A season of many voices

By T.T. Narendran

The music season, 2025-26, seemed brighter than those of the earlier years that followed the pandemic. There were larger crowds than before. At the venues I visited, the acoustics and management of amplification were better than before. Best of all, I even felt that fewer members of the audience disturbed the concert during the solo interludes by the percussion instrumentalists. Two observations are noteworthy.

More concerts showed teamwork. Accompanying artists made an effort to gel with the vocalists and the latter, in turn, performed with a sensitivity to the strengths and the limitations of the accompaniments. Percussionists “played” their instruments more and banged less; they drew attention to the rhythmic patterns and the sounds they could create on their instruments. I record, in particular, the evolution of the khanjira. An instrument that emanated no more than wooden sounds in the yesteryears now seems transformed.  Today's artists are making the instrument “talk”! Their “sustains” floored me.

The rising general literacy amidst the musicians has its influence in different ways. The common thread was that none was obliged to stick to the tradition that one had inherited from one’s guru(s) and one could use one’s own “intelligence” and “analytical abilities” to package and present Carnatic music in a manner that each deemed fit. To one set of musicians, it was a “scientific approach” that ignored the art called music; it was revelry with the notes of various scales, supposedly called ragas and with stunning arithmetical calculations, permutations and combinations in swaraprastaras, some of which were presented with laudable precision and skill. Melody and aesthetics were not obliged to be present in all such displays!

There was another elitist approach which seemed willing to dig into the past but beyond the practices that evolved during the golden era of concert music in the early and middle part of the 20th century. This group pores into the literature on carnatic music, primarily those that appeared around the early 1900s and comes up with some surprises that differ from what the public is used to listening.

Both the approaches have the potential to disturb the listener who seeks only the tried and tested stuff. There is a thought process in every musician and in many a listener. When the two are aligned, the musician is appreciated by the listener. When the two are apart, criticism results.

A brisk spell of swaras brightened the proceedings of Adityanarayanan’s (Music Academy) opening song in Gowlipantu (Teradeeyakaraadaa, Tyagaraja). Hamirkalyani (Parimala ranganatham, Diksitar) relaxed the listener with its leisurely pace. His essay of Todi (Enduku dayaradura, Tyagaraja) was a high point in the concert. The niraval was wholesome, the swaras were crisp and the tani that followed was along the lines of the introductory note to this review. Sudarsan Srinivas (mridangam) and Sunaad Anoor (kanjira) had made an impact with their supporting roles and lived up to the expectations in the tani.

Professionalism was on full view when Adityanarayanan executed ragam-tanam-pallavi. The time that was available was used with a shrewd sense of proportion to present Kambhoji raga and tanam in a convincing manner. Actually, the tanam came out better than the raga alapana. Alangode Gokul showed tremendous promise as an accompanying violinist, showcasing his abilities and playing his supportive role to perfection. The pallavi had its respectable complexity in its structure and progressed through conventional accelerations of the rhythmic cycle and the rendition at different speeds. It was a memorable concert in the sub senior slot of the music academy with a team of artists who held high promise for the future. 

Sidharth Prakash (Music Academy) is blessed with a facile and pleasing voice that impresses the listener instantly. His Varali (Ne pogadakunte, Tyagaraja) was full of raga bhava and set the mood for a good concert. His sketch of Surati and his rendition of Sadaramamava (Swati Tirunal) were again marked by classicism; his vocal embellishments added to the beauty of the kriti. His opening phrases of Sankarabharanam aroused the expectations of the listener but he soon shifted gears to a scalar exploration that played with the notes but ignored the phrases that characterise this raga. Palakkad G Kailasapathy played in a faithful Parur style and revelled in following the vocalist’s later part of the alapana. Classicism returned when Sidharth sang Dikshitar’s Akshayalinga vibho, with niraval and swaras at Badarivana, marked by a tricky eduppu. Though there were a few tense moments at the finish, he did well, overall. Ashwini (mridanga deserves special mention for her lively and supportive playing throughout the concert and for her tani. It was good teamwork again.

