Talk:Carnatic music

Archives

1 2 3 4

Authority claims by some editors

Often some editors claim that they are experts in a particular topic. Those editors should fully disclose the verifiable proof of their expertise on their users page as done by many Wikipedia's highly respected editors and admns. Otherwise only their comments supported by authentic, verifiable and non-weasel references can be considered. Also just a seniority in editing a particular article is not a proof of expertise on new valid issues. Naadapriya (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

SINCERE REQUEST TO NEWCOMERS TO THIS DISCUSSION

Please read all existing discussions in detail before you make comments so that editors already contributed with supporting evidences do not have to repeat the information again and againNaadapriya (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs extensive corrections

This article is embedded with lots of deceptive information. Following are some examples.

1) Uses a title that was not formally given to the South Indian Classical Music

2) Never mentions about the original name ‘Karnataka Sangeeta’

3) Implies incorrectly that the Karnataka Music, the South Indian classical Music was initiated in a language other than what it was originally started.

4) Lists the founder Sri Purandara Daasa only under composer section though he is the undisputed founder, promoter and most prolific among all composers of South Indian Classical music, Karnataka Music.

5) Implies that Sri Puradara Daasa just initiated lessons for beginners though he laid the complete foundation for the South Indian classical music, Karnataka Music.

6) The article over emphasizes on speculative information about happenings before 15th century.

7) Musicians named are not representative of the full spectrum of South Indian Classical Music, Karnataka Music.

8) Though the photo of founder Sri Purandara Daasa is appropriate, placing photo of other composers without putting that of the great Trinity is not appropriate.

9) The article is over descriptive as per Wikipedia suggested guidelines

10) The article need to be rewritten immediately based on the real facts and the use of the original formal title ‘Karnataka Music’. Rewriting will be initiated by editors who are interested to improve the article to remove deficiencies. Cooperation from other editors is requested. If not agreed for logical/validated corrections, a separate concise article for ‘Karnataka Classical Music’ is needed and will be pursued in the interest of users of popular Wikipedia.

Naadapriya (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Please do not assume WP:OWN - the title was felt as the most appropriate by Wikipedia editors, as well as WikiProject India. This issue was also dealt with during the deletion of the WP:POVFORK: Karnataka AKA Carnatic Music.

2) This name is mentioned at the beginning of the article

3) NPOV must be adhered to at all times - no linguistic tint is being, or may be given. This issue has been dealt with in the past by consensus.

4) Adequate reference to Purandaradasar has been given where appropriate. He has also been mentioned in other sections outside of the composers section. Clearly, the user making these claims has not read the article thoroughly.

5) It is vague and inaccurate to simply state that he 'laid the complete foundation of Carnatic Music' as he is not solely responsible for doing so. He did, in his many pioneering contributions , gave a strong foundation for Carnatic music, which led to him being referred to as the father of Carnatic music - this is both mentioned and implied in the article itself.

6) The information is not speculative, it is sourced from reliable and verifiable sources.

7) The article only names the most prominent and popular artists, considered by current standards throughout India, and outside of India. Other artists that are less prominent or popular are listed elsewhere.

8) Other composer's images are not dependent on whether the Trinity's image is available or not - implying otherwise will be considered attempting to push POV. The Trinity image was removed for copyright reasons.

9) There are currently no details in the article that may be removed as they are all important.

10) There is no problem with the prose of this article. The suggested title has already been rejected on two occasions - once last month. The suggested corrections are not valid and lack logic. The user has already been alerted of the consequences of creating/recreating this article in any form. The user is not welcome to make threats on any article talk page as per Wikipedia policy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A detailed rebuttals to above mostly invalid and stalling[1]comments are in preparation.Naadapriya (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Please do not stall [2]by bringing unrelated topic. ‘Admns’ have either acknowledged or shown their consent by not commenting that there was no POV ny naadapriya. It is very strange see a make-believe comment on Karnataka AKA Carnatic Music article that could not be started due to premature blocking by 'admn' based on wrong advice. Again it is requested not to assume WP:OWNership on Wikipedia article ‘Carnatic music’ which is not a correct main title for the South Indian Classical Music. The original name ‘Karnataka Music’ of South Indian Classical music was never formally renamed as ‘Carnatic Music. Therefore the title should be ‘Karnataka Music’ not ‘Carnatic Music’

2) NO it is not TRUE. The original name ‘Karnataka Music’ is needed as is in the title.

