try and find some 20 lullaby songs in Sanskrit. Or 20 dirge songs. Please underatand that I'm not trying to put down Sanskrit, I'm simply trying to point out the fact that Sanskrit doesn't have any musical traditions as you claim. I believe (willing to correct my understanding) that Muthuswamy Dikshitar is perhaps the first to popularize Sanskrit classical songs.

• My citation to Sangita Chudamani is from a reputable source. The reputation of Prof. Sambamurthy is well known and a citation from him is quite valid.

• About Pali, please understand it was not a spoken language and it was a liturgical language. It is well known that pali was not a spoken language. Here is what Wikipedia says (but you don't have to trust WP, do your own research to find out the status of Pali language):WP Quote from Pali language: 'Pāli is a literary language of the Prakrit language family; it is not now (and never was) an informal, spoken language, in the sense of a mother tongue.'

• I would request you to discuss with appropriate language. Your language and tone in many places are inapproriate and offensive.

• I've provided several citations and details pertaining to the discussion here with supporting material. I find that User Skris is simply thowing in his opinions with no hard substance. He doesn't engage in proper discussion. He doesn't seem to understand that it is not a Tamil-Skt issue.

• I believe some admin should step in, perhaps Robdurbar or Sundar or someone else, to effect a reinstatement of the facts I mentioned in my first response. I think a draft Parthi had origianlly in before Skris and Sarvagnya came in can be a starting point. --Aadal 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I know what is propoganda and who is unreasonable. Giving a single dubious link (against what all other websites and sources say) and repeatedly saying that its the fact, is definitely not reasonable.

2. All the stuff about Thevaram, Appar, Sambandhar, Sundarar, Alwars, karaikal ammaiyar, thiruvachagam, kilikanni, kavadichindu, lullaby and dirge have nothing to do with Carnatic Music. If you have ever been at least once to a carnatic concert, you would have seen that people dont sing thevaram, thiruvachagam, kilikanni, kavadichindu, or lullabies. They sing varnams, kirtanas, ragam thanam pallavi, thukkadas (which may involve non-CM stuff), thillanas and mangalam. All these are not ATM by any stretch.

3. Sambamurthy did not write that ATM gave birth to CM, or that CM is 80% ATM. You are deriving convenient inferences by mis-quoting him.

4. Pali was the "people's language", that's why the Buddha preached in Pali. My statement on Pali applies equally well to the Prakrit family as a whole. And for your information, Vedic Sanskrit is "the oldest" attested extant language of the whole Indo-European language family. Vedic Sanskrit is also the mother of "all" Indo-Aryan languages. Better read Indo-Aryan_languages#History.

5. I am sure Robdurbar and Sundar can read and make decisions themselves, so please stop playing nanny and advising them on what they ought to do. I hope Venu62 doesnt jump in from somewhere and say "consensus has been reached".-- ॐ Kris 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal reply-7 (should this be the last?):

1)I leave it to the readers to judge your assertions about your knowledge of propaganda and your understanding of reasonable behaviour.

2)I have time and again said, I'm not claiming ATM=CM, no one does. It is a well known fact that Tamil Music (TM and ATM) majorly influenced CM. The exact extent may be debatable, but it is not something like what you claim - Tamil music has got nothing to do with CM or that it may have some similarities. These claims are utterly false. The point is all about historical evolution and development. Tamil music has more to do with CM than any other prior indian classical musical system. What other indian classical system can you cite (after all no live tradition exists you conceded; correct me if I'm wrong)? CM didn't come into existence from out of the blue. Or you wish to claim that the 14-swara within a spataka schme of SR, or the 17-swara within a saptaka of Somanatha (author of Raga Vibodha) as the basis of CM? I'm not saying NS, SR didn't contribute, but CM is not substantially based on these - though some commonalities exist.

3)As I said the extent of the influence of Tamil Music on CM is debatable. It is undoubtedly foundational, but whether it is 80%, 70%, 60%, 50% etc. are to be debatable. As I said if someone can truly qualify the characteristics of CM with appropriate weight factors, I believe it would be ~80% same as Tamil Music, but if a true analysis shows that it is 40%, that is fine by me, but it is not like 5-10% or nothing as you claim. Have I quoted Prof. Sambamurthy to the effect ATM=CM ? For vast majority of quotes, i've given page number etc. Anyone can verify.

4)I don't see much point in discussing with you on Pali and Vedic language, and you may have your lst word on it.

5)Playing nanny? Hmm. :)

I believe it is becoming quite futile to continue this dialogue and I think it would be better to get back to discussing the changes that need to be made in the article. I believe my first response after the protection was put in place, contains what I believe needs to be done. Just like the technical terms like eduppu, thani, kuRaippu, nokku, errajaru, niraval etc. are tamil terms, the tamil names for swaras kural, thutham, kaikkilai etc. have to be included. It is possible to discuss the set shadja etc. whether original scheme was named in Skt like this or not, whether it was in the ascending order or descending order and so on quie endlessly. There should be no objection to using kural, thutham, kaikkilai etc. in paralllel. Shadja etc. were also coined before the emergence of CM, just like kural, thutham, kaikkilai. These are names of basic swaras and it is not wrong to list them in the two classical languages. In fact one of the oldest (if not the oldest) solfege in the world and it appears unreasonable to say no, especially it is about south indian classical music. --Aadal 04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Are you not trying to say that CM is not the same as ATM, but that it is almost ATM? You are throwing in percentages like 80% or 70%, which are all totally subjective and misleading!! If the percentages are debatable, why did you use them in the first place to give a false look of authority to your claims?

2. Definitely there is a continuous tradition of Indian Classical Music from the Samavedic times to present-day Carnatic Music. CM did not appear out of the blue or evolve out of ATM. CM was influenced by ATM to an extent in a particular period of time. Beyond that there is no relation. None of the ATM works you cited are considered even necessary, leave alone authoritative or defining for CM, by Carnatic Musicians.

3. If ATM should be mentioned in the same breath as CM, delete the ATM page and include everything in CM page. Since there is enough difference (and more) to merit separate mention, dont try to paint a misleading "sameness" picture of CM by mixing ATM terms here.

4. I have already pointed out above that All the stuff about Thevaram, Appar, Sambandhar, Sundarar, Alwars, karaikal ammaiyar, thiruvachagam, kilikanni, kavadichindu, lullaby and dirge have nothing to do with Carnatic Music. If you have ever been at least once to a carnatic concert, you would have seen that people dont sing thevaram, thiruvachagam, kilikanni, kavadichindu, or lullabies. They sing varnams, kirtanas, ragam thanam pallavi, thukkadas (which may involve non-CM stuff), thillanas and mangalam. All these are not ATM by any stretch.

Mere assertions don't mean anything. See P. Samamurthy's 'South Indian Music,Book VI, pages 90-91. He says, "The pans paved the way for the emergence of classifications like (1) Audava-shadava-sampurna, (2)Suddha, chayalaga-sankirna, and (3) panga-bashanga. The classification of panns into (1) Pagal pans i.e. those approriate for being sung durin the day time, (2) iravu panns i.e. those approrpiate for being sung during night time and (3) pothu pans i.e. those which can be sung at all times is noteworthy.' (end quote). The 12 swvara sthanas, the inter-relationships between various swaras, scales, modal shifts, gamakas, ragas (panns), 22 sruti, seven notes, alapanai, mudra, etc. etc. are all relevant. If you don't know that Nilambari, Mukari ragas, I can't help. Thevaram had a huge influence on the CM and your characterizations are absolutely biased and untenable. I've provided huge amount of very specific references, but all you do is offer empty rhetoric and assertions with your derogatory epithets. Thanams are well known in Tamil from very ancient days (but obviously not exactly as it is done today, but essentially the same). Thana, thaana, thennaa, thenaa are classical singing in Tamil and it is referred to by Appar. Kilikanni and kavadichindu are sung in carnatic concerts. All you said are to varying degrees related to and evolved from Tamil Music (keep in mind that I'm opposing your blanket denial and it does not mean that I equate CM= 100% ATM. I'm not and I know the differences.).

5. Natyashastra authoritatively mentions veena and other vadhyas, talas and their rules, seven svaras (including vadi, samvadi and vivadi classifications), gramas and shrutis (including 22 srutis), murchanas, jatis, tara and mandra sthayis, and all of these are used 100% in today's Carnatic Music. There is also the mention of gandharvas, and gandharva gana is the science and art of classical music. Its three basic elements are svara, tala and pada. Pallavi is abbreviation of padam-layam-vinyasam (i.e connecting pada and laya). Every single notable carnatic musician accepts these as factual and authoritative. I dont think propoganda or fringe views can take away the validity and authority from these definitive works.-- ॐ Kris 09:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal reply-8:

• Well, can you show where in Natyashastra (NS), vādī, samvādī and vivadi occur? I don't think there is any reference to these. These evolved after the concept of raga later in Sanskrit. But they were known in Tamil. Don't get me wrong, the word raga occurs in NS, but not in the sense of raga as we know it or in the sense prevalent even in SR's time. Other comments, perhaps later.

• If as you say NS had everyhing, why do you think SR and Somanātha were trying to have 14-swara saptaka, 17-swara saptaka? Have the author of SR and Somanātha not read NS?

• Other comments later.--Aadal 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. http://personal.vsnl.com/bharatgupt/naty.html
2. You are as usual twisting words. I never said NS has "everything" -- ॐ Kris 16:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I meant to ask where in NS , do vādī, samvādī and vivadi occur in Jati lakṣaṇas ? And I was not twisting words, my question was pertaining to your list. I should have perhaps asked 'If as you say NS had everything you listed, why do...'. It was 'everything' in the context. But you've not answered the question, have you?--Aadal 17:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I have given a link above. Click it, or get yourself a copy of the original if you know how to read sanskrit.
2. You are talking about 14 swara saptaka and 17 swara saptaka, but do you understand what "saptaka" means? Regardless, NS did not forbid future musicologists from touching the same topics.-- ॐ Kris 06:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

All the things you mention in NS are mentioned in the Tamil works which have been mentioned before. Natyashastra itself says in Chapter XIV, after before sloka 37, the following (ref: P. Sambamurthy, South Indian Music, Book 1, page 15): The Southern Providnces of India delight in various kinds of dances, vocal music, and instrumental music and they are characterised by a graceful style and their abhinayas are clever and polished. This beautiful land of fine arts extends from Vindhya Mountains to the Sea in the South." Is it not clear that there was a pre-existing music of high standards. Is it not true that Tamils had during Bharata Muni's time a great music tradition and they are described in Tamil works and why can't this be mentioned in the article?! Bharata Muni's work is variously dated from 150 BCE to 400 CE and the Tamil works are also from 200 BCE to 400 BCE. Is it fair that tamil words or developments should not discussed, but only Sanskrit words and developments discussed in Sanskrit works can be discussed? Is discussing both sources is POV, but selectively eliminating Tamil source and discussing only from Sanskrit sources is NPOV??! Will some admin look into this? --Aadal 21:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am giving a link to a scanned image of the original (Verse 37 & 38 of Chapter 14 from Natyashastra) in Sanskrit for everyone to see and derive their own conclusions on the message above.

It is not that all ancient tamil works should be ignored because they are in Tamil, but just that most of them were about Ancient Tamil music, while Natya shastra etc were about Indian Classical (Carnatic & Hindustani) Music-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sambaburthy's text says before sloka 37 (by mistake I mentioned after; please correct it) and he cites NS text which starts with the following words: तत्र दक्षिणाल्यास्तावत्.

I can double check the sloka number etc. if there is any inaccuracy in Prof. Sambamurthy's citation. --Aadal 16:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)--Aadal 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This scanned image includes verses 35, 36 and 37 - http://i13.tinypic.com/49fzzv8.jpg
I am sorry! -- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 17:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Gamakam

I mentioned about a Tamil song on gamakam:

From the tamil work Silapathikaram (200-400 CE):
வார்தல் வடித்தல் உந்தல் உறழ்தல்
சீருடன் உருட்டல் தெருட்டல் அள்ளல்
ஏருடைப் பட்டடை என இசையோர் வகுத்த
பட்ட வகைதன் செவியின் ஓர்த்த
(சிலப்.17, கானல் வரி-12-6)

Translitaration of the above:
vaarthal vadiththal unthal uRazthal
ciirudan uruttal theruttal aLLal
eerudaip pattadai ena icaiyOr vakuththa
patta vakaithan ceviyin Orththa.
(Silapathikaram 17: Kaanal lines 12-16).

