News - Views - Reviews
MADRAS MUSIC MELA 2001
ANURADHA KRISHNAMURTHY - MANNERISMS OVERRIDE MUSIC
Anuradha Krishnamurthy’s vocal concert for the Music Academy was a major disappointment for those who expected more from the daughter of K V Narayanaswamy. Perhaps it is this reviewer’s expectation that should be criticized, for being pitched too high!
Featured in the 2.30 pm
slot on December 15, 2001, Anuradha began with a Viruttam-like rendition
of a Sloka in Hamsadhwani, the grammar of which left much to be desired,
both linguistically and musically. The rendition of the varnam, Pagavari,
was quite pedestrian. The Tiruppavai (Nayakanai ninra) that she
took up next seemed to flounder between Durbar and Nayaki, although one
got the impression that she intended to sing Durbar. As a rasika was heard
remarking to his neighbour, it may perhaps have been the opening words (Nayakanai),
that caused the confusion!
Brova bharama in Bahudari again was very weak, with patently wrong phrases like m d p d p m g s being featured in her kalpanaswaras. The Todi alapana, preceding the kriti Ninne namminanu, tried to incorporate unnecessary Hindustani oriented jaru-s between ga and dha in the middle octave. Anuradha might have still carried it off, if only she had paid better attention to Sruti. The neraval in the Charanam line, Kamakshi Kanjadalayatakshi, was mediocre at best. The only point of note in Anuradha’s concert was the Trikalam plus Chaturasra Tisram, and Pratiloma exercise in the Latangi Ragam Tanam Pallavi (Karimoralida leda kapada leda Srikrishna). The wierd thing here was that these laya exercises were done at the end of the kalpanaswaras rather than at the end of the neraval.
Another unpalatable feature was the set of mannerisms, bordering on exhibitionism, that Anuradha assumes on stage. Although endowed with a voice that she could put to better use, she seems to prefer the flimsy and light-weight. Add to this the fact that she modulates it beyond what is necessary and you ended up with a thin and unsteady voice which could hardly carry with conviction the weight of classical music. The overall impression of the artiste can be summed up in a comment that was overheard - 'a half-empty vessel'. Of course, a half-empty vessel is also half full, and one hopes that Anuradha realizes her potential and sings accordingly.
Dr. Jyotsna’s violin accompaniment strove to cover for the weak vocal rendition, but cannot be said to have succeeded beyond a point. The violin tone was a trifle too shrill, which was perhaps a consequence of the high pitch. Kalakkadu Srinivasan on the mridangam provided competent percussive support.
General remarks:
Voice: Generally
thin.
Range: About 2 octaves from lower Pa to higher Pa.
Ratings:
Sruti - 50 %
Kalapramanam - 70%
Compositions - 60 %
Sahitya - 70 %
Raga alapana - 55 %
Neraval - 60 %
Kalpanaswara - 60 %
Sowkhyam - 50 %
Overall effect:
Vocal - 50 %
Violin - 60 %
Mridangam - 45 %
Concert - 50 %
Estimated audience ratings:
Audience in hall -
About 300 strong
Response for item selection - Lukewarm
General response - Muted
- Bharath