Then article can start with ‘Karnataka Sangeetam if needed a.k.a the anglicized name Carnatic music’. Again it is requested to stop stalling [3] the discussions. The title should be the original name Karnataka Music. Please read good articles such as one on Chennai. One can not use the ‘apabramsham’ (distorted by those who could not pronounce) as the original name in a title. An article on South Indian Classical music should logically bear the original name ‘Karnataka Music’ and the rest may be mentioned in the text with explanations. See the Mysore University news posted on leading news paper Prajavani, Feb 10th 2008 issue which states the foremost living legend of Karnataka Music from Andhra, BMK receiving a honorary degree for “Karnataka Sangeeta’ not for ‘Carnatic music’. Visit 1974 Ramon Magsaysay Award official website to read that the best female musician MS that world has ever seen to date receiving the highest international award for ‘Classical and Semi-classical Karnataka tradition of South India’. See the recent live interview on the web-journal thatskannada.com where the living senior most legend RKS refers to South India Classical music as “Karnataka Sangeeta”. That shows all great musicians refer to the South Indian classical Music as Karnataka Music or Sangeeta or Sangeetam not by any other name that never existed. One can go on and on to prove already well known fact.

3) Naadapriya has maintained NPOV at all time using fact based information. Current one is lot more than a consensus issue. It is about objective evidence. There is no evidence that today’s Karnataka Music was initiated in any language other than one adopted by the founder Sri Purandara Daasaru. Many editors who appear to be from different states of South India have made the same observations in the past. Stating a fact is neither ‘linguistic tint’ nor POV. It is just like stating the fact that Vedas were originally written in Sanskrit. It is requested not to bring linguistics issues here. Naadapriya who regularly accompanies instrument for Kannada, Telegu, Tamil and Malayalam music has great respect to all languages. Current issue is not about language but it is about real fact accepted by all South Indians.

4) Sri Purarandara Daasaru name is needed come with no ambiguity [4] that he founded the Karanataka Music. It is not like that in the article. Current text incorrectly implies that he started his music career by improving pre-existing music, devised a teaching method and composed. No, he founded completely a new South Indian classical music ‘Karnataka Sangeeta’ which way later also got name Karnataka Sangeetam. The article dilutes the hard fact that he founded the complete music format which is obvious in the following text from the article.

‘Carnatic music saw renewed growth during the Vijayanagar Empire by the Kannada Haridasa movement of Vyasaraja, Purandara Dasa, Kanakadasa and others.[14] Purandara Dasa who is known as the Sangeeta Pitamaha (the grandfather of Carnatic music) laid out the fundamental tenets and framework for teaching Carnatic music’.[15][4]’

How can it be ‘renewed’ when the sentence itself states Sri Purandara Daasa is

The Pitamaha (either father or Grand father) of the Karnataka Music.

5)Well apples were falling and equations existed before Newton. But Newton is solely responsible for the Gravitational Theory and all give credit to him. Similarly it is crystal clear that Sri Purandara Daasaru is solely responsible founding today’s Karnataka Music. He set the full format that is practiced by all today. It is suggested that commenting editor should read the documented history of Karnataka music carefully.