It describes the 8 kinds of graces generally used when playing the swaras to bring out raga bhava. The first line contains the four graces, the 2nd line gives three more and the 3rd line the last one and the rest of the lines help to conclude the definition and mention that these graces are determined to be pleasing by carefully listening to them by the expert musicians. Graces are called uLLOsai (உள்ளோசை) in Tamil. --Aadal 18:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)--Aadal 18:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, whether this is gamakas or not is itself doubtful. Secondly, which other work has mentioned or described these gamakas? How each is to be used? Where have they been used and how? For your information, gamakas in Carnatic Music are listed here. See here and here and here and here and here. -- ॐ Kris 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal reply:

• These are known gamakas (uLLOcai) and well supported by ancient dictionaries (nigandu)as well. But I know it would probably be declared by you as 'falsifiable', 'I know what it is', 'it is propaganda'. A simple Google search will bring up all your citations and more. In fact a good one from Emmie te Nijenhuis was omitted by you. She wrote the well known work entitled Indian Music - History and Structure in 1974. She even mentions Silapathikaram though briefly. Her words there are, ' ..there is a famous poem, the Silapadikaram, written in the second century A.D. by Prince Ilango Adigal, which contains some interesting information about the ancient Karnātak modes (pann) and the early arched harp type of vinā (yāl).'(pages 4-5)

• I hope you know that the gamaka words nokku, odukkal, errajaaru, irakkajaaru, orika, khandippu, vali are Tamil words. About vali, SR describes as follows:Valirvividhavakratvayuktavegavaśāabdbhavet and about kurula SR says: Kurulo valireva sejād granthilah kanthya komalah. Perhaps you can explain kurula in terms of what SR says and how he compares to vali?

• Please note that I or anyone else can google to find basic info. --Aadal 22:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1. You are making unsubstantiated remarks about gamakas (by calling them uLLocai), and further unsubstantiated remarks that they are supported by "ancient dictionaries", whatever that means.

2. Obscure passing remarks about a generalized book written on Indian music by a non-recognized visiting author (from Netherland?) mentioning silappadhikaram panns and yazhs (maybe she herself was ill informed of details) is now quoted out of context by you.

3. Not all gamakas are equally ancient, and some of the recent ones (post 1200CE) may have names arising from Dravidian (not only tamil) roots. For these recently evolved gamakas, use of dravidian-based words is not surprising since Carnatic Music has been mainly cultivated in all the 4 Dravidian language states predominantly, since its split from Hindustani. However the point to note is that these names are not common with any "uLLocai" and therefore have nothing to do with ATM.-- ॐ Kris 09:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• A few simple questions would have been enough: 'Is uLLosai same as gamaka?', Is there some evidence to show that it is the same as gamaka?' But instead you speak so rudely! Well known Emmie Te Nijenhuis is 'non-recognized' (visiting scholar??!), Prof. Thomas Burrow's research is 'falsifiable', Citations from Padma Bhushan Prof. P. Sambamurthy, musicologist and Prof. N. Ramanathan, musicologist, Dr. M.R. Gautam, who did his Ph.D in music, Dr. S. Ramanathan, who did Ph.D in Music, Dr. V.P.K Sundaram who wrote a 3-volume encyclopedia on Music are all nobody to you (you trash all with your own choice adjectives/epithets). Just stop your abusive language and tone. Learn to engage in discussion or dialogue with good faith and with some decency!
• Ancient dictionary is Nigandu. uLLosai is given in Pingala Nigandu (entry 1436), one of the uLLOsai is kambalai (which is known in Skt as kampita)(entry 1441).

• Technical terms are known in the two ancient languages differently, but what is denoted is the same (here gamaka, not particular gamakas). It is not uncommon. For example CM uses eduppu (Tamil) which is also known as graha (Skt). Just like in Skt musical literature the number of gamakas are variously counted (15 by SR and 10 by others and more recently systematised by Subbarama Dikshitar, Muthuswamy Dikshitar's grand nephew), in Tamil too even in 200-400 CE period and later too (up to 1100 CE) the number of uLLOsai (gamaka) varied. --Aadal 01:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Anything that calls your assertions as unsubstantiated is rude? If yes, then yeah I have been rude all through. I have all along talked only about your assertions, not about you.
2. One sole obscure reference about uLLocai and and another obscure solitary reference in a "dictionary" is not enough. Are these widely mentioned in other ATM works? I dont think so. For all that we know these could merely be sentamizh translations for ICM technical terms, nothing more.
3. All the authors you mentioned above (Sambamurthy et al) havent made the assertions you claim. You are simply trying to twist their words. I have already given solid references to the Natyasastra.-- ॐ Kris 06:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're welcome to counter my assertions, but calling them unsubstantiated, oscure etc. without providing any counter evidence or reasoning is unfair and rude. You jump to judgements about the conclusions and statements of well known authors and use which is unfari. If you differ from their view, give proper reasons and stop describing with disparaging and insulting remarks.

• If you don't know, say I didn't know, but you have no business calling it obscure. Silappathikaram is not obscure, nor Pigala Nigandu is. On the same lines you argue, can I say that all the Skt works could be merely translations of Tamil. Such statements don't help anyone and assertions and counter assertions with no substance is of no use.

• I cited the authors for the things they said and I'm bringing them as evidence to support my statements or to counter your statements. If you disagree with a statement, offer your reasons. Calling it obsure, the author is ill-informed etc. are not valid argument. I know and have access to Natyashastra but your action of citing a website which merely lists the chapters in Natyashastra and claim that you've provided solid reference is quite amusing. So, should I take that you've proved your point because you have provided a website for NS (though merely listing chapters). All the vadi, samvadi, 22 srutis, murchana etc. are available from Tamil surces too. Except the Jati system of NS died before Brhadesi. Naradiya Siksha which is slightly earlier that NS speak of Grama ragas and it has greater viability than NS Jati system. Cite me some reference for an authentic music strictly based on NS. Vast majority of music in NS is unteneable. Sarangadeva is a theoretician and again his music is unteneable. I'm not saying that because of these NS or SR arenot works of great importance. I'm saying that there should be a fair discussion of history from both Sanskrit and Tamil sources. You have admitted that there are not any live tradition of music even as late as SR's time (13th century). --Aadal 23:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I said almost all those books which you mentioned are obscure. The term uLLocai is obscure as far as CM practitioners are concerned. You are unable to provide any reference to uLLocai (except a solitary one in some ancient dictionary which by itself is obscure). I also asked "Are these (uLLocai) widely mentioned in other ATM works?" but got no reply. That they are obscure is a fact. I did not say Silappathikaram is obscure (though wholly unrelated with Carnatic Music), but "Pigala Nigandu" definitely is. Try Pigala Nigandu and compare it with Natya Shastra. Whatever, even Silappathikaram is obscure to anyone outside Tamil Nadu (that includes more than 90% of India's population and probably 99% if the world as a whole is concerned. Even for people familiar with Carnatic Music Silappathikaram is as much related to it as the Old Testament to the Chinese. I am 100% sure someone who studies about Carnatic Music today definitely would not study (or need to study) any of the extant Ancient Tamil Music works which you have mentioned.

The point about Google search had been made before. Pingala Nigandu, Thivakara Nigandu are well known dictionaries. The popularity does not prove anything and certainly not the validity. These are discussed in ATM works and in the books I've mentioned. If you can not accept the fact that gamakam and kinds of gamakam were discussed some 1000 years before Sangita Ratnakara, I can't help it. To study CM, one does not need NS or even SR. It is important to understand that NS, SR, ATM works etc. are being discussed in the article to provide a historical perspective and evolution of musical ideas and concepts. Your serious bias is evident in your comment //Silappathikaram is as much related to it as the Old Testament to the Chinese.//. I'm arguing for a fair and inclusive account of the historical developments to have a NPOV, and you're arguing for selective exclusion based on your POV and bias.--Aadal 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to specific points you raised, see below:

You said "I know and have access to Natyashastra but your action of citing a website which merely lists the chapters in Natyashastra and claim that you've provided solid reference is quite amusing. So, should I take that you've proved your point because you have provided a website for NS (though merely listing chapters)." - Yes it proves that Natyashastra includes all those concepts, and I can quote the verses from that chapter to further prove it.

You don't have to prove, it is well known and I'm not contesting that they are mentioned and discussed in NS. I've not opposed mentioning and discussing NS, SR in the history and I've provided references from NS myself (ex. Tala) in the article before you recently entered/re-entered. --Aadal 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You said: "All the vadi, samvadi, 22 srutis, murchana etc. are available from Tamil surces too." - No substantiation, simple rhetoric. Even the few refernces to ancient treatises which you provided earlier only equate Ancient Tamil Music (ATM) concepts with Indian Classical Music (ICM) concepts which already existed at that time. Nowhere were those ATM works considered necessary or authoritative in ICM.

You've admitted there is no live tradition of classical music even from as late as 13th century. See Silapathikaram Venil kaathai 8:33-34 where it says
இணை கிளை பகை நட்பு என்ற இந் நான்கின் iNai kiLai pakai natpu enRa innaankin
இசைபுணர் குறிநிலை எய்த நோக்கி icai puNar kuRinilai eytha nOkki

Where iNai (இணை) means agreeing pair and they are sa-pa. The 7th semitone from sa is pa and it is defined as iNai in a song by Icai Narambudaiyaar as well(see Dr. V.P.K. Sundaram's book Pazham Thamzh Ilakkiyaththil icaiyiyal p. 58). kiLai (கிளை) is sa-ma etc. See the book cited for more details. See page 67 of the book for the 22 sruti in two song that starts as 'kural thutham naanku..' etc. and another song which starts as 'kuralE thutham iLiyivai naangkum..' For parent scales called paalai, see Silapathikaram, ciRupaaNaaRRupadai,, paripaadal etc. (I can provide specific detials). Systematic raga generation are discussed extensively and the ciRipaaNaaRRuppadai lines -227-230:
பாடுதுறை முற்றிய பயன்தெரி கேள்வி paaduthurRai muRRiya panatheri kELvi
கூடுகொள் இன்னியம் குரல்குரல் ஆக kuudukoL inniyam kural kural aaka
நூனெறி மரபில் பண்ணி nool neRi parabil paNNi

Where the kural kural aaka is one of the kinds of 'paNNup peyaerththal' - What is known today as grahabeda. The references for paNNup peyarththal are in ciRupaaNaaRRippadai (227-230), perumpaaNaaRRuppadai, Malaipadukadaaam, pathiRRippatththu etc.--Aadal 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You said "Except the Jati system of NS died before Brhadesi." - Makes no sense. NS was considered a defining work which most later writers referred and considered (and still consider) veru authoritative.

Your comment reveals that it is not clear to you what Jati, Grama, Desi Ragas etc. Jati system(18 Jatis described in NS), are not sustainable and they died. Naradiya Siksha which is slighly earlier than NS discusses Grama Ragas and Matanga, SR have variously tried to classify. The point is theoretical discussions and classifications are not enough and practice is quite different. Most of the things mentioned in NS and SR are not tenable (See Dr. M.R. Gautham's discussions). --Aadal 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You said "Cite me some reference for an authentic music strictly based on NS." - Both Hindustani and Carnatic (and their common ancestor) are wholly based on NS and other such authoritative treatises. -- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Prof. N. Ramanathan's articles already cited and Dr. M.R. Gautham's book. The present day CM or Hindustani Music is not at all strictly based on NS. --Aadal 13:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is all going nowhere. Neither Sambamurthy nor Ramanathan nor Gautham say anything against Natyashastra's foundation to Indian Classical Music. Your evidences are like the one by Sambamurthy above - fiction and extreme fringe views of a single member holding the article hostage.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Balanced/NPOV - II

The way I see it, the "History" section is fairly balaced, though a) Many important and authoritative texts(and their authors) between the NS and SR and after SR need to be mentioned. b) The reference to ATM's role in the evolution of CM seems out of place and needs to be reworded and stiched into the article more seamlessly.

As for Aadal's specious case for rendering this an article about ATM rather than CM, let me repeat again what I have already said, in different words though.

• That the Sama Veda, NS, SR, CP etc., have played a direct and defining role in shaping CM is the view that is held by experts across the world. It is not something that myself or Kris is making up on the fly. I can cite many authors and books which bear testimony to this and almost all of these authors dont even make a mention of ATM's influence. And even when they do, it is not anything more than a passing reference.

