Posted on December 24, 2001
|
News - Views - Reviews |
|
MADRAS MUSIC MELA 2001 |
|
TRICHUR RAMACHANDRAN - WHY THE HURRY? |
|
Trichur
V Ramachandran’s concert on 21st December at the Music Academy would
have been eagerly awaited by many rasikas, because it featured this
year’s Sangeeta Kalanidhi, Umayalpuram Sivaraman, on the
Mridangam. V V Ravi accompanied on the Violin and G Harishankar on the
Khanjira. It
was an unrelenting barrage of vociferous vocalism and unmanageable speed
that greeted the listener. The concert began with a brisk rendition of the
Kambhoji Ata tala varnam, Sarasijanabha, followed by Sarasiruhasanapriye
in Nata. The Sahana kriti that followed, Inkevarunnaru (a rarely
sung masterpiece of Annasami Sastri) had shades of both Chenchukambhoji
and Malavi in the rapa alapana. It was a bad choice to immediately follow
this up with Vararagalaya (Chenchukambhoji). Throughout this
session Ramachandran kept racing through every item. When
Ramachandran began a Purandaradasa kriti in Sankarabharanam, Enta
cheluva... (it was incoherent beyond this), without any raga
elaboration and without any neraval, it seemed like a short filler item
before the main attraction. The composition itself is charming and set in
a catchy tune. One did heave a little sigh of relief, seeing as how
Sankarabharanam has been vastly overdone during this season. This relief
was short-lived, as Ramachandran took up kalpanaswara-s in the song, going
into breakneck speed in the second kalam. One thought this was
unnecessary, especially as he himself could not cope up with it, being
unable to even enunciate the swara-s properly. V V Ravi’s attempt to
maintain the tempo resulted only in even more scratchy bowing than usual. Even more surprisingly, Ramachandran then handed over the stage to Umayalpuram Sivaraman (Mridangam) and Harishankar (Khanjira) for the Tani Avartanam. Laya enthusiasts, who may have attended this concert only to listen to Sivaraman, would have been sorely disappointed. The Tala was the simple Adi and the take-off point was on the beat – a fairly uninteresting choice, following the beaten track. Is there such a scarcity in repertoire? Couldn’t a musician of Ramachandran’s experience have taken up some melodically much weightier piece, which would have also offered dynamic possibilities with respect to Tala? Nevertheless, the Tani by Sivaraman and Harishankar was scintillating. It saved the day. Then
followed a Ragam Tanam Pallavi in Shanmukhapriya, set to Khanda Tripuata
Tala. The alapana didn’t rise to any great heights, and the tanam was
perfunctory. The word distribution in the Pallavi (Saravanabhava Guhane
Shanmukhane Tirumal marugane) was disproportionate, featuring an
unnecessarily long karvai at the end of Guhane. This was very
inappropriate, as the arudi fell immediately afterwards, at the end
of the word Shanmukhane. He also slipped up repeatedly during the
Trikalam exercises, allowing himself to be rescued by the percussionists. On
the whole, it was a very disappointing experience. One wonders what
Ramachandran is trying to prove. His guru, G N Balasubramanyam, did sing
at a brisk pace, but was that his only characteristic? Weren’t there
other dimensions to GNB’s music that his disciples would do well to
emulate? V V Ravi on the violin didn’t help matters much. His bowing
technique always leaves much to be desired, and on this day, it was worse,
as he tried to keep up with the racing speed. Both Ramachandran and Ravi
only seemed to be tumbling all over themselves. |
|
Ratings: Sruti - 50 % Overall effect: Vocal - 35 % Concert - 35 % Audience in hall - 50 % General: Acoustics - Not
balanced properly. Voice was too loud. - Nisshanka |
|
|
||
|
Posted on December 24, 2001 |
||
| Reports | ||
| Lec-dem Schedule | ||
| Interviews with Awardees |
|
|
|
|
|
|