A calm and serene setting, along with dignified classicism, marked Amritha Murali’s (Music Academy) concert, with violin accompaniment by R. K. Shriramkumar, the designated Sangita Kalanidhi for the season. A less-heard Mamava satatam (Jaganmohini, Tyagaraja) figured in the early phase of the concert, triggering memories of D K Pattammal, who used to sing it a shade slower. She essayed Anandabhairavi and announced that she would sing a composition (Nee samana deivamu) of her violinist guru, Shriramjumar. Amritha sang a slokam in Dwijavanti; Shriram followed with a neat sketch of the raga; Dikshitar’s Cheta sri Balakrishnam was rendered with a soothing effect. A brisk Pattviduvaradu (Manjari, Tyagaraja) set the mood for an elaborate Kambhoji (Sree Valmika Lingam, Dikshitar). Shriram’s alapana came off better than Amritha’s; it was interesting to watch the rendition of the kriti in khanda jati Ata talam with the usual embellishments, followed by the tani avartanam. Manoj Siva is a familiar mridangist who lived up to his reputation, playing his role to perfection both while accompanying and during his solo performance. The surprise was the khanjira artist, C. P. Vyasa Vittala from Bengaluru, who produced hitherto unheard sounds on the instrument, including sustained sounds. He was particularly effective in the slow tempo (unusual for the instrument) but compelled attention, not by banging but by sensitive accompaniment.    

Rithvik Raja chose an offbeat format for his morning concert at the Music Academy. He sketched fourteen ragas in reverse order of their appearance in Dikshitar’s monumental ragamalika, Sree Viswanatham. With the complete involvement of the accompanying artists, Sruthi Sarathy (violin), Arun Prakash (mridangam) and Madipakkam Murali (Ghatam), the song enthralled the audience. After a good sketch of Kapi Narayani (Sarasa sama dana, Tyagaraja), he dared to dig a Bhairavi (Balagopala, Dikshitar) out from the literature. The version, as described in the Sangita Sampradaya Pradarsini, is marked by its proximity to Natabhairavi, the 20th melakarta raga and a total avoidance of the second dhaivata. The alapana and the kriti were presented as described in this text. Credit to the violinist who faithfully followed this unfamiliar path without showing any discomfort, to the percussionists who maintained the slow tempo of the kriti and to the audience that heard with rapt attention and applauded the effort.

The mood was not different at ragasudha hall (Naada Inbam) when Sumitra Vasudev sang the ata tala varnam in bhairavi with the predominance of the shuddha dhaivata, with the inclusion of the third chittaswara that is rarely heard in concerts and concluded the varnam by singing the anubhandam, ending with the opening line, Viribhoni. Among the surprises were Guruguhadhanyam (Balahamsa, Dikshitar) and Namo namaste (Girvani, Dikshitar). Sumitra’s explanations of what she sang were helpful to the audience. She elaborated Abheri as a pure janya of Natabhairavi; it was both convincing and aesthetically appealing. It was appropriate that she sang Kanda vandarul, considering that its composer, Papanasam Sivan, firmly stood by the shuddha dhaivata for Abheri. She displayed the richness of the Sankarabharanam (Sankaracharyam) in the middle octave and also showed that the beauty of the raga lies in its non-linear (vakra) phrases. Padma Shankar adapted her playing unobtrusively to the vocalist’s style, while it was a familiar hunting ground for Arun Prakash (mridangam). This torch-bearer of Vedavalli’s style shows that Carnatic music can survive without compromising classicism to please the audience.  

It is not often that an artist, singing in the junior slot of the Music Academy, chooses to fill the programme book with a list of what he would not sing! S Srivathsan dared to, with conviction. A brisk niraval at Aravinda patra nayanam (from Seshachala nayakam, Varali, Dikshitar) lit the proceedings up, even as the Deepika Srinivasan drew attention with her lively accompaniment on the mridangam. Andal’s Katru karavaigal (Huseni) was sung with passion. The next adventure was an alapana of Balahamsa (Ika kavalasinademi, Tyagaraja), executed with confidence. His Purvikalyani was in tune with its 21st century version (a bit different from what was heard in the 1960s); it was refreshing to hear Poochi Srinivasa Iyengar’s Parama pavana Rama with niraval at Kanakambaradara. This concert was yet another exhibition of talent among the youth: besides Srivatsan, both the “Deepikas” on the violin and on the mridangam, marked their presence with their lively support.