6) It is speculative. Hard objective evidences about Karnataka Music exist only since early 15th Century after Sri Purandara Daasaru founded it. It is well known through his lessons (swara concept, talas, alankaras, swara based voice exercises, Krithi format, foundation for Alaapane through UgaaBogha, Sunadi etc etc) and thousands of Krithis. This fact is acknowledged by all great musicians including Sri Thyagaraja who grew up learning to Purandara Dasa’s compostions from his mother Seethamma. As a token of his gratitude Sri Thyagaraja has paid tribute to Purandara Dasa in his musical opera - - Prahlada-Charithamu which another important objective evidence. Thus, Purandara Dasa undisputedly “Karnataka-Sangeetha-Pithamaha”. Todays form South Indian Classical music, Karnataka Sangeeta started only after Sri Purandara Daasaru.

7) There are no stipulated standards about musicians not even by Govts. The current list is of so called’ prominent and popular artists’ is POV based. All Southern States have equally contributed to Karnataka Music throughout the history and they are still continuing to do so. As per guidelines, Wikipedia is not a place for editors pass their ad-hoc subjective judgments by naming only certain artists. This is not a music forum. It needs to be noted that logical measure of contribution is quality not volume. Current posted information is not logical.

8) Again it is requested not to stall[5] using word POV. It is a observation for the need to add a photo Trinity’s for completeness of the article. naadpriya has great respect to Sri Papanasam Sivam who is considered by many as a reincarnation of Sri Purandara Daasa himself in composing great devotional Tamil Krithis. For sure he deserves a photo in the article along with Trinity.

9) It is a subjective issue and article cannot be frozen. Again the purpose of the article is to give a road map and not teach music. Objective opinion is needed from those higher than editors on this issue

10) Reason need to be stated with evidence why it is not logic rather than vague statement ‘not logic’. Again response is leading to stalling the logical discussion as in the past by using unwarranted words like ‘threat’. Please using them. Further such usage will lead to a request for blocking. It is recommended to check dictionary carefully before using inappropriate words. Use of unwarranted words and stalling [6]the discussions is against the Wikipedia policy. Please do not try to own the article by preventing edits. Continuation of such effort will imply a consent to create a new article.

It is requested Admn to unlock this article and allow logical needed editing. It is requested that Admn should refrain from ‘Ad-hoc- locking when discussions are in progress about this controversial article. Current decisions by Admn strongly leads to the conclusion that they are subjective and not objective neutral decisions. If Wikipedia still allows this article as is, a separate article on Karnataka Classical music is essential to provide accurate facts. As per Wikipedia, lack of response from Admn will be considered as a consent to start a new article on Karnataka Music.Naadapriya (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment and request - I've been away from this article for a long time now for various reasons. Just skimming through both your comments makes me feel that the differences are quite small and can easily be sorted out. I have been on vacation from wikipedia for about 2 months and am just limping back. Request both of you to please hold your fire for a while and I will also go through the issues and try to help. This is an article quite dear to me and it pains me to see its sorry state - though it has been steadily (but slowly) improving under Ncmv's watch. If we could all put our efforts together, we could easily make this a GA or a FA. For this, imo, we will have to start with the grassroots articles and gathering proper sources. Towards this end, I'd put together Haridasas and Carnatic music and Vijayanagara musicological nonet and maybe a few stubs. Request both of you to go through it and see if we can import some info/refs from there. Either way, let us go about it with a calm mind and improve this article. It certainly deserves better. Sarvagnya 18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Very important -- etymology