Read the article cited by Arvind[5], written by Dr. N. Ramanathan, Professor of Musicology. What you say is not true. The citations of Samaveda, NS, SR etc. are to discuss the musical ideas. If it is a direct and defining role, as you claim, why don't you show a live tradition of 100-200 songs from such a late period as from SR (not to speak of NS etc.). It is not uncommon to find that the authors of Sanskrit works don't quote much from non-sanksrit works. But do read Sangita Chudamani, a sanskrit work on music prior to SR, which shows the borrowings from Tamil. But such examples are rare, though here it proves the point of borrowing. Many things in SR are from diverse sources.

• There is probably no book about CM or its evolution that does not speak of NS or SR or CP etc.,. But there are any number of authors who make zero mention of all the tamil texts you have named. Forget books, even a cursory google search for all the books Aadal has named above should be sufficient for anyone to decide their worth as far as CM is concerned. Most of the tamil books named above by Aadal do not even have a single google hit to their name!!

See above. Google doesn't contain everything yet. The point of Skris is nothing was written in Tamil on Music, not nothing on Google. Extensive quotations from those works are used in the commentaries, but many works are lost now or known only in fragmented pieces. Systematic destruction of Tamil books by burning and other ways are well known. Here in Wikipedia, in this Carnatic Music article, I can show systematic deletions of Tamil have occured. Even in the title of Carnatic music page, among the indic scripts, Tamil had been deleted, not once, but repeatedly.

• Even the citation of L Subramaniam provided somewhere in the article should be sufficient for anyone to know what mainstream view is. L Subramaniam is a Tamil himself and he doesnt even make a passing reference to any of the books Aadal has named or MT or the so called Adi trinity.

This point about mainstream view is brought up so many times. The aim of an encyclopedia is to represent factual material. It (WP) is an open medium, unlike a newspaper chain or some old-world-special interest-driven publishing medium. For example, the so-called mainstream view of the discovery of Telephone is - Alexander Graham Bell invented it. I've read in a few books that directly contradict it with great substance. The WP says the following://The identity of the inventor of the electric telephone remains in dispute. Antonio Meucci, Johann Philipp Reis, Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray, amongst others, have all been credited with the invention.// Just an example. Jagadish Chandra Bose demonstrated wireless transmission, in fact in Royal Society in UK, before Marconi -another example. So, I don't buy your argument of mainstream, if one such exists. Here about Carnatic Music read Dr. D. Ramanathan's article. There are many theses that dispute what you call mainstream. Dr. V.P.K. Sundaram had written a 3-volume encyclopedia on Music (in Tamil) and you will find more information there.

• Even a google search for "Adi Trinity" should prima facie demonstrate the specious nature of Aadal's claims. Sarvagnya 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said Google is not the basis. Google the words Tamil Trinity and see what you get. They are known as Tamil Trinity and Adi Trinity.--Aadal 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)--Aadal 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Google_test#Validity_of_the_Google_test. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree Google is not "perfect", it is a fair indicator of mainstream views, other things being equal. Google's validity needs to be analysed on a case-by-case basis. In our case, the concept of Carnatic Trinity and the broad history of carnatic music is widely documented online. Nowhere (in an article about Silappathikaram) can you find Silappathikaram being called a work that proved foundational Carnatic Music. The article on validity of google test talks about sundry circumstances where google can be inconclusive or unreliable, but almost all of those circumstances are not applicable for our case. Google is not perfect, will never be perfect, but it is not totally unreliable either.-- ॐ Kris 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read and care this to avoid Problems

Hi All,

Please think as Carnatic music as the music of South India. We have lot of Composers and Vocalist don't give importance of region and language instead give importance to their contribution.

In the Composers. I found names of Purandara dasa, Tygarajar etc are repeating. And there is no other major composers like Swati Thirunnal etc.

It is undoubtly sure that Purandarad dasa is known as Father of Carnatic music. and Tyagarajar, Shyama sastri and Dixitar are the Trinity of Carnatic music.

But in the case of each region they have their on like Tamil trinity, Kannada trinity etc. But we have to also consider them. Because our aim should be give knowledge about all good artist to people.

Because

• Saints Sripadaraya (c. 1500 A.D.), Purandaradasa ( c 1540 A.D. ) and Kanakadasa form the great trinity of Vaishnava composers from Karnataka.

• Muthu Thandavar (?1560 - ?1640 CE), Arunachala Kavi (1712-1779) and Marimutthu Pillai (1717-1787). Together these were also known as the Adi (ancient) Trinity .

Above two thingsa are true.

In the case of Vocalist I found some people details like legendary , greatest ,maestro etc. and Golden age of Carnatic music (greatest misleading: may be golden age of 19th, 20 th cenury etc OK). It is sure that If a golden age that only from Purandara dasa to Tyagarajar.

Rgds jyothish 07:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jyotish, there is absolutely no two opinions that credit has to be given wherever due to whosoever it may be regardless of where they hailed from or which language they composed in. Swathi Tirunal in particular is certainly a highly celebrated composer and more than just a mention is certainly due for him. However we will do all that once we settle on some 'absolute truths'. That will happen only when people stop trying to foist a non existent 'Tamil trinity' etc., on the readers. As for the 'Kannada trinity' you named, I certainly agree that Sripadaraya and Kanakadasa also played defining roles in the Haridasa parampare. But even I(a Kannadiga myself) wouldnt go as far as dubbing them a 'Kannada trinity' much less the 'Kannada trinity of CM'. As far as CM is concerned, there exists one and only one trinity, ie., T, SS and MD; and it doesnt shame me one bit that they were neither Kannadigas nor lived in Kannada country. And according to musicologists, the latter part of the 18th century when the trinity lived is called the 'Golden period'. Without a doubt, the earlier period of Vijayanagara and the Haridasas heralded a renaissance in CM, but I wouldnt use that to push the Golden age back by 200 years. Without a doubt, tamil nadu and tamil composers have rendered yoeman service to CM. While Vijayanagara(Karnataka) was the highest seat of CM until Vijayanagara fell and even into the late 17th and early 18th century, Tamil Nadu (Tanjore) was the 'highest' center of CM in the 18th century. In the 19th century, thanks to the Mysore Kings, Mysore also along with Tanjore became the major centers of CM and this continued even into the 20th century. Then since the latter half of the 20th century, it doesnt shame me one bit to accept that Tamil Nadu and Madras in particular has been the power center of CM and Karnataka(Blore-Mys) has been playing second fiddle to Madras. All this info also should and will make it into the article eventually.

The problem arises only when somebody starts trying to stamp one and just one identity all over the art form. This is what Aadal has been trying to do by pushing for a parallel 'Tamil trinity', rediscovering and reinventing widely accepted and acknowledged history etc.,. This has to stop for the article to make any progress. Sarvagnya 07:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, I'm not pushing for Tamil Trinity. They are known as such. I gave a citation for a book and the title of that book itself says they are Tamil Trinity. In regular concerts, competitions for kids and young adults etc. Tamil Trinity compositions are announced as such. Here is an example. I don't understand your comment //somebody starts trying to stamp one and just one identity all over the art form.// Could you please explain? Why are you worried about what you call 'parallel trinity'? Do you believe referring the earlier three composers who were all born in Sirkazhi and who happened to compose in Tamil, and who have been known as Tamil Trinity will in anyway diminish the Trinity (T,MD,SS)? Absolutely not. --Aadal 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue of Tamil trinity is not the only one being discussed here. Claims to the tune that "Ancient Tamil music" laid the foundation for Carnatic Music, Carnatic Music evolved out of tamil music, Carnatic music is 80% tamil music etc are surfacing here. Some of us are trying to establish NPOV by taking up the mainstream view that while CM does owe its development in part to ATM, it is not 80% ATM or any such thing! We are effectively trying to minimise what we see as linguistic chauvinism.-- ॐ Kris 07:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never said 80% or any percentage is to be mentioned in the article. --Aadal 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the trinities , I have never heard of any regional music trinities . If at all any more trinity needs to be mentioned here, it should be the Female Trinity of D. K. Pattammal , M. L. Vasanthakumari and M. S. Subbulakshmi as per The Hindu - The female trinity

Hi All,

I have a doubt in the case of Tamil triniyBold text :*Muthu Thandavar (?1560 - ?1640 CE), Arunachala Kavi (1712-1779) and Marimutthu Pillai (1717-1787). Together these were also known as the Adi (ancient) Trinity . Mr Adal have to prove very well in this case. I found that there are lot of Pre trinities in Tamil Nadu. for eg: gnAnasambandar (635-651 AD),appar or tirunAvukkarasar (580-661 AD) and sundarar (about 700 AD) are know as tamil pre-trinity. In one site I found lot of pre trinities. But It is very difficult to undersatand about Arunachala Kavi (1712-1779) and Marimutthu Pillai (1717-1787). because they are in the same age of Carnatic triniies. OR just few years before them.

All three of the Tamil Trinity were born in Siirkaazhi and all three of them happended to compose in Tamil. The Ancient Tevaram Trinity composed classical music set to panns but they are not considered CM composers. They are Tamil Music composers. --Aadal 05:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What ever be, all south India considering only one Carnatic triniy ,they are Tyagarajar,Dixitar and syamasastri.

I mentioned above Kannada trinity Saints Sripadaraya (c. 1500 A.D.), Purandaradasa ( c 1540 A.D. ) and Kanakadasa. Because they are compositions belong to Kannada language. Sorry for confusion. It is not easy to say 80% from Tamil .This is because in this board there is no Telugu people. lot of compostion of Tyagarajar are in Telugu. and lot and lot of contribution by Purandaradasa in Kannada. jyothish 12:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing else to say?

I see that there is no reply for some time now. Can we take this as a withdrawal of stands taken by the other side? Is it time to reopen the locked article and leave it in its current state for further edits and improvements by the public at large?

