News - Views - Reviews
MADRAS MUSIC MELA 2001
PRIYA SISTERS - BALANCED AND POISED PRESENTATION
On the whole, the concert was quite reminiscent of the bani of their teachers, Radha and Jayalakshmi. In these days of uncritical eclecticism wiping out boundaries between distinct styles of rendition, it is heartening to see adherence to a particular school and the attempts to build on its strengths. In the first half of the concert, the Priya sisters rendered Varanamukha (Hamsadhwani) and Gnanamosagarada (Poorvikalyani) briskly and with flair. They chose the right stateliness of pace for Kamalamba Samrakshatu (Anandabhairavi). This Kriti has attained a few different pathantara-s in different schools. That adopted by the Priya sisters had an extra dose of the Antara Gandhara. The main item of the evening was Koluvamaregada (Todi), which very effectively highlighted the manodharma aspects involved in raga alapana, neraval and kalpanaswara-s. This was followed by a Ragam Tanam Pallavi in Ranjani.
While the sahitya (Ragadevata neeku mrokkeda neevu padeda, rasikajana mohana ranjani) and structure of the Pallavi in Misra Jati Triputa Tala (Khanda gati) was of a high order, Ranjani revealed its inherent limitations in the course of the raga alapana and tanam. The absence of an appropriate nyasa note in the middle range in this raga always causes some tension in developing these dimensions.
As others before them did, the Priya sisters also chose to present a thematic Ragamalika as part of the Pallavi, featuring Sriranjani, Janaranjani, Manoranjani and Sivaranjani. They struggled during the neraval and kalpanaswara portions and made some avoidable mistakes even in common ragas like Sriranjani and Janaranjani. Nevertheless, the heartening feature for the connoisseur of classicism was that the concert was not overburdened with a slew of Tukkada-s, as has become the case with most concerts featuring women vocalists. They wound up with just two pieces, Karunai deivame (Sindhubhairavi) and a rare Annamacharya kriti, Telisite Mokshamu (Revati).
There are pros and cons to performing as a duo, as it is inevitable that one member of the pair comes across as being stronger than the other. The Priya sisters used this to their advantage, in a positive manner. Haripriya, who is usually the dominant partner, anchored almost the whole program, as her sister, Shanmukhapriya, seemed to have a voice problem on this day. The fact that the two sisters nevertheless cooperated well, in order to make the concert a success, reflects well on their teamwork and their state of preparedness. It is also commendable that the sisters did not seem to be over-prepared, as they allowed sufficient room for creativity on the concert stage.
On the other hand, Usha Rajagopal’s violin accompaniment was weak, in both conception and delivery, and often marred by scratchy bowing. It was a letdown for this reviewer, who had high expectations of her, after having listened to a younger and brighter Usha just about a decade ago. K Arunprakash on the Mridangam provided standard percussion for the brisk and lively singing of the main artistes. He still has a ways to go, before he can lay claim to greater heights. He and Madipakkam Murali on the Ghatam could have taken turns in a more creative manner, so as to give better representation to the upa-pakkavadyam. The Tani Avartanam didn’t provide any new surprises.
General remarks:
Voice:
Haripriya has a strong, deep, malleable and expressive voice.
Shanmukhapriya seemed out of sorts.
Range: Comfortable and easy in 2 octaves from lower to higher Pa.
Ratings:
Sruti - 90 %
Kalapramanam - 90%
Rendering of Compositions - 90 %
Sahitya - 85 % (Clear enunciation)
Raga alapana - 85 % for Todi and 65 % for Ranjani
Kalpanaswara - 75 % for Todi and 60 % RTP
Sowkhyam - 75 %
Overall effect:
Vocal - 80 %
Violin - 50 %
Mridangam - 60 %
Ghatam - 55 %
Concert - 80 %
Estimated audience ratings:
Audience in hall - 40 %
downstairs and 50 % in the balcony
Response - Warm
- Nisshanka