Need to add to article: etymology of "Carnatic"/"karṇāṭaka". Most Tamil Carnatic musicians claim the term is not derived from Karnataka but is an indigenous Tamil word meaning "homeland" or something similar. Badagnani (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What Tamil musicians claim is unimportant and immaterial. What historical and epigraphal research says (in the mainstream) is important. BTW, I saw your note on Sarvagnya's talk page claiming "Karnataka" is a new name. I really think you need to do some more reading. The word Karnataka has been used as far back as Panini and Mahabharata. However, I do agree that the term has had varying boundaries over different periods, though always inclusive of the Kannada speaking region. In the 12th century, even distant Devgiri (modern Daulatabad) was included in Karnata country. I have not read anywhere regions in Tamil speaking areas being called Karnataka. Ofcourse, one has to be very careful. Indian languages are very versatile, and it is very easy to conjucture native meanings and etymologies for just about any Indina term. As an example, some historians claim the the term "Maharashtra" came from an old Kannada word which meant "great forest" (or something to that effect).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh, when Badagnani says 'Tamil Carnatic Musicians say' you reply with 'what Tamil Musicians say' there is a difference, every Carnatic Musician is definitely a Musician while not every Musician whether Tamil Musician or Kannada Musician can be deemed to be knowing Classical Music. Besides, what is the proof that before Purandaradasa there was no Classical or Karnataka or Carnatic Music. It is not as if civility originated either with Purandaradasa or that Music classical or otherwise became popularized only after getting the patronage of Vijayanagara Kings. For your information, the swaras of Classical Music and the classical dance poses (here kindly understand firmly, that no dance form especially the Bharatnatyam can be called classical dance unless it is accompanied by classical music) are engraved on the pillars of the Chidambaram temple where Bharata muni conceived the Bharata Natyam. It means that classical music existed in those times. When you consider that the Chidambaram Nataraja temple was constructed not by Cholas, Vijayanagara or even Pandya Kings (who merely did extra construction and expansion of this already existing temple), but by the Pallava King, Simha Vishnu who was also called Hiranyavarana, and that on these temple premises the mudras of Bharatanatyam dances have been engraved by which time Bharata Muni had conceived and introduced the Bharata Natyam dance, Which has to mean that at least with Bharatanatyam dance, classical music (complete in form and content and not at all dependent on what Purandara Daasa did centuries later) had found a companion. Probably for the first time anywhere in India, classical music (existing from many years if not centuries before)and classical dance had come into being as companions. I request you and other researchers at Wikipedia to visit the Chidambaram Temple plus indeed the Chola temples having musical pillars like the ones at Dharasuram, Tribhuvanam plus the Pandya temples at Madurai to know music to people outside of Karnataka. Let me add with even more strength that this particular classical form complete in each and every respect pre-existed Vijayanagara empire or Purandara Daasa and is indeed known to at least the people of Tamil Nadu (You might prefer the term Tamilakam) and Andhra and probably the people in Karnataka also. Probably what you are indeed referring to as Classical Dance is the cousin of Kathakali in Kerala, the Yakshagana which has been popular in Karnataka since medieval times. Both Vijayanagara and Purandara did not introduce any form of classical music at least to the Tamil people. What indeed was done by Purandara was to sing praises of the Vijayanagara Kings by devoting lines to the criticism of Chola King Kulothunga I on a comparable basis. [User: Srinivasan N|Srirangam99] (talk) 17.25, 21 February 2008 (IST) —Preceding comment was added at 11:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep your arguements in lower case. Its against wiki policy to write in uppercase because thats equivalent to "shouting".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is important and material. In English, this genre of music is known as Carnatic music, throughout India and the world. Other reliable and verifiable sources, including encyclopedias, use this title. Carnatic refers to a historic region of South India that used to span between the now-known states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra, and Karnataka. It is commonly accepted that Hindusthani music refers to music from the North, and Carnatic music refers to music from the South, and this is both sensible and current with what this genre of music is known as in English today. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with the usage of "carnatic" as a region covering southern India, because perhaps thats how the British saw it. What I meant was, claiming that the term Karnataka in Karnataka Sangeeta Shastra comes from a Tamil word may be pure conjecture and needs to be proven with historical, literary and epigraphal evidence. Just pulling up a Tamil dictionary, finding a few words in it that resemble Karnataka and claiming that Karnataka comes from that is unacceptable. Musicians are not history experts, nor do they have indepth knowledge of epigraphy. Its a different story if historians like K.A.N. Sastri or epigraphists like I Mahadevan make that claim based on field studies and are backed by various other researchers to satisfy WP:UNDUE. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But such evidence isn't always enough. The WP:UNDUE principle would work in many instances (especially where things can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, like the Earth example). Epigraphy can be much more complex, and much less certain - especially in this instance where researchers could probably just as easily rebutt one's research with their own. There is no absolute certainty on this topic, and it is little wonder why no truely reliable and verifiable source on this genre of music, goes into the topic of etymology. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Historians dont make it a habit to rebut research of others for they have to worry about their own repuation also, which is why the concept of "popular theory exists".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