If the article is reopened, it is no guarantee that others may not state the same fringe views sometime in the future and bring on again a revert-war as how it has happened now. I reserve my right to defend the mainstream NPOV view at all times. If anyone has anything else to say in support of their own views, please do so within a reasonable time. We dont want another edit war as soon as the thread is opened. The article cant be locked forever, and it is counter-productive to its development. Thanks.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm got going to comment on the subject of the debate (I have little interest in music and know squat all about Carnatic music); but you are right that it has been protected a while now. Unprotection then, but obviously edit wars will only cause reprotection. --Robdurbar 09:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I was going to make a comment tomorrow. But I see that it has already been unprotected. I really hope it doesnt end up in another revert war. Basically, I support Kris' views as do all other participants here except Aadal and Parthi. Anyway, a more detailed comment from me in the next couple of days. Sarvagnya 10:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll assume good faith and hope status quo (i.e NPOV) is not disturbed by POV pushers any more... locking the article is always an option, but it should be the last option. It wont be necessary if we behave respon sibly and regulate ourselves. Thanks -- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 12:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I seriously object to the comments of User Skris and I believe that unprotecting the page can only lead to further deterioration. I was going to reply to User Skris' last posting. He had not substantiated a single point. Why should not Muthu Thandavar and the Tamil Trinity be added? Why should a 7th Century Inscription on Music not added? Why should the technical terms for solfege not added? The only justification to delete repeatedly is to simply call this as fringe views, or as chauvinism and it is justified?! Why was the protection removed before a consensus or an agreed text was discussed? I suggest to offer protection to this page until a consensus text is arrived at.WP should not be a place for showing such blatant anti-tamil bias. I'm not sure whom I should appeal to. Not a single point was established here by User Skris. Aadal 21:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly condemn this show of arrogance by starting to edit and include the fringe views again despite repeated requests to hold the disputed content till this issue is sorted out. My (and I am sure many others') good faith assumption is being tried severely by the actions of a single individual. It is regrettable that self-control is seemingly thrown out of the window leading to a situation that locking of the article is deemed necessary to prevent edit wars. Despite continued protests against mixing up of ATM and CM by not just one, but virtually all users that have cared to participate in these discussions, one individual is determined to push views that are considered chauvinistic and ubsubstantiated by the mainstream CM-public. It will be clear that there is no anti-tamil bias (since many Tamil CM composers like Gopalakrishna Bharathi and Oothukadu Venkatasubbier are included) but this solitary user is going all out to put non-mainstream views in the article through repeated edits and reversals. Who has failed to continue the dialogue and substantiate will be clear if one goes through the authors of the last messages in all the above headings. I think the time has come when we need to go in for arbitration to uphold NPOV.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How is it arrogance to add a detail to a rare music Inscription (7th century), a published book containing the Carnatic compositions of the Tamil Trinity and the Solfege terms in existence from Pre-200 CE? If you have content dispute, then discuss it here, why do you delete them what I add with support? I think we may have to go for arbitration. You've not substantiated any point but I've supported my statements with plenty of specific references. --Aadal 14:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC) What is disputed? Can you deny that a book on Tamil Trinity was published? That concerts are held which specifies Tamil Trinity's compositions? Can you deny the 7th century music inscription? In fact I wanted to add Thirumayam music inscription and a few other music inscriptions from 7-9th centuries. Can you deny the the fact of Tamil solfege terms? Dispute these, if you must, but do not delete without disproving these. --Aadal 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont deny any facts. Including them in Carnatic Music article instead of in Ancient Tamil Music is the problem. A single member holding an article hostage to his/her fringe views against mainstream views of the rest of the members is called "trolling" in my language. And the fiction that CM is 80% ATM is what I am against. Even if someone says CM is 80% Ancient Kannada music or ancient malayali music or ancient sanskrit music will see me objecting. This is not the place for fringe views and linguistic chauvinism. Making an article sound like what it is not, is not NPOV, it is POV. Removing such fringe views will only give NPOV to the article.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you don't deny the facts mentioned above, the matter is settled. Now let me explain. ATM article dwells more into the details of ATM and TM, here in CM, mention is made to the extent that is relevant to the History/Evolution and the common heritage. Some details are proper and pertinent to the Carnatic Music period and not to the ATM period (like Tamil Trinity). I have not argued to include 80% or any percentage in the article at all. I don't want to comment about your notions of fringe views etc. --Aadal 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Facts are facts and propoganda is propoganda. I dont deny only the facts (that there are inscriptions about Tamil music in Kudumiyan Malai etc). It doesnt mean I accepted your edits in the article. They have nothing to do with CM. You have provided absolutely nothing to prove that the ATM works you mentioned deal with Carnatic Music. All that is totally unsubstantiated. Natyashastra and Sangeeta Ratnakara have 100% to do with Carnatic Music (as I have indicated from the natyashastra itself), whereas Silappathikaram has zilch to do with it. I can quote the entire Natyashastra and Sangeeta ratnakara to show all the concepts were based on such defining works. Not on Silappathikaram, Manimekalai, Valayapathi, Kundala Kesi or Civaga Cintamani. It is funny, because all these epics are even not representative of Tamil culture (Kundalakesi was written by a Buddhist, it is based on a popular buddhist story having its origin in North India). Funny though that music described therein is considered Tamil music, and that this tamil music is considered to have given birth to carnatic music. Anyways, fiction is fiction, facts are facts.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 21:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Srikris's comment above reeks of absolute ignorance. I can't put it any gentler than that. This is a sampler of the ignorant argument that has been put forward by your side. "The epics don't even represent Tamil culture"???? What is Tamil culture in your opinion? Is is just Hindu?? Weren't Ilanko Adikal et all Tamils?? What a stupid argument! For the umpteenth time, no one is claiming the ATM and the Cilappatikaram represent modern Carnatic music. All we want to say which you and your POV pushers keep deleting is that 'there is a long tradition of music in the Tamil culture and this along with other influences has helped Carnatic music evolve to its present form'. That is all. If you don't understand that then no one can help you. If you want to bury your head in sand and ignore the world around you, then go ahead and do it in your own time and your forum website. WP is an encyclopedia which will need to carry all points of view. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to cry hoarse. Facts are facts, Silappathikaram represents Jain culture, and not all of that may be historically of tamilian origin. While agreeing with facts, we will always stop people from pushing fiction into articles such as this. Quoting Sambamurthy (and everyone else) incorrectly and trying to lend credence by using their names is not going to work. Propoganda will not be allowed on Wikipedia.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 23:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User Skris, you've not substantiated any points here and you don't seem to understand the difference between Jati, Grama, Raga etc. and I request that you refrain from making unreasonable edting (deleting others edits containing well supported details). Further you're making derogatory and disparaging remarks for which WP is not the place. Your statement 'Silapathikaram represents Jain culture' is another blatant display of your lack of understanding (just like your comment about Jati). Prove to me that my citation from Sambamurthy is fiction (I'm quoting Sambamurthy and it is possible the Chapter/sloka number may be in error and that is why I quoted the starting words of the NS, Sambamurthy had cited; As I said I'll have to check with the original). Your words fiction and propaganda etc. are absolutely out of place. You are welcome to disagree with the points I have made with ample substantiation, but your derogatory, disparaging and vile comments are way out of line. --Aadal 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You misquote Sambamurthy and say its my problem if I say its unsubstantiated? I have made it very clear that since Natyashastra's times (if not earlier), the concepts like raga, tala, murchana, jati, grama, etc have been used, and are still used in Carnatic Music, and thus they were not born out of Ancient Tamil Music. You have had nothing to say about that, rather you bring some words like uLLocai and talking about things totally unconnected with Carnatic Music offering all evidences about Ancient Tamil music instead of Carnatic music.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

After some deeper research on the Kudumiyan malai inscriptions, I came to understand that this evidence is untenable as far as equating ATM and CM is concerned. But yes I read some of the text of the inscriptions, and it's about the svaras (shadja, panchama, madhyama...) and sruti etc (nothing about kural, thutham or uLLocai) - so mentioning that in CM article is fine.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 21:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do 'deeper research', you'll see that all the points I mentioned are valid in the article. About Kudumiyan Malai, I did mention about ra, ri, ru etc. and I have a book on this and I know the Inscription and the theories of Dr. C. Meenakshi, Dr. Premalatha, K.R. Srinivasan, Vipulananda, GJ. Dubreil et al. Musical inscriptions are not only present in Kudumiyan Malai in Tamil Nadu, but also in Thrumayam in Tamil Nadu, and in a few other places in Tamil Nadu too. Admit that you were blindly opposing with no knowledge and inherent biases. Why did you delete my inclusion of Kudumiyan Malai in my edits then? How many times did you delete? For you if a mountain is called saila, it is acceptable, but if it is called malai it would be unacceptable (I'm referring to your characterizations of technical terms referring to the same thing in the two ancient Indian languages). Also, for you himasruti (which only means fall of snow) would be related to music sruti (I'm referring to your completely outrageous interpretations of sruti). I would challenge you to show that the CM is based on the 18 Jatis (not ragas!) mentioned in NS. Your comments have clearly revealed that you don't underatand what Jatis are, What Gramas are and what Ragas are. Please understand that I admire NS, Naradiya Siksha, SR and other works, and I believe they ought to be discussed (they are not CM in the same tone and manner in which you characterize Tamil Music/ATM), but your selective exclusion of anything to do with Tamil and Tamil sources shows deep-rooted bias against Tamil. I would also request you not to regsiter one more reply with empty rhetoric- answer my questions here faithfully if you must. Panns are much closer to ragas than Jatis, Gramas and the untenable codifications of ragas as given in SR.At least 25 panns can be directly linked to present day ragas and they are from as far back as 700-900 CE (not counting the earlier traditions).--Aadal 13:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your talk about Kudumiyan Malai showed nothing that I subsequently came to understand. Kudumiyan Malai inscriptions are about Carnatic Music; not about Kural, Thutham or Ullosai. The rest of your case about CM being the same as ATM is mere chauvinism. All ancient tamil music is not Carnatic Music, period. There is a difference between Carnatic compositions in Tamil (of which there are many) and ATM. It is not a blanket exclusion of anything in tamil that I'm suggesting, rather I am trying to drive in the fact that CM is not ATM, and ATM terms and concepts (though similar to CM) must not be discussed in CM article. Dont pat yourself on your back, because nothing that you mentioned about Kudumiyan malai was anyway helpful.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 17:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why did you delete my edits, then?! How many times did you delete?! Did I claim that it is ATM in the article (or in the talk pages)?. Admit you were wrong! Admit you were biased (imagined that it is against your view)! Again you had come back with a reply with absolutely no substance. Did you address any of my questions above?! Again your derogatory accusations of chauvinism and I ask that you STOP making such comments, they are offensive. In fact it is you who show serious anti-tamil bias. I've added quotations from Natyashastra and have mentioned Naradiya Siksha etc. Spoken in favour of including Tallapakkam composers, who have composed in Telugu. Why do you assume that you have some exclusive right to say what music terminologies and concepts to be discussed and not. Just as you claim that ATM is not CM (no one here had made such a claim except your own repeated claims), the music of NS, SR are not CM. I've repeated this many times. it is a fact that you had shown so little understanding of these simple things and keep on repeating your imagined statements. I would again ask you to address my comments in my previous reply. About Kudumiyan Malai, what is it that I mentioned? Why did you delete it? You should honestly apologize for wrongfully deleting my constructive edits. Just go back and read your response and see whether you had said anything of substance (other than repeating your empty rhetoric ), whether you had addressed anything I reaised in my previous reply?! No. --Aadal 19:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But you never said anything relevant about Kudumiyan malai anyway, which makes it a pointless reference. Now after I found (with outside help) that its about Carnatic Music, you are acting as if you knew everything. I still doubt whether you knew anything much then about it, or even now, to contribute any worthwhile stuff. Kudumiyan malai details in the article are still inadequate and dispensable. Mere names dont matter anything unless you give relevant and reasonably sufficient details.

If you find my words offensive, you are saying the same thing to me "anti-tamil bias". Since you are repeating everytime that ATM is not CM, better dont include ATM stuff in this article. Otherwise I dont see any agreement between what you say and what you do.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudumiyan Malai inscription is not the only musical inscription in Tamil Nadu, nor is it the only one in India or even South India. Also please realise here that we are talking about one section in an article. If you add K Malai, then you will have to also write about inscriptions from all over India and if we do that, just that section will run into pages. K malai can be mentioned and in greater detail in an article dedicated to "History of CM" or "History of IM".

And inscriptions, anybody would agree though important, arent half as important and useful as authoritative treatises. While so far we have only spoken of few 'most' important ones, even Gautam in his book mentions atleast 30-40 seminal works as very important. We havent even touched upon those.