Charulata (Naada Inbam) is a prominent figure among the emerging vainikas, who are more than a handful. She opened with the Ata tala varnam in Bhairavi, played in two speeds. She toed the line of the academics who are trying to “restore” the raga to its older form. There was the prominent use of the shuddha dhaivata and the inclusion of the third chittaswara in her presentation. A crisp essay of Arabhi preceded Dikshitar’s Sree Saraswati namostute. A mild acceleration of the tempo happened during the swara prasatara, though it was not clear as to who, in the team, contributed to it. She played a good alapana of Pantuvarali (Aparama bhakti, Tyagaraja). Kaushik Sridhar (mridangam) is an enthusiastic team player; he appreciates his co-artists, shares space with them easily and adds life to the proceedings with his appropriate accompaniment. During the niraval and swaras he supported well and drew the ghatam artist (Rohit Prasad) into the fray. Saraswati (Dikshitar) was a rare song in the raga, Chaya Gowla, set to misra Eka tala. I have heard from pundits that Dikshitar did not use Misra chapu tala at all and that all his kritis we hear in Misra chapu were set in misra Eka. Of course, to a lay listener, it would hardly make a difference. There was an alapana and tana in Begada (Nadopasana, Tyagaraja); the latter improvisation registered better.

Sai Vignesh set the mood for a good concert with his Purvikalyani (Ananda natamaduvar, Nilakanta Sivan), complete with niraval and sparkling swaras. Surya Nambisan compelled attention with the porutham he played while accompanying for Vara narada (Vijayasri, Tyagaraja). Sai Vignesh impressed with his opening phrases for Sankarabharanam (Akshaya linga vibho, Dikshitar); he gave due prominence to the non-linear phrases of the raga; his occasional scalar journeys could be ignored, considering his earnestness in portraying the raga faithfully. Gayatri Vibhavari Vyakaranam chose to use a pick up mike for her violin. Though the tone was a bit different from the normal violin, she played along well. Problems began during her essay of Sankarabharanam. The attachment fell off, the mike staff had to enter the stage to fix it but it did not stay. There were brief moments when her violin was audible without any amplification.

There have been a few occasions in the past, during and out of the season, when the performers on stage were heard without any amplification. Well on record are the concerts in which Palghat Mani Iyer played the mridangam, with the condition that no mike should be used. There was a morning session in which V.V. Sadagopan differentiated between Pantuvarali and Kamavardhini; he chose to sing without a mike. There was a theatre group from Britain which staged a couple of Shakespearean plays at this venue, using no amplification, whatsoever. Well, the auditorium has its acoustic strengths but there are not many listeners with such sensitive ears, to opt for mikeless programmes.  

Back to the concert, Sai Vignesh marked himself as a competent musician with his kriti rendition, niraval and swara improvisations. Gayatri was handicapped by the misbehaviour of her pick up for the violin. Suriya Nambisan impressed with his accompaniment on the mridangam.

Ashwin Anand (Music Academy) is among the finest of contemporary vainikas. He played a gripping dwijavanti (cheta sri balakrishnam, Dikshitar) and a vocalised version of the kriti. Sai Shankar (mridanga) and Sumana Chandrasekhar (ghata) provided sensitive accompaniment to the song, fully in sync with the slow tempo of the song. A superb alapana of Varali (Mamava Meenakshi, Dikshitar), reminiscent of yesteryear vainika, Tanjavur Sivanandam, showcased the melodic virtue of the veena. He prioritised raga swaroopa over virtuosity. He played niraval and swaras at Syame Sankari, with the ease of a vocalist. In the engaging tani avartanam that followed, it was a pleasure to hear the sruti-aligned metallic sound from Sumana’s ghatam.

While the new generation of vainikas have accomplished a lot in terms of uplifting the capability of the veena, old-timers have a concern about the scarcely audible tala strings on the side of the bridge. This is partly because of the pick-up and amplification used and partly owing to the musicians themselves choosing to use the side-strings sparingly. Can technological props and extra practice help in restoring this missing element in today’s veena recitals?