...yet, research in very obscure areas, like the one that is being discussed, often results in conflicting theories and one cannot be ascertained (with certainty) as the popular one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Observation

While reading this article, I noticed this statement,

"According to some scholars,[4] Carnatic music shares certain classical music concepts with ancient Tamil music. The concept of Pann is related to Ragas used in Carnatic music.[9]. The rhythmic meters found in several musical forms (such as the Tiruppugazh) and other ancient literature, resemble the talas that are in use today[10][11]"

Can someone elucidate why this has to be in this article. Isnt it better in an article such as "Music of Tamilnadu". Why give undue attention to a music form that shares some resemblence to carnatic music. I am sure there are other music forms too which share similarities to Carnatic music. In addition, I think we need to take a careful look at the templates that provide us with names of past/present musicians. Looking at that part, It seems that the contents may be geographically lopsided.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Not really. These are the names of the most prominent Carnatic musicians worldwide. Please do elaborate how it 'seems' that the contents 'may be' geographically lopsided.

The attention is not 'undue'. If there are any similarities (to such a great extent) from other past music forms in, with reliable and verifiable sources to back it up, then please do mention it here. Otherwise, you may be seen to be suggesting something rather absurd; the statement is totally dependent on whether a mention is given to every other Ancient music form that shared similarities of such proportions.

Anyway, the talk page archive of this article may reveal more on this topic of why it had to be included. I felt it was not unreasonable to give a very brief mention, and this mention was enough to gain consensus among the editors involved in the dispute. The mention was also allowed as Thiruppugazhs have been (in the past), and still are a form that are frequently rendered in many Carnatic kutcheris. Obviously, there are other forms, but this seems most relevant as an example in today's context. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything absurd. I am asking what does that comment have to do with the "Origin and History" of Carnatic music". I will get to the template a little later.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it is an important source from which Carnatic music is derived, and therefore, played a part in the historical evolution of Carnatic music. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont see the article saying that Carnatic music is derived from ancient Tamil music. It only says "resembles" and "similar".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Will make the edition soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Before you do that, please provide ISBN numbers and exact page numbers of the sources you refer to. I realise some Indian books dont have ISBN, but some form of ID is always available. This helps in the verification process. Please ensure that the theory is accepted by a wide range of scholars, not from a particualar geographical area.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The necessary information (to comply with Wikipedia's referencing policies) have already been provided. In this case, the book (referenced by another editor) is readily available and the prominent website has also published some/all of the material contained in the book. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I am still working on response to earlier comments. To prove the obvious fact I am getting hard latest evidences based on information posted on official websites of a country and a reputed university. Since I will be on business seminar travels it may take a while to post it. However, I see interesting discussions going on in this section. It needs to be noted that information created by vested interest groups can not be objective evidences. They include other encyclopedia which may have roots to a particular country and defend the acts by that country when they had occupied other countries. Tailor made books following the philosophy ‘keep telling lies to younger generation hoping it becomes true one day’. Also it is requested from editors depending the current contents of the article to stay focused on answering questions than taking a stalling ‘Vithanda vaada’ (evasive) approach hoping that others give-up as in the past. Naadapriya (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The information is valid as far as Wikipedia's referencing policies are concerned, and removing such information would be in violation of another of Wikipedia's policy. Naadapriya's supposed personal business does not concern this article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please dont use measly websites to prove such "great theories". Provide scholarly evidence from various scholars. Claiming carnatic music was born out of ancient Tamil music is a major claim. In the mean time, we should also examine how many scholars call Carnatic music, Karnataka music to give an opportunity for all scholars to voice their opinion here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The claim isn't carnatic music was born out of ancient Tamil music - please stop misrepresenting what is being said. It is merely A source (of the many already mentioned) from which Carnatic music is derived - that is not a major claim. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Any reader who does not know about real history of South Indian Classical Music, Karnataka Sangeeta a.k.a Carnatic music, will be misled by current information on Carnatic Music. Major or minor, it is a wrong claim based on unregulated and self created websites. It violates the 'evidence' policy set by highly regulated Wikipedia in using references. It should be removed as suggested by many.Naadapriya (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternate spellings