And talking about evolution of ragas and talas, I have with me a book on the same written by Gautam and he doesnt even mention paNs and kurals and thuttams and uLLocais even in passing. These things couldnt find a place in a 300-400 page authoritative book dedicated to music theory and you are pushing for their inclusion in a 200 word summary of the History of CM in this article!! I surely got to give it to you for objectivity! Sarvagnya 20:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• First, you've understand that it is based on his Ph.D Thesis and it is based on critical reviews of musical ideas from Vedas, NS, Brhaddesi and SR. If you read the book, you'll notice that he carefully examines and reviews these ideas and in detail. And his examination is restricted to 4-5 key sanskrit works and he often tries to find parallels in Hindustani music, though he does compare where possible with Carnatic music. I'm glad you've the book and go back and check the things I've mentioned from it. See how viable the music from NS and SR are. About Dr. Gautham not taking up panns etc. is due to his focus on the selected sanskrit works as required for his thesis in Banares Hindu University. To understand the contribution of these sanskrit works, it is an excellent critical review. Read Prof. Sambamurthy and many others who describe the contributions of panns and tamil music to the indian music. The aim and scope of a Ph.D. Thesis is different from the scope of a general book on the history of CM. Read the 2nd para on page 48 to see his comments. --Aadal 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I dont know what you are trying to prove by saying that it is based on his Ph.D or that it is based on critical reviews of musical ideas from V, NS, Br., and SR. The very fact that he has chosen to base his research on these is testimony to their overbearing importance. And it is not just him, every single author irrespective of ethnicity, nationality, religion, caste or creed(including Sambamurthy) base their research on these very pillars. Everything else, is just incidental, i.e., if they even manage to find a mention. None of them, not one says anything different.
• Also, your mixing up of Gautam's leanings towards HM doesnt hold water. More so, because, Gautam for one is of the view(like an overwhelming majority of musicologists) that there was only one broad classical tradition in India before the HM-CM split happened post-SR. Infact, even the SR speaks of one and only one kind of music. It is very clear that the HM-CM split happened post-SR, notwithstanding what Ramanathan feels.
• Also, your point about NS's view about Ragas is besides the point. Music of NS times and even music of Br.,'s times(you dont even need to go as far as SR) for that matter, differs very very widely about many things. This is a known fact that no one is contesting. All the same, these texts represent important and seminal milestones in the evolution of ICM and CM. And one more thing, quoting selectively and concluding that the music of NS and that of Br., or SR were diametrically different is just a half-truth. It is only that NS divided the music of its time into so called elite and pop styles. And by the time the centuries rolled by, and we reached Br., the pop of NS had become elite. Nevertheless, the theory remained the same and was just built upon.
• Also, I dont have to remind you that these texts are specifically treatises on Classical music and Arts. Compare that to the Silapp., which is a poetic novel(if I may) which just happens to mention some concepts of music in passing, not surprising given the fact that it involves courtesans and dancers. Even the author of Silapp., wouldnt have meant his work to be used as a reference for music. For that matter, even the Kama Sutra has passages devoted to music and dance. That doesnt mean we haul it up here and make the likes of NS, Br., SR, CP etc., share the stage with it. They are not even in the same league. You have to understand that.
• ATM certainly deserves an article for itself and you can use that article to articulate all the similarities it shared with ICM of those times and how it might have influenced it or infact, and more plausibly, have been influenced by ICM itself. While doing that, please keep in mind that, sharing similarities is not the same as this influenced that or that influenced this. I say this, because even Tamil authors like Sambamurthy mention some parallels and stop at that. They dont take it further and say that, ICM or any of the authors of the above mentioned works, borrowed stuff from any of the numerous tamil works(esoteric ones AND the not-so-esoteric ones) that you mentioned.
• I hope you see the light and realise that mentioning details from ATM or AKM or AMM or ATeM or A'North Indian'M, etc., shouldnt be delved into if not for anything else, atleast because that would be beyond the scope of this article. Sarvagnya 03:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If you read the book (Dr. Gautham's) you will see that the present Carnatic music (for that matter HM as well)is not based on the theories in NS, SR etc. Those are theories (that is why I asked you to read what is on page 48). They have tried to codify what they must have observed. Just as much as you and Skris are saying that ATM is not CM, it is important to realize that the music of NS,SR are also not same as CM (or HM). But the point is all these contributed, influenced in one way or another. CM grew in large part in Tamil Nadu and Tamil music was the prevalent music in Tamil Nadu and it influenced CM more than any other system. Some 25 panns are nearly same as present day ragas and it is not a coincidence. Further Tamil music is a live tradition. There is no live tradition based on NS or SR and if you understand the music of those works, you'll see why there is no live tradition (they are largely untenable, unmusical, and in some cases as described in NS, only one note singing). Silapathikaram is a poem, but the musical ideas mentioned there and the rules said there and earlier tamil works are very important. The Srivaishnava founder Sri Ramanuja is known to have listened to Azhvar's Tamil songs and philosophy on a daily basis, but when he wrote his Sribashyam, he wrote it in Sanskrit. Someone who reads Sribashyam may not know all the philosophies and insights he had gained from the Azhvar's songs or that there was something like Azhvar's songs. So, reading Sri Ramanuja's work in Skt, you can't deny that anything like Azhvar's songs are ever present or influenced him or that we should not mention the concepts in Azhvar's philosophies. I'm citing this only as an example. In the evolution of classical music (esp Carnatic music), the two essential ingredients are Sama Veda and ATM, but there were certainly many other influences. Panns are older than NS's Jati (which died a long time ago), Grama ragas and ragas. The concept and practice of scales in ATM are older than in NS, SR. The 7-note, 12-swarasthanas are found earlier in ATM. The concept of modal shift is found earlier in ATM. Gamakas are recognized formally and classified at least 1000 years before in ATM. Tamil Music is the only authentic live tradition of classical music from 700-900 CE timeframe. And CM is a South Indian Classical Music and it was majorly influenced by TM. --Aadal 04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Music of NS, SR etc represent Ancient Indian Classical Music which was the precursor of both Hindustani and Carnatic Music. So many terms which these works describe are still used and learnt in both Carnatic and Hindustani Music. Ragas, swaras (vadi, samvadi, vivadi), talas, murchana, jati, sruti are all the same concepts handed down to CM and HM by their common ancestor over the last 1000-2000 years.

Sarvagna is totally absolutely 1000% right in calling Silappathikaram etc as poetic works that give passing references to Ancient Tamil Music, as against Natyashastra, Sangita Ratnakara etc which were treatises on the science and art of classical music.

It is you who misquoted Gautam and Sambamurthy, and now saying apologetically that Gautam didnt speak about Carnatic music and ATM in the same vein because it was his thesis was for Benares Hindu University. Whether it was his thesis and for which university is pointless and irrelevant to our discussion. He didnt dwell upon ATM's contributions to CM in any way, period. So his work is not relevant to your claims.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether you understand the aim and scope of a Ph.D. thesis, but the aim there is to have a critical review of those works and how the ideas emerged there. Tamil sources might have been outside the scope of the thesis. He goes in detail about each one of those works and he tries to critically examine the content of those works -as required for his Ph.D. That he didn't speak about Silapathikaram is not relevant here. I quoted Gautham (quite specifically with page numbers) to show how NS and SR rules produce unmusical pieces. I had not misquoted either Gautham and Sambamurthy.

Nothing to say - Part II

• If you read the book (Dr. Gautham's) you will see that the present Carnatic music (for that matter HM as well)is not based on the theories in NS, SR etc.

He says anything but that. He is very categorical about the fact that these works represent logical progressions in the evolution of CM. Like you yourself have said before, CM just didnt materialize overnight. It evolved. And NS, SR, CP etc., represent different stages of evolution. This is what musicologists say and it doesnt behove amateurs like us to argue against such overwhelming opinion of numerous experts.

Different stages of codifications in Skt, perhaps, but not evolution of music per se. If so, how come we don't have any live traditions?

• First of all, the texts were texts. They werent Haridasa movements to leave behind traditions. Also this question of live traditions that you keep raising is flimsy and not concerned at all to the article. Just because there is no 'live' tradition left doesnt mean history took a different course. But for thankless efforts of some individuals as late as the late 19th and 20th centuries, most of Thyagaraja's kritis or Dasa sahitya or even Sangam literature for that matter would be dead. Nevertheless, that wouldnt have changed the course that history took. And as for 'live' traditions, all the HM and CM we have today, are infact, 'live' traditions.

• My point is not from SR's time.--Aadal 21:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just as much as you and Skris are saying that ATM is not CM, it is important to realize that the music of NS,SR are also not same as CM (or HM). But the point is all these contributed, influenced in one way or another.

And yet, for reasons best known to them, musicologists have chosen to give Silapp., the cold shoulder while elevating texts like NS, SR etc., to exalted pedestals. So if you have a problem with that, I guess you will have to take it up with the musicologists first.

Not true. Sambamurthy et al do talk quite a bit on Tamil music. Just like Dr. Gautham had focused on those works, Dr. S. Ramanathan focused on Silapathikaram in his thesis at Wesleyan Univesity in US. Similarly Dr. Angayarkanni such works in her thesis. Sanskrit works were translated into English earlier and so more of them are better known (thanks to european scholars largely).

• Dont you see a pattern? All the authors you mention are Tamils. It is not at all surprising that they make mentions of ATM wherever they see fit. But even they do not go as far as clubbing Silapp., and NS in the same league. Just like Gautam has divided the evolution of CM in pre-NS, NS to Br., Br - SR and post-SR, Sambamurthy also has done exactly that. Silapp., and such arent considered milestones by anybody. Not even by Tamil authors. And outside TN, Silapp., is an unknown text. Similarly very senior musicologists like Ra. Satyanarayan touch upon Kannada traditions in their works. Andhra musicologists touch upon Andhra music traditions. That is only as an aside. All of them accept the authority of the texts. If not for these seminal texts, music theory and hence ICM would be dead today. You cant derive any music theory from Silapp., or any Sangam poetry.

• Again not true. There are many european scholars who have mentioned Silapathikaram and thevaram (example is Emmie Te Niejenhuis in her Indian Music-history and Structure, Robert Brown in Readings in Ethnomusicology) and non-tamils like Gosvami in his Story of Indian Music mentions them.--Aadal 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• CM grew in large part in Tamil Nadu and Tamil music was the prevalent music in Tamil Nadu and it influenced CM more than any other system.

Says who? CM, pre-Purandara Dasa was a pan-Indian evolution. Post-Purandara Dasa, it was the Vijayanagara(Hampe) and Haridasas who spearheaded the renaissance first. Later after Vijayanagara fell and the Nayaks started ruling many parts of TN, several Telugu families fled Muslim persecution and came and settled down in Tanjore. Even Thyagaraja's family(atleast a couple of generations before Him) was one such. And it is said that Thyagaraja started learning music from his mother who taught him Purandara Dasa's kritis. He even pays tribute to Purandara Dasa in one of his works. It is at this point that Tamil Nadu takes over and Tanjore became the hub of CM. And even at this point, it is only fair to say that it was Thyagaraja's Telugu kritis that overwhelmed all other traditions. And even to this day, Thyagaraja's kritis continue to hold their sway over CM. In the 19th and 20th century, Mysore also became a parallel power center with the Wodeyars being great patrons of the art and musicians themselves. They had musicians from Tanjore falling over each other to get a chance to perform in front of the King. It was considered the highest honour a musician could aspire for in those days. Sambamurthy himself details all this in one of his books. Later, it was only in the twentieth century that TN and Madras in particular started wresting the stranglehold and today, we have musicians falling over each other for a chance to perform at Madras Music Academy. All the most influential and many of the greats in the last fifty years have been from TN. So TN and Tamil has plenty to feel proud about and you dont have to reinvent history to do that.

Haridasa movement and Virasaiva movement evloved after the outpouring of Azhvar's and Nayanmar's in TN. It is well known. You and Skris don't want anything from Tevaram to be discussed, but you're okay with Haridasa movement. While I have no problem in mentioning/discussing haridasa movement and Tevaram and Azhvar's songs, you have problems in including Tevaram. This partiality is what is at the core of this dispute. It is not about feeling proud etc., it is about faithfully recording the contributions. Not for the last 50 years, but at least the last 2000 years. It is not during Thyagaraja's time Tanjore became the hub. It had been a hub for more than 1000 years before Thyagaraja.

• It is not a question of how I am disposed towards Dasa sahitya or Tevaram that counts. The fact of the matter is, the Dasa parampare's role in spearheading a renaissance in this art form is well known, well documented, unambiguous and unanimous. The same cannot be said of tamil novels, poetry and traditions that you quote. Nor about the Veerashaiva traditions. Tevaram, Veerashaiva/Vachana tradtions were great and notable traditions in their own right, but their role in shaping CM or ICM as we know it today, is suspect at best. Like I said, entire books have been written about CM without even mentioning Silapp., Tewaram etc.,. Can you show me one book, just one book about CM that omits the Haridasas from its pages?

• The books I mentioned above (by Niejenhuis and Gosvami) don't mention Hardasa movement. While many authors would mention P.Dasa, very few mention, if at all, about Haridasa Movement. Again please note that these are not the criteria for including or excluding discussions in the article. The article should be informative, well balanced and well supported and interesting. --Aadal 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some 25 panns are nearly same as present day ragas and it is not a coincidence.

In an ocean of countless ragas, it wouldnt be surprising at all, if some 25 panns were "nearly" the same as present day ragas. For that matter, CM and HM share ragas even with WCM and Turkish music and Persian music. So would you simply conclude that WCM or Turkish or Persian music came from CM or CM came from WCM?? Dikshitar's Shakti Sahita Ganapatim is clearly influenced by WM. So do you propose to haul in Mozart and Bach and their works into this article?

In Tamil too thousads of Ragas are talked about and methods of arriving at them. The fact is some 200-300 ragas are more amenable for elaboration. Only some 20-30 ragas are so far found suitable for more serious elaboration. Many of these are same more or less same as panns. If something is influenced by WM, it should be so stated and I'm for it.

• Specious as your claim is, I'll refrain from answering this. This discussion is degenerating into discussing and dissecting grammar and theory. Let us stop it now. And like I said, there are not one but many many different traditions that have influenced ICM in the last 2000 years. This article cannot start talking about all those influences. Infact, Sambamurthy himself says that there were more than 50 musical traditions in South India alone in the medieval period. And without a doubt all of them would have influenced CM in their own small ways. But discussing all that is beyond the scope of this article.

• Exactly. When there are many streams of thought and experience which contributed to the development of CM, they ought to be included in some appropriate manner. Please understand that what is within the scope of an article is a collective responsibility of all the editors and not just one or two edior's sole prerogative. --Aadal 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Silapathikaram is a poem, but the musical ideas mentioned there and the rules said there and earlier tamil works are very important.

Not half as important as the seminal texts mentioned. Certainly not important enough to stamp itself all over an article on Wikipedia. Silapp.,'s influence or contribution to music, if any(if at all) should be mentioned in Cilappatikaram not in Carnatic music.

Silapathikaram represents one of the main the music traditions (tamil music) of the south indian classical music. And hence it has to be mentioned (just like the skt works). Your perception of importance may differ from mine.

