| The Tyagaraja dominated item selection continued with Nijamarmamulanu
(Umabharanam), a fairly popular composition. Next came Kalyani, which
received good treatment from both brothers. The composition, Matim dehi,
seemed like one by some contemporary composer. The musical setting of the
kriti was good, in fact quite catchy, but the charanam was of questionable
quality.
|
|
|
The
noteworthy feature of this concert was its planning, as the Hyderabad
brothers took up a Ragam Tanam Pallavi as the main piece, with sufficient
time devoted to exploring all aspects of manodharma. This was a highly
satisfying and marked change from almost all other artistes this season,
who have made it a trend to sing some other kriti as the main item and
then hurriedly fit in a Ragam Tanam Pallavi at the tail end of a concert.
Under the circumstances, it was refreshing to listen to somebody who
decided not to treat it as if it were a Tukkada piece.
The
musical and metrical structure words of the Pallavi (Pada laya
vinyasame pallavi ne padaleda sa ri ga ma) were simple but well
chosen, and neatly rendered. The sa ri ga ma at the end was not really
sahitya, as it did not readily fit in as swarakshara, but it was
nevertheless interesting in conception.
|
|
During the raga alapana and
neraval portions, Seshachari and Raghavachari seemed to be unable to make
up their minds whether they wanted to sing Chakravakam or Ahirbhairav, and
finally settled for a mixture of both. Shades of Bindumalini also crept
in, although they announced to a wondering audience that they were singing
Chakravakam. Those who think of ragas as not being defined completely by
arohana-avarohana scales would vehemently disagree!
The
Hyderabad Brothers partially compensated for this lapse, by singing the
Pallavi intelligently, and by providing more than ample time (28 minutes)
for the Tani Avartanam in this piece. It was a pleasant surprise for this
reviewer to see Abhishek Raghuram (Khanjira) accompanying the veteran
Palghat Raghu (Mridangam), and admirably so. It was also charming to see
Somayajulu (Ghatam) gracefully yielding priority to the Khanjira at the
start of the Tani. Another pleasant feature was that the
percussionists weren't too loud. On the other hand, Raghu's naadam
was very soothing as was his anticipatory delivery interesting.
The
Javali, Narimani (Khamas), and padam, Telisenura (Saveri),
rounded up a bright concert. It was inappropriate to begin the Javali with
the anupallavi line, firstly because it is such a short composition, and
secondly because many audience members were at a loss about what was being
sung. On the whole, however, it was a highly enjoyable concert, with sound
levels being kept at a comfortable level. Delhi Sundararajan’s violin
accompaniment could have been smoother and more engaging. Considering his
ever-increasing fund of experience in accompanying different artistes, he
would do well to pay a little more attention to bowing technique and to be
a little livelier in responding to cues from the main artiste.
|
|
General
remarks:
Voice:
Deep and rich in nuances, perfect for Carnatic music (Seshachari);
slightly nasal (Raghavachari).
Range: Close to 3 octaves (Seshachari), two octaves (Raghavachari)
Ratings:
Sruti
- 80 %
Kalapramanam - 75 %
Rendering
of Compositions - 75 %
Sahitya - 80 %
Raga
alapana - 65 %
Kalpanaswara - 65 %
Sowkhyam - 70 %
Overall
effect:
Vocal
- 75 %
Violin - 60 %
Mridangam - 80 %
Ghatam - 50 %
Khanjira - 75 %
Concert -
70%
Estimated
audience ratings:
Audience
in hall - 60 % (downstairs), 60 % (balcony)
Response - Very good
-
Nisshanka
|