While "Carnatic music" is the most common rendering of the name of this tradition in English, "Karnatak music" and "Karnatik music" are also seen. Badagnani (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Feel free to add it right away. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because it was made common by a specific group it can not change the fact that the original name is 'Karnataka Music'. It is in continous use since its birth by all music scholars, even as of Feb 10, 2008 by the scholars of presigious Mysore University while confeering a honorary doctorate degree to a famous Karnataka musician Dr Bala Murali Krisna. This issue is smilar to the fact that no one wants to call the city Chennai as Madras anymore though it was most commonly used wrong name for a long time. The original names if got changed due to wrong reasons should be brought back on sites such as Wikipedia whose purpose is to state accurate facts.Naadapriya (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No, in fact "a specific group" had nothing to do with it. English-speaking scholars and enthusiasts of South Indian classical music, who are not of Indic descent, have tended to gravitate toward this spelling in recent decades, simply because the terms beginning with "K" have an orthography that is more similar to current Indic romanization conventions. Badagnani (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Karnataka music" is not commonly used (and in fact I have never seen this spelling) in the English-speaking world. This term would seem to refer to music only from the state of Karnataka, while Carnatic/Karnatak/Karnatic music is performed in many parts of India. Badagnani (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I Think you would find this interesting. Actually, I am more used to the term Karnataka music than Karnatak music, even in scholarly books on music. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. This are just a few examples. Many more are available with a simple google search and I dont think the authors are discussing "Music in Karnataka" but rather Carnatic music.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this--are you sure, however, that the books are not referring to just music from the Karnataka state? Badagnani (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets go one link at at a time,

• Link #1 -->talks about Kuchipudi, a dance form in Kerela state and is not written by Kannadigas
• Link #2 -->starts the paragraph with Bharata Muni, the sage accredited with writing the early treatises but the content is too complex for me. You would find Bharata muni writen about both on Carnatic music and Bharatanatyam pages.
• Link 3--> All the music forms discussed (pg 157-159) are from Carnatic music and are on the current article (Kriti, Pallavi etc)
• Link 4--> Discusses interactions between Karnataka music with Kuchipudi (from Kerela)
• Link 5--->Is a tribute by Dr. Rajendra Prasad (1st. President of India) who calls Tyagaraja (from Tamil Nadu, who composed in Telugu language) as one among the great composers of Karnataka music. On the curren aticle, Tyagaraja is listed as one among the Trinity of Carnatic music.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your great expertise. I see now that this terminology seems to be used by at least some Indians writing in the English language. I suggest an "Etymology" section presenting various sources to show which terms have been used--where and when (i.e., which terms have been used in the Western world, and by whom, and when the shift began from "Carnatic" to "Karnatak," as well as which terms have been used in India). Badagnani (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