• Yes my perceptions differ from yours. But then, WP is not concerned with either my perceptions nor yours. The only POV that counts is of musicologists and its very clear what that POV is, even of the authors that you yourself named.

• I've quoted several authors (Nijenhuis, Gosvami, Robert Brown et al) who do discuss. Some authors like Gosvami mention how important it is for shaping CM. --Aadal 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ramanuja - Alwar - Sribhashyam.....

Your analogy is way off target. Ramanuja listened to Alwar and got influenced by those works. That doesnt mean Sharngadeva also got to listen to Alwar's songs, got influenced by it and included it in his works.

I said that- to point out that the influences from other sources may not be revealed from the Skt sources by themselves (except in some rare cases). Sarngadeva was a theoretician. Discussions in Dr. Gautham's book clearly show that the music SR is very unlike CM or HM and much of it is very unmusical and contrived. It is not a wonder then that there is no live traditions based on SR. And SR is not that old either.

• Speculation again! Do you have any proof to even entertain the thought that Andal and Alwar and Silapp., etc., influenced Sarngadeva. And stop pretending to be an expert. Your brushing away SR as unmusical is laughable. It is for all practical purposes, the bible of ICM. Any book, musicologist or musician will tell you this. And again, please refrain from even venturing to compare the grammars and theories of various texts and attempting to hold a 'pseudo-scholarly' discussion. The grammars and theories of all these texts has already been dissected, compared and researched into by experts. Let us just go by what they say. No place for OR on WP.

• I'm not brushing away SR. I think it is an important work. It is not CM, just as Silapathikaram music is not CM. About the type of music and about the comments of being unmusical, I was quoting Dr. M.R. Gautham's book with specific page numbers. Andal's work and Silapathikaram etc. contributed directly to CM through evolution and not through SR per se. Let me cut and paste an earlier reply mine:--Aadal 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As for NS and SR, read M.R. Gautam's book 'Evolution of Raga and Tala in Indian Music, especially the first 5 chapters to see the kind of nebulous state and confusion. SR and NS are not as authoratative as you think for CM. This is not to say that they are not great works or that they are not discussed and talked about. But not the basis of CM (CM did not emerge then and CM is not based on them either, though some useful commonalities exist). If you read Gautam's book on Chapter 5, he discusses SR and for most of the examples in SR, he says it is 'jumpy', 'there is no hindustani or carnatic raga to match this' (p.126), 'are so tenuous and jumpy that a cohesive musical idea seems difficult to emerge' (p.130), 'the song is extremely confusing as its structure is in contradiction with the rules stated above.' (p.132), 'The peculiar phrasing of the above ragas appear almost wantonly discordant'(p.141), 'The notes are disjointed and it is very difficult to construct a melody out of them. (p.124), 'Even if they are sung with full miinda and aesthetic grace, the notes can not produce any pleasant music effect (p.124) --Aadal 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you're talking about the first five chapters of that book, you should also have noticed that the very first chapter of the book, gives a comprehensive listing of all the lakshanagranthas which have played a role, big and small, in the evolution of raga and tala. It starts with Nar.Shiksha I believe, and goes upto SR(in the 13th century. Did you notice that Sangam lit., Silapp., Andal, Auvaiyar, Panja Murabu etc., are missing from that comprehensive listing?? Sarvagnya

• As I've said, his aim seems to be to critically review select Skt texts (perhaps not even all the skt texts). --Aadal 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Panns are older than NS's Jati (which died a long time ago), Grama ragas and ragas. The concept and practice of scales in ATM are older than in NS, SR. The 7-note, 12-swarasthanas are found earlier in ATM. The concept of modal shift is found earlier in ATM. Gamakas are recognized formally and classified at least 1000 years before in ATM.

Says who? Says who? Says who? And even if we were to assume your assertions as gospel truth for a moment, SO WHAT?? Your logic is on the following lines - A is older than B. So B came from A. Or A influenced B.

No, not merely because they were older. If something evolved from a region and if the region had almost all the features of the 'newly' evolved thing prior to the evolution, it is inescapable that there was strong influence. Time and place and the characteristics are to be taken together.

• Speculation and OR again. Also btw, can you tell me, did ATM materialize overnight in Tamil Nadu or does it also trace its history to the Sama Veda?

• My comment will only enrage you. I suggest that you consult with others you trust as to how Samaveda evolved and whether north and south have the same number of swaras for singing Samaveda, whether there were vedic pundits who were sent by one Sankaracharya to the north etc. ATM developed from ancient tamil folk music. Like tamils systematised many things about their art and life, they systematised music. the earliest known works of Tamil speak of modal shift etc. and no specific date can be assigned for the tamil classical music (may be 200 BCE, 500 BCE, but certainly long before before 100 CE). So, not overnight, but not in 18th century CE.

• Nothing you say can enrage me anymore. And as usual, you're off on a tangent. I merely asked you when and where did ATM originate? For all practical purposes, IM traces its origin to the Sama Veda. Does ATM trace its origins to something else? Or is Sama Veda also a Tamil tradition? ---Sarvagnya

• I had answered your question about ATM. But ATM did not originate from Samaveda, as far as one can tell and no one had claimed so - to the best of my knoewledge. I have to leave your last question unanswered. Or I've to ask you how you think Samaveda developed its music and whether it is (and was) same throughout India? I'll say this much though that Samaveda did not have 7 notes.--Aadal 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'Do you even see the fallacious nature of your logic/argument?? Sarvagnya 10:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you see above and see who is making a fallacious argument? To say that Tamil music has got nothing to do with CM is utterly false and highly misleading. ----Aadal 13:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• I didnt say it has nothing to do. It may have very little to do or it may even have nothing to do. All the same, it doesnt have enough to do to merit discussion in this article. Also remember, for every line about ATM you add, people can add lines about AKM, ATeM, AMM etc.,. There is something called balance and NPOV that WP requires us to maintain in articles. For every Silapp., you add, I can add works of Pampa, Ranna... even Kalidasa for that matter, because all of them make references to music in their works. The simple fact that the works had nothing to do with music itself can be thrown out of the window and anarchy can reign on this article. CM be blessed. Sarvagnya 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I leave others to make out what you're saying. Please don't take this as Tamil versus Kannada. if Kannada or Telugu had music literature, I'm all for mentioning them here. I'm not at all saying only Tamil and Sanskrit works on music should be mentioned. --Aadal 15:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am not making it into a tamil vs kannada or tamil vs X thing. What I am only trying to point out is, if we include a section about ATM, we would have to include a section each about the rest also. And if we keep doing that, the article will lose its balance and article size will be damned. Is this so difficult to understand? And moreover, Silapp., has as much (or even less) to do with music as Abigyana Shakuntala or Kama Sutra or Valmiki Ramayana or Ranna, Pampa, Kumaravyasa, Ramcharitamanas or even Kamba Ramayana for that matter. All these texts touch upon music and musical tradition. That doesnt mean we cram all of them into this article. But if even one of them is included, all of them would have to be included. --- Sarvagnya

• Silapathikaram is different. I'm not sure whether you understand the difference between Silapathikaram and Kamba Ramayanam (in terms of the discussions about music and dance). You seem to be just assuming that it is another 'novel' (as you mentioned in another reply). No. It contains in depth concepts in music and dance. I showed a few here -including the fact that he talks about what we call today gamakas (some 1000 years before SR). None of the other literary works you've mentioned (including Kamba Ramayana) contain such in-depth music and dance concepts. If they do, it is worth including, imo. Like Skris quoted a passage from Yagnyavalkya (which is not a work on music). Remember that Dr. S. Ramanathan had written a Ph.D thesis on the music of Silapathikaram- so Silapathikaram is different. --Aadal 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no comparison between passing references of Silappathikaram about ATM, and universally recognized treatises on Indian Classical music such as NS & SR. Whether they are in Sanskrit or Tamil is irrelevant. Your claim (that CM or Indian Classical Music which evolved through important landmarks like NS & SR before its split to CM & HM was largely confined to TamilNadu) is 1000% false. What was confined to Tamil Nadu were ATM and its composers-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 15:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You keep repeating your empty rhetoric. I don't want to compete with you saying you're wrong one followed by 4 zeros and 5 zeros percentage. I know you can add more zeros. Tamil composer's songs are heard all over the world. CM competitions based on Tamil composers are held in London, Toronto etc. not to mention other parts of India. You had admitted that there is no live tradition of classical music even from the late period of SR. The fact is Thevaram and Azhvaar's songs have ushered in Bhakthi movement throughout India. Influence of Tamil music is undeniable. Silapathikaram is not the only one (and it is not a passing reference, it is intimate itegrated description of music and dance). Read the commentaries and you will see that a large number of treatises (already mentioned) are quoted. Just like Matanga's Brhaddesi s available in poor shape, lots of original Tamil works which were well known then and available in full during prior to 1100 CE are lost, though Panja Marabu and parts of other treatises as quoted in works are still available. What is most important is that 9295 Thevaram songs set to music are available today (it is a live tradition), not to mention several thousand other songs which were set to music but are available without the music tradition. --Aadal 16:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are talking irrelevant things. I dont want to know whether you sing Thevaram in Toronto or London. Silappathikaram is not a treatise on classical music, period. Thevarams are not recognized as Carnatic Music nor is Panja Marabu recognized by anyone as an authoritative text for Carnatic Music (except by tamil chauvinists). ATM is not the precursor of Indian Classical music and did not usher anything throughout India. If you think otherwise, pls provide credible references. Dont waste both our time by talking irrelevant stuff.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 21:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I've provided details not once but many many times. See my reply to Sarvagnya above which again contains answers. Whatever I've provided are from credible references (most often with specific page numbers). Read Gosvami, Sambamurthy, Nijenhuis, Robert Brown, they all talk about Silapathikaram, Tevaram in the context of indian classical music. I ignore your rude remarks. --Aadal 15:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

I was away on a week-long wikivacation and find that some of you have posted messages in my talk page regarding the ongoing dispute here. May I suggest third-party mediation? Please recruit mediators who are acceptable to both parties and be amenable to mediation. That's the only way out. Please keep in mind that mediation is not the same as arbitration, the former helps the parties to arrive at a consensus while the latter is admin intervention. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sundar, anything that would end these edit wars amicably is welcome. I am pained to see the CM article being held hostage to linguistic chauvinism-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 09:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, Yes, I think the best way is to go for either mediation or arbitration, because the page is ruined by edit wars. But until Thursday (Nov 2nd) I won't be able to participate actively due to my tight commitments. If you can serve as one of the mediateors, it would be good, but if not, I'll understand. I'll be able to respond briefly until Nov 2nd, but not in an intensive manner. But all the points are already made above in this talk page. Currently there are glaring mistakes and incorrect interpretations in the page and serious omissions. --Aadal 13:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Even though I don't have any interest one way or the other in Carnatic music, I have a slightly pro-Tamil POV in general. With that it may be difficult for me to mediate. Let there be more neutral mediators. I'll step in wherever I can. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, thanks for your response. I believe that among the mediators, there should be at least one knowledgeable person in music (preferably Indian classical music or CM), one knowledgeable in Sanskrit and Tamil (need not be a great expert), and one person who doesn't understand Sanskrit or Tamil but who understands the logic and validity of arguments. --Aadal 14:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, it is so nice of you to declare your general pro-tamil POV, however light it may be, and therefore refuse to mediate. It should serve as an example to all editors and admins.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Tamil music section

To put an end to the rv wars, I have created a sub section called Ancient Tamil Music with citation request on three key sentences. They are

• 1) The concept of Pann relates to the modern Raga in Ancient Tamil music.
• 2) The rhythmic meters found in several sacred musical forms like Thevaram, Thiruppugazh, etc., resemble the talas that are in use today.
• ) Due to this some scholars believe that Tamil music was also an important contributer from which current Carnatic Music is derived.

Other editors should give the person who inserted these sentences at least 1 week or the time they request to find correct sources for these key statements. If not it should be deleted along with the entire section. That's my suggested solutionRaveenS 19:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• You dont seem to get the point. Whatever ATM's concepts may be, it represents a totally different and independent tradition. Just because it shares some similarities with CM, does not mean it influenced CM or that CM influenced ATM. ATM should go into its own aricle Ancient Tamil Music.