Sound training, sensitivity and a facile voice marked Vignesh Ishwar’s concert (Music Academy) as one in the season to remember. Tyagaraja’s P(r)akala nilabadi (Kharaharapriya) was a highlight with rousing embellishments at manasuna dalachi. Praveen Sparsh (mridangam) and Giridhar Udupa (ghatam) played an engaging and entertaining tani avartanam at the end of this song. It is also noteworthy that the “attrition” during the tani is coming down; the audience deserves a pat for this courtesy. Vignesh chose Surati for singing the ragam, tanam and pallavi. He showed his class in his elaboration of the raga, with all its curves, glides and nuances. He was equally at home in the tanam phase, too. Trivandrum Sampath (violin) provided excellent support, shadowing the vocalist sincerely and excelling in his solo bouts. The pallavi had an impressive setting and was sung in different tempos, accelerated in stages. Niraval and swaras, including a ragamalika spell, came out well while there were some anxious moments in the execution of the pallavi in three speeds.

Pleasing tonal quality was an asset for R.P. Shravan’s (Music Academy) voice. His swaras for Chala kallaladu (A.rabhi, Tyagaraja) seemed to be partially inspired by the pancharatna kriti in the same raga. M Keshav (violin) and Sanjay Subramanian (mridangam) blended well with his singing and added to the listening pleasure. One of the much-repeated kritis in this season appeared to be Dikshitar’s Mamava Meenakshi (Varali). I wonder if our techie-musicians can find a way to scan the published lists and pinpoint the items that make multiple appearances. Shravan, of course, essayed Varali quite well using his versatile voice to glide over the notes and to provide continuity of sound. It was refreshing to hear Harihara putram (Vasanta, Dikshitar) during the season which is also sacred for Sabarimala pilgrims. Shravan embarked on Kambhoji (O Rangasayee, Tyagaraja); he sang an outline that swept across the three octaves and then settled down to build the alapana up in stages. It sounded good for the most part but the violinist’s version seemed centered more on virtuosity. As expected, this magnum opus kriti could not get a full airing in the 90-minute-slot. Shravan managed his time intelligently with proportionate allocation of time for rendering the kriti with niraval and swaras. 

R. Lakshmipriya’s concert (Naada Inbam) was a demonstration of putting theory into practice. This youngster, on the threshold of earning her doctorate in Carnatic music, sang a brisk niraval at Kanakanaruchi (Anudinamunu, Begada, Patnam Subramania Iyer), followed by swaras; she enjoyed good support from Mantha Sriramya (violin), L Subramanian (mridangam) and G Ganapathy (ghatam). She sang a pleasing alapana of Hamirkalyani (Manamu leda, Tyagaaja) and presented the kriti at a soothing kala pramana. A quick sanatana parama pavana (phalamanjari, Tyagaraja) was followed by a dignified portrayal of saveri (Karikalaba mukham, Dikshitar). Her alapana eschewed some of the popular phrases that do not pass muster with the texts. Sriramya faithfully stuck to the contours shown by Lakshmipriya and impressed the audience with her improvisations. Lakshmipriya used brigas with discretion and avoided going overboard with them. A good niraval at Kaveri tata and swaras were followed by a sober tani avartanam by the percussionists. In the concluding part of the concert, she sprang a surprise by singing Periazhwar’s mudiyonri moovulagangalum, a ragamalika popularised by M S Subbulakshmi in the previous century.

Maturity and sobriety ruled Sangeetha Sivakumar’s concert. She opened with Papanasam Sivan’s Sree Vatapi (Sahana). It was interesting to listen to her exposition of Jayantasena (Vinatasuta vahana, Tyagaraja). She eschewed scalar exploration and strived to present it as a melody. Hemalatha (violin) rose to the occasion, presenting an equally appealing version of the raga. Sangeetha sang some interesting poruthams in the swara prasatara at matabedamane. The duo embarked on Kalyani (Biranavaralichi, Syama Sastry), and painted it a phrase-based raga. Sangeetha sang niraval at Kamitartha dayaki and chose to end her improvisation with that. Sree Ramam (Narayanagaula, Dikshitar) followed at a leisurely pace. For listeners who prefer peace over excitement, this was an appealing concert.

Looking back at the season that went by, there was more to cherish and appreciate and less to frown upon in the concerts that this writer attended. It is apparent that there are many genres within the ambit of Carnatic music; each has its followers. Public taste is well-divided over the different styles. Is there a war of words among the heterogeneous fans on social media? I did not see any and I rest with the hope that peace prevails!