""Karnataka music" is not commonly used (and in fact I have never seen this spelling) in the English-speaking world." - No. "Karnataka music" is quite commonly used by academia and scholars in the English-speaking world. R. Satyanarayana and N Ramanathan (of TamilNadu and Dean/Principal (former?) of the Madras Music College) are just two of many scholars who use "Karnataka music" in their works (english works). Several universities in India offer diplomas in "Karnataka music". Sarvagnya 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, "I see now that this terminology seems to be used by at least some Indians writing in the English language." The term isn't widely used in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa. Badagnani (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Badagnani, Karnatak is just a North Indian way of saying Karnataka. A person from North India would call the father of Karnataka/Karnatak/Carnatic music "Purandaradas" where as in the south we call him "Purandaradasa", with the extra "a" at the end. This is something that is normal in India.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

More examples of Karnataka music, [12], [13], [14]Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate knowing that. The question is, however, which Latinized form has been used where, when, and by whom (especially notable scholars). This should be addressed, with sources, in an "Etymology" section of the article. Badagnani (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Can Sarvagnya help in writing an etymology section here with solid citations for each variant name and perhaps an explanation how and why the names have changed and when? Better yet, the content of the section should be a combined effort. But first we need critical citations, as Badagnani said, which are the important sources and persons who use different names for the same music.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Redux

Badagnani, it is beyond me what the problem is with "Karnataka" as opposed to Karnatik or Karnatak? Also, would you please explain what you find offensive or inaccurate in the statement that "carnatic music" is an anglicisation of "Karnataka sangeetha" and that Karnatak, Karnatik etc., are spelling variants of "Carnatic". Sarvagnya 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove Karnatak. This discussion page is used for a reason. We laboriously found that "Karnatak" is used by most Wetsern scholars of Carnatic music using the English language. Blanking it was wrong. Badagnani (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Badagnani that "Karnatak" is used very commonly, but so is "Karnataka". I am mystified myself why Badagnani seems to be hesitant with this etymology. Why should only western scholars matter? As a matter of fact, I have provided several western scholars who use the term "Karnataka music". But my concern is that Badagnani, unintentionally, may have made up his mind that "Karnataka music" refers to "music in modern Karnataka state" though I given various examples to the contrary. I really think we need to conclude on this simple issue. I however, appreciate Badagnani's timely and sincere appraoch to this whole mess.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani - If you want "Karnatak".. keep it. That however is no reason to remove "Karnataka". While on that, you may also want to add "Karnatic" as a variant (spelling). That however, still doesnt take care of why you removed the part about anglicisation. Whatever may be the etymology, "Carnatic music" (term) is an anglicisation of "Karnataka Sangeetha(m)"(term) where Karnataka transforms to "Carnatic" (by way of anglicisation) and Sangeetha(m) transforms (by way of simple translation) to "music". The etymology section when it comes up will clear up the issue about what the "Karnataka" in "Karnataka Sangeetha(m)" refers to - the state of Karnataka or something else. Sarvagnya 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Karnataka music," as our evidence shows, has been used in English by scholars in India (mostly) to refer to the tradition of South Indian classical music, as well as a handful of Europeans. It can be added. But not at the expense of blanking the more widely used "Karnatak," which is used by most of the primary Western scholars of this music writing in English. Badagnani (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We still need an "Etymology" section, presenting the origin of the term (and debunking the claim that "Karnataka music" refers only to music from the modern state of Karnataka). Although we know this claim to be incorrect, many people may believe it, as it seems intuitive that this would be the case. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I really dont think anywhere in literature we are going to find a claim "debunking" as you expect. It just takes more familiarity with the subject thats all. And Yes, Carnatic music is an English version of the original name "Karnataka Sangeeta". I dont think anyone will disagree on that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. The notion that "Carnatic" = all four states of southern India" is a product of the British period. And in all the reading that I've done about this subject, I havent come across anything that would suggest that the art has been known by other names or what those other names were. In fact, if memory serves me right, I've even read somewhere that "Karnataka sangeetha" has been a term that has been in use since Vidyaranya's Sangita Sara (13th century). I am not sure and I will need to look it up and reconfirm it before I can add it to the article. "Karnataka" itself is a term that goes much much further back than the 13th CE. That said, the line that we'll find a ref to "debunk" the claim comes across to me as a bit uninformed. Sarvagnya 22:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Need of the Hour