Ancient Tamil music is already an article, what is in question is, did it or did not influence the development of Carnatic music. All what I have asked is that who ever inserted it into the main article should find credible references for such asertion. If not it should be removed. Giving them at least a week to react when there is considerable amount of revert war is going on, is a reasonable amount of time, that I have see in Wikipedia. RaveenS 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also now that you have added a section about ATM, can you prevent people from adding "Ancient Kannada Music", "Ancient Oriya Music", "Ancient Malayalam Music", "Ancient Kashmiri Music", "Ancient Telugu Music" etc.,.

Whom I am to prevent and why should I prevent ? If it is properly referenced and sourced all theories of origin of Carnatic music should be listed, even controversial ones as long as it is tagged as one. See section under Indo-European languages even controversial theories that are not acceptable to mainstream linguists such as Indian Origin of IE languages is listed as a theory of orginsee here. Now that's how a enclopedia article should written, well balanced and neutral point of view even if a theory is not popular or well accepted. Vedic origin of Carnatic music is just a theory, but a dominant theory but it is not a irrefutable fact like the world is flat, hence there is room for other hypothesis here and people who read this article should be given the opportunity to know about it, even it is not popular or dominant as long as it is not done with the intent to vandalize this article. RaveenS 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can you even foresee the ramifications such additions will have for this article?
• Spare a thought for things like NPOV, article size, scope of article etc.,. Sarvagnya 20:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have come to have full faith in the Wikipedia process, great articles are not made over night or by rash decisions. They are built over a period of time through consensus. They are balanced and well thought through with all points of view represented. Thanks RaveenS 02:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

ATM is a wholly different tradition (though it has some commonalities with CM). The geographical proximity made ATM and ancient Indian Classical Music influence each other. Carnatic Music (also Hindustani) is a descendant of ancient ICM, because all the concepts of ancient ICM are from the Vedas and later works such as Natyashastra, Sangeeta Ratnakara etc. This ICM split into Hindustani and Carnatic during the advent of invasions from Iran at around 12th-13th century century. Silappathikaram and Sangam literature here is totally irrelevant.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cite references for this point of view, if it is credible then you can add that point under ATM to refute what the ATM section says (that is if the author finds credible sources for his point of view). The sentence could say although some scholars^[6] belive that Cranatic music was influence by ATM so and so^[7] belives it does not end of story. Really it is not that difficult to write balanced Wikipedia articles as long as we try to keep away from original research. Thanks RaveenS

Raveen, my point is exactly the same as yours. As long as there are credible references to support the statements (for example from musicologists and well-regarded researchers), the article should embrace sometimes even differing views. In fact the article will gain respectability for presenting the views in such a balanced way. I agree that it is really not that difficult to write a balanced article, especially here in CM.

Otherwise this deserves an NPOV tag. I agree RaveenS 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All the three contested points seem to come from the follwing articleCarnatica Is it a credible source ? Let us discuss. RaveenS 02:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Thanks

Whom I am to prevent and why should I prevent ?

• First of all, what is the need to go into ATM here? What is the reason? Is it because it shares some similarities with CM? "Shares similarity with CM" - is that enough reason to qualify a dedicated section here?
• If that is the case, HM and WCM share more similarities with CM as compared to ATM. So should I start a section for HM and Western Classical music also? Even Ancient Kannada Music, Telugu music etc., are based in the same regions and share many traditions with CM. So what will happen if we start writing a section about all kinds of music? Is this article a dumping ground?
• Last but not the least, you wouldnt have asked this question if you had even bothered to take a cursory look at the discussions on the talk page. You say you have lot of faith in the WP process, but seems like you have no regard for what others have already explained in excruciating length on the talk page long before you even bothered to look at this article. Asking people to explain the same things over and over again is simply stonewalling and horribly undermines the WP process in which you repose so much faith. Sarvagnya 03:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in any argument. Thanks RaveenS 12:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A small bunch of references for whatever I have been saying so far:
1. http://www.raaga.net/
2. http://india.gov.in/knowindia/classical_music.php
3. http://www.khazana.com/et/music/gentle4.asp
4. http://www.omlinga.com/music.html
5. http://www.mandolinshrinivas.org/carnatic.htm#
6. http://www.fly.co.uk/fly/archives/asiapacific_features/appreciating_indian_classical.html
7. http://www.tifr.res.in/~aset/full_text/gkp-aset-06.ppt
8. http://www.bharatadesam.com/arts/carnatic_music.php
9. http://www.sawf.org/Newedit/edit04302001/musicarts2.asp
10. http://www.sawf.org/Newedit/edit09302002/musicarts2.asp
11. http://www.nrithyalaya.com/musiceng.htm
12. http://www.rhythmnraga.org/carnaticmusic.html
13. http://www.indianmirror.com/arts/arts5.html
14. http://www.indian-heritage.org/music/carnatic.htmhttp://www.indian-heritage.org/music/carnatic.htm
15. http://www.bharathanatyam.com/history.html
16. http://www.indiaheritage.org/perform/music/cim.htm
17. http://india.mapsofindia.com/culture/art-and-culture/carnatic-music.html
18. http://chandrakantha.com/articles/indian_music/carnatic_sangeet.html
19. http://www.indoclassical.com/indo/asp/history.asp
20. http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-music/carnatic-music.html
21. http://www.cosmopolis.ch/english/music/64/indian_classical_music.htm
22. http://travels.talash.com/india-culture/india-music.html
23. http://swamy_2.tripod.com/orig.htm
24. http://www.indialine.com/travel/knowindia/music.html
25. http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003899&channel=gulberg&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1
26. http://www.hindustanlink.com/Destination/music.htm
27. http://minchu.ee.iisc.ernet.in/mirror/icm/sang4.html
28. http://www.ragatracks.com/raagas1.htm
29. http://www.biowaves.com/Music/IndianMusic/Peculiarities.php
30. http://www.keralaeducation.com/HTML/soul.htm
31. http://www.sarasvatibhavan.com/page3.html
32. http://www.radio-india.net/music.htm#south -- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 12:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I will go through all of them and state my opinion as to first are they credible sources (i.e not mere websites, blogs and opinions not referenced) sendly do they deal with the subject matter on hand i.e Did or did not Ancient Tamil for that matter I dont mind even the word Ancient South Indian music influence the development of Carnatic Music. ThanksRaveenS 12:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Raveen, I know almost all these websites, had visited them at different times, and most of them are reliable ones (though several of these will only give a very brief account). User skris had not not included some of the good sites like carnatic.net (just an example), which is maintained by well known CM musician Sowmya, which offer more detailed accounts. I haven't come across any of these sites saying that Tamil music has not contributed to CM. In fact one of the sites (well-known Kiravanai Vidyasankar's) says the following, "Carnatic music has also been considerably influenced by the ancient Tamil music from the Dravidian culture of the southern parts of India. Thus, it epitomises the glorious confluence of the Sanskrit and Tamil cultures that underlie all of Indian civilisation.". It is intersting to note that another site, the sarasvatibhavan.com is Emmie Te Niejenhuis's website and User skris had previously characterised her in less than respectable way (or in a dismissive way) when I mentioned her work. I've quoted from several books (Gosvami, Sambamurthy, Emmie Te Niejenhuis etc.) about the contributions of Tamil music. Another quote: Gosvāmi, O. The Story of Indian Music: Its Growth and Synthesis. Asia Publishing House, 1957. “The influence of these twelve divisions in the scale and music of Nayanmars and Alvars have gone a long way to determine the character of the present Carnatic music.” --Aadal 13:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I have begun to go through them myself but what I am reiterating here is that even if a personal website says a known an acceptable fact it is not a credible source in Wikipedia unless it backs its asertion with references, research and data. That is to write an encyclopedia article personal blogs and websites will not suffice as credible references unless the source backs up its opinion with references, research and data. Then it is a credible source. It is like writing any thesis. I dont think it is just my opinion.

References

Raveen, I've provided the references and have removed the ref stub. --Aadal 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the references, it is no longer based on personal websites or blogs. It is a credible source. If others have other credible sources to refute it this point of view then they can add it under it as I have mentioned before. I would also request you to rename the subsection as Ancient South Indian music to be inclusive so that future editors can add ancient Kannada and Telugu information when they become available. Also please look for information on Ancient folk traditions of South India as another subsection because Ancient South Indian music alludes to another elitist classical tradition. Good work. Thanks RaveenS 16:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Start from a clean slate

May I urge both parties to approach the problem in the spirit that I suggested here? Please mention only what you agree with the other party, let's come to disagreements later. Please make it a numbered list - no descriptions and no disagreements. Once we have the list of concessions that either side is ready to make, we can arrive at a consensus draft without compromising on the basic principles. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Parthi has made a good start by giving all points that he agrees with in the others' views. Please reciprocate the same without commenting on his points now. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if both parties agree, we can even move the legacy of acrimonious discussions to an archive page and try out a new draft based on just the agreed upon points. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, this is certainly one of the best methods to arrive at a consensus, and I've mentioned not once but umpteen times what I agree with others. In my very first response after the page was protected I had spelled out the points (see Balanced/Neutral POV section). One concern is -one or two editors should not decide that some content is not to be included when that content is based on well supported facts and evidences and they should not have some kind of exclusive right to decide that it is not relevant. When there is a difference of opinion, multiple views must be presented with appropriate wording. The whole trouble is because one or two editors feel that some content should not be there (kind of slef-assumed censoring).--Aadal 13:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aadal, in the interest of clarity and self-containment, add your points of agreement as a numbered list below. We'll first collect all points of agreement. Later, we'll definitely address the issue of alleged censorship. If needed, we can seek third-party opinion. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

2 separate sections has been made for questions with respect to submissions/arguments. The first one is for others to ask questions with respect to arguments by the parties. These details may be or are necessary when considering what others agree with. (Eg; #2 Aadal #3, what are your reasons?) The second is for the parties to provide respective answers to each question made by others. (Eg; #2 my reasons are...) Thanks. Ncmvocalist 08:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Skris

From among the views of the parties expressing counter opinion, Skris agrees with ...

1. Mentioning the tamil trinity, not as a trinity but with individual names (since they are not known elsewhere as a trinity, and also not to give a linguistic tint to what is essentially an art form spanning atleast 5-6 major languages)
2. Mentioning any other ancient tamil composers like appar, sambandhar etc in a line or two, but not dwelling too much on them since their music is not carnatic music (as opposed to recent tamil composers such as Gopalakrishna Bharathi, Oothukadu Venkatasubbier, Papanasam Sivan, Periasami Thooran etc who are pucca carnatic composers).
3. Mentioning silappathikaram etc merely for perspective since these partly formed the environment and not the source for carnatic music's development.
4. Mentioning any (and all known) ancient archaeological or literary evidence anywhere that directly mention the same terms used in caranatic music today like ragas, sruti, talas, svaras etc, and which therefore represent the stem/trunk of the carnatic music tree of history. These include such finds as the inscriptions in Kudumiyan malai etc.
   -- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 15:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarvagnya

From among the views of the parties expressing counter opinion, Sarvagnya agrees with ...

1. Kudumiyan Malai inscription is an important one and should be mentioned(but not under general history of CM, rather a section dedicated to mentioning inscriptions/sculptures etc., from across India(atleast SI))
2. Tamil trinity can be mentioned in the manner that Kris has described.(See more comments in edit mode) Sarvagnya 16:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
3. About #2 that Kris has mentioned, along with appar, sambandar etc., we also need to add basavanna, akka, allama etc., and their counterparts if any, from andhra and kerala also... and mention that these are composers who didnt compose CM per se., but whose compositions are nevertheless part of CM today. Sarvagnya

Aadal

From among the views of the parties expressing counter opinion, Aadal agrees with ...

(I've provided some statements within brackets to give perspective and I'm aware that some or all of them are points not in agreement with others)

1. Sama Veda is an important and ancient development (in the history of music)
2. NS, Brhaddesi, SR and CP are important sanskrit works on music theory (I feel that Naradiya Siksha which is earlier than NS, Ramamatya's Swaramelakalanidhi and several other works such as Silapathikaram, Panjamarabu and other tamil works, Thevaram music, pann system are important contributing factors for the development south indian classical music and important for understanding the development of south indian classical music; Just as NS, BrhD, SR are not CM per se, the Tamil works, including pann-based music is not CM per se. But without all these there is no CM ).
3. Tamil Trinity composers have to be mentioned (in agreement with Parthi), but not for the reasons cited by Parthi in my view.
4. In agreement with Parthi (though he is not one of those expressing counter opinion) that ATM is to be discussed in History section (and this applies to other works like NS, SR etc. too.).

--Aadal 15:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Parthi

From among the views of the parties expressing counter opinion, Parthi agrees with ...

1. that Ancient Tamil music (ATM) or the music mentioned in Cilappatikaram on their own do not represent the current form of Carnatic music
2. that there are numerous influence from the various cultures of India and South India that shaped the evolution of Carnatic music
3. that Carnatic music slowly evolved and continues to evolve absorbing various music systems including Ancient Tamil music, Kannada music, Telugu music etc
4. that the mention of ATM and the musical mentions found in the Tamil literature (Cilappatikaram et al) is only appropriate in the History section insofar as to highlight the similarities between the ATM system and the Carnatic music system
5. that any deeper details of the similarities (details on the solfage etc) or the contributions of the Saiva saints etc may only be appropriate in the Ancient Tamil music article
6. that the contributions of the Tamil Trinity composers need to be mentioned in the Composers section to balance the details mentioned regarding the early Dasa composers in Kannada and Telugu.

- Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 09:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Raveen

Clarification In wikipedia consensus building is one way to write an article but he consensus cannot be based on original research or from references from personal websites or blogs. It has to be based on credible references. At the end the rule of law triumphs consensus. Further I I am not interested in the whole article just the theories of origin section.

From among the views of the parties expressing counter opinion, Raveen agrees with ...

1. Carnatic music like all classical music forms in the world has inluence from diverse sources including the Vedic tradition, ancient South Indian traditions (I dont like ancient Tamil music as it is exclusive) and folk traditions of South India (this has to be added to this article, it is missing).

Others agree with...

1. Parthi #5 Ncmvocalist 08:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Aadal #1 Ncmvocalist 08:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Srkris #4 Ncmvocalist 08:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Further details required by others, on...

1. Sarvagnya #2 - please provide enough evidence that the compositions of the composers you've referred to (have been and/or) are being rendered in the Carnatic circuit today.
2. Aadal #3 - please state your reasons
3. Srkris #2 - please elaborate. If possible, specify what exactly would be mentioned 'for perspective' rather than for origin, just to be clear.

• Answers to the above are already provided in detail in the talk pages. Would you please read the discussions? Thanks.--Aadal 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, let's not go about discussing things now. I'm on limited internet connection now and will come back on Monday. Please do not discuss anything that'll vitiate the atmosphere. Everyone can take a refreshing break from this article till then. :) -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering this part of the discussion page is called "start from a clean slate", rather than looking through the hundreds of pages on it that are clearly not a clean slate, a straightforward simple answer would be preferrable - in faireness to others and people who haven't followed all of the above of course. But, please wait until Monday. Sundar has bought time for all parties to rethink what they've wrote, and intend on writing. Use this time wisely, perhaps to consider or reconsider modifying anything in the future.... Ncmvocalist 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Pancha marabu and other Tamil works on Music

I'm fully behind Sundar's attempt to start on a clean slate and the statements made by all the people who have been vigorously discussing is a good starting point. I want to wait as Sundar had suggested. I'll not be available for detailed discussions until November 2nd. I thought I should offer two clarifications: (1) The ancient Tamil work on music which I refered to as Panja marabu is actually available but it is trasliterated in English as Pancha Marabu; (2) An article written by B.M. Sundaram published in SRUTI magazine(India's Premier Music and Dance Magazine)Issue 132, p. 23 (1995) which is based on a lecture delivered by B.M. SUNDARAM at the 53rd annual festival of music and dance organized by Sri Tyagaraja Festival Committee in Tirupati is available here. There are some interesting historical statements made there about the 18th-19th century musicians and CM. I do not subscribe to all the views mentioned there, but if some of the things mentioned there are corroborated or further validated, they would be interesting. --Aadal 19:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Those are the author's general views, not containing any citations, dates, or references, plus it comes from a magazine.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 17:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Another POV issue

The following sentence appears in the first paragraph of the article:

This is one of the world's oldest and richest musical traditions.

At least twice in the past, I had this sentence changed to be more objective. The first time, it was commented out, but Bharatveer (who inserted the sentence in the first place) changed it back to the original form, giving a reference to back up his view. I did not find the reference credible, and so, some time later, I changed the sentence to read:

Having its roots in the ancient music of India, this is one of the world's oldest musical traditions.

Yet even this was changed back to the un-neutral version, and a comment I had inserted at the end, noting that the reference is not credible, was also erased. I would like either some support for not calling CM "one of the world's richest musical traditions", or at least some scholarly reference (such as a comparison of the world's musical styles, preferably by a non-Indian) that states that CM is one of the world's richest musical traditions. If nothing else, we can at least say that "[t]his is considered by some to be one of the world's oldest and richest musical traditions.^[1]"--Siva 16:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it not one of the oldest and richest traditions? Yes it is! If we find the proper citations/refernces for what is axiomatic, the matter ends there.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 17:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I reserve my right to modify things as appropriate

Just in order to not play tit-for-tat, I am keeping silent as far as the edits are concerned, while Aadal and Co keep adding all their POVs. We are merely remaining civil in the face of incivility, not for ever. I personally dont think POVs can be pushed like this, and we will prove it with facts. Till then you have a free hand with this article-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Kris. Others, please stop changing the disputed parts of the article while discussion is on. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 07:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Consolidated points of agreement

1. Mention individual names of the Tamil trinity without alluding to anything more than their direct contributions supported by reliable sources
2. Mention Appar, Sambandhar etc., briefly (Sarvagnya has suggested mentioning basavanna, akka, allama etc., along with contemporaries from other regions like (?) early Dasa composers in Kannada and Telugu, hope others agree about this.) in the composers section and elsewhere if appropriate
3. Mention Silappathikaram in perspective
4. Mention kudumiyan malai inscriptions (perhaps under an archaelogy/epigraphy section)
5. Sama Veda should be mentioned in the history section
6. NS, Brhaddesi, SR and CP are important sanskrit works on music theory (perhaps the other works suggested by Aadal in #2 can also be considered if there's agreement.)
7. Ancient Tamil music (ATM) or the music mentioned in Cilappatikaram on their own do not represent the current form of Carnatic music
8. CM has had varied influences.

I've listed the points of agreement above. Feel free to make changes to the article to reflect precisely the above. Other changes need to be negotiated here first. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we remove out points that are not in common agreement? -- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 11:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but which ones? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sundar, I'll have difficulty in participating in this discussion until Nov 2nd. I feel it is not at all fair to make changes in areas other than the specific points of agreement. Further if there are differences of perspectives, even within the editors (some agreeing and some not agreeing), there should be a way to appropriately accomodate the differing viewpoints. I do not agree with the view you have expressed in the consolidated points -about the Tamil Trinity, the view about Silapathikaram and ATM (if that is taken as correct view then the same holds for all other works with the exception of CP - I'm aware that you did mention that my point #2 needs to be considered). No one made any comment about terminology, another point of contention. I can cite several well known musicologists, who write in English, mentioning both Sanskrit and Tamil terminologies in their books and monographs. I would suggest that the changes to the article be discussed here in the talk pages with a draft - like Parthi did quite some time ago- before making changes to the article. .

I'll have genuine difficulty in responding seriously to anything in the next 48 hours. --Aadal 12:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've struck off one point of disagreement that you have. As you suggested, it's best to have a working draft before changing the current article. IMO, Arvind will be able to write the draft taking into account the points of agreement. But, I'm not sure he'll have time for that. Does anybody have suggestions? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It'll take a while to setup a draft, so you can join in after November 2. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me make this plain. Taking ancient Indian Classical Music as distinct from ATM, there is no dispute to the fact that CM is descended from ancient Indian Classical Music, it is still the same as ancient ICM (if you exclude the rapid developments after Sangita Ratnakara). Developments after SR are precisely those which have given distinct characters to CM and HM. Sangita Ratnakara is the Bible and Ten Commandments of CM. All later developments were only in addition to and not in negation of these seminal works (SR, NS etc). See the 32 links I have mentioned above - virtually all sources without exception (both online and offline) hold Carnatic Music as descended from ancient ICM. Of this there can be no negation. The dispute is only to the extent to which ATM and ATM composers should merit mention in this article. I would suggest that the disputed portion be removed (and the article locked after that) until its inclusion is agreed upon here. This would be the path of fairness. We cant include all kinds of claims merely because they are being disputed. The disputed stuff should be kept off the article until an agreement is reached.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 15:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

If something is reverted, it is essential to point out exactly where the issue lies and if it is dealt with or resolved somewhere in the discussions - to quote the solution precisely. Vague references like "you're advised to go through the extensive discussions" is not acceptable.

In such cases where this isn't given specifically, the revert will be ignored and go back to what it was before the revert. Ncmvocalist 12:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Before reverting or deleting, it is important to discuss it here. Why did you delete the references to Muthu Thandavar, Arunachala Kavi and Mari Mutha Pillai? There was a citation to a book titled Tamil Trinity, which contains their compositions. I request Sundar to look into this user Ncmvocalist's action here and see his user talk pages (where he had deleted whole articles of others and he had been warned several times). --Aadal 12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist is barely 5 days old on WP and he has to learn what is permitted and what's not. Please dont use phrases like "warned several times" to build up a false opinion against a new user. This is not a demand, its a request. It's not that I approve his edits (I've reverted one of them myself), but we should assume good faith-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs)

Thank you for understanding.

FYI Aadal, I haven't deleted any such references. I've just changed the order of words to avoid misleading readers - the only part that was 'deleted' was one of my own edits (after considerable thought, the word I used, "canon", isn't quite right - so I've replaced it with the appropriate wording).

Please read through ALL changes that are made in an edit before assuming OR reverting. This is a request for everyone generally - not just to you Aadal. It's both disrespectful and unfair to revert without reading ALL changes in the first place, thoroughly. In your case, it was but a small edit of an already small section. Ncmvocalist 02:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• 'm sorry Ncmvoalist, my apologies. I was in a hurry and it is clear that I didn't see all the changes. I'm ready for discussions - I hope the changes to this article will be constructive and the outcome will be a better article - more quality inforamtion with better balance and substance. If Arvind or someone else wants to make some drafts before making changes, it would be better.--Aadal 23:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

So nothing else to say? Can we remove all linguistic tints given by various language groups? This is why I said we do not need to keep harping on which language did what to carnatic music, specially when what we call Carnatic got a distinct identity only from the 15th century or so.-- ॐ Kris ( talk | contribs) 16:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Languages and Telugu's popularity

Though Tamil Nadu has been the cultural center of the Carnatic music tradition, most of the song texts and writings are in Telugu. This is because the existing tradition is to a great extent an outgrowth of the musical life of the principality of Thanjavur in the Kaveri delta. Thanjavur was the heart of the Chola dynasty (from the 9th century to the 13th), but in the second quarter of the 16th century a Nāyak viceroy was appointed by the emperor at Vijayanagar, thus establishing a court whose language was Telugu. Telugu Nayaka rulers acted as the governors in the present day Tamil Nadu area with headquarters at Tanjavur (1530-1674) and Madurai (1530-1781) during Vijaynagar empire. After the collapse of Vijaynagar, Tanjavur Nayakas became independent ruled for the next 150 years until they were replaced by Maratha kings. This was also a period where several learned Telugu families from the North, fleeing drought and Muslim persecution, came and settled down in Thanjavur. Telugu, a language ending with vowels, giving it a mellifluous quality, was also considered suitable for musical expression..... [snip]

I hope this topic shouldnt raise any hackles here. I felt the prev ver had some POV imo(i have bolded the parts I felt were POV). Apart from POV, I felt going into each trinity was not necessary in this part of the article.

So did a bold rewrite of the section. Most of the stuff in the section, I feel is common knowledge and also many sources speak about it. If anybody feels there is POV in the rewrite also or if you think some things need to be reworded, please comment here. Thanks. Sarvagnya 19:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What NPOV is not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight -- ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 17:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Carnatic music should be article of Carnatic music not for article of modern artist. I found lot of and repeated images of same person. If any body would like please put images particular person's article. Other wise Quality of article should be Stub. I feel somebody trying to put some unfamiliar composers images to show they are very famous.

And I am afraid of the works of Mr Kris. A4ay 11:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The term melodic is incorrectly cited.

Hi,

I feel that the following is not conveying the correct thing and needs a change. It appears in the very introduction, and I can't even edit it:

"Carnatic music is completely melodic, with improvised variations."

If you follow the link to melodic, in the above sentence, it leads to a page which claims that melodic music is not even considered classical. The term "classical" means different things to different people, and I suppose that people who know anything about indian music consider "carnatic music" to be classical, irrespective of what some western writer defines "classical" and "melodic" to be.

So, to make better sense, either change the sentence above, or do not provide the wiki reference to "melodic".

Thanks