I see that this article has hit a road block due to two reasons. The first being an experienced user:Ncmvocalist who may have taken ownership of the article and is aggressively using questionable web sites to prove very important theories. The second reason is, a possible new user user:Naadapriya, who may have useful information, from reliable sources regarding the topic, but has failed (perhaps in haste and inexperience) to generate a cohesive, well cited paragraph explaining why Carnatic music is only an English version of "Karnataka music" (which we know is a fairly popular name used by scholars from across South India). But being a newcomer, he may still be in the process of learning how to bring data to the table, build concensus and give full citations. I really think his data should be given room for examination instead of trying to suffocate him out. All this may be frustrating the user:Naadapriya who seems to be at his wits end about it.

The need of the hour is to take the article back to where it was before the reverting started, examine each issue one by one or in conjunction, prove validity of citations, especially while claiming origins, which is naturally the most sensitive topic and hardest to prove.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuing from where I left off, I hope Naadapriya does not mind my criticism of his methods. I am only trying to help. It seems, from your comments, that you may have more knowledge about carnatic music than I do, for instance. This makes you all the more valuable to the article, if you can put together material in an acceptable way. Please take a look at the last paragraph in the "history" section, on "Instrumental music". It took me a month of reading and writing a subarticle on Musicians of Mysore Kingdom, to prove I had done sufficient study of the matter and that the era was a golden age of carnatic music before bringing that paragraph in (which none-the-less met with some minimal resistance from Ncmvocalist initially around Sept 9th 2007). No one can challenge such content. If you want to prove that Karnataka music was born in Karnataka, you need to put together a paragraph that is clear and full of valid citations, properly prosed to avoid POV and to the point. I hope this helps.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis, weaseling and what not!

“ According to some scholars,[4] ancient Tamil music is a source from which Carnatic music is derived as both styles of music share certain unique classical music concepts. The concept of Pann is considered to be a precursor to the Raga system in Carnatic music,[9] [10] while the rhythmic meters found in several musical forms (such as the Tiruppugazh) and other ancient literature, resemble the talas that are in use today.[11][12] ”

I've wasted weeks pointing out the obvious nonsense in the above paragraph (and other assorted nonsense) before. Let us do it one more time. Here we go -

According to some scholars,[4] ... - classic weasel . not to mention that [4] is non-RS.

ancient Tamil music is a source from which Carnatic music is derived as both styles of music share certain unique classical music concepts... - that is a paraphrase of what the non-RS [4] says. Neither Sambamurthy nor any other sources go that far.

The concept of Pann is considered to be a precursor to the Raga system in Carnatic music,[9] [10] - oh really? Lets see what Sambamurthy says -

Sambamurthy says (if the cherry picked sources are to be believed) -

1. The pans of the Thevaram are historically old ragas (page 91); - the panns of the Tevaram?? The very verses dating from the 8th or 10th(or later) AD? Or were there some Thevarams before even Bharata's natya shastra(2nd-4th BC) or even Matanga's Brhaddesi(7-8th CE) which give us the earliest descriptions of Ragas were penned? Or the Ramayana and Mahabharata which have references to "Raga".. or the Sama Veda (Sama gana) which by common consensus is the 'precursor' to modern Indian classical music and all its technical baggage.
2. It is in the pans of the Thevaram that we first come across full-fledged bhashanga ragas" (page 91); - thevaram again!
3. "The pans of Tevaram are all jiva ragas"(page 92)” - and again!

So what is Sambamurthy talking about when he talks of the panns of the thevaram. I will tell you. He's simply pointing out in passing, as academically as he can, the similarities between the two systems. That doesnt mean the Carnatic raga owes anything to the pann! For that matter, musicologists routinely throw in tidbits about the similarities between all the musical traditions of the world. That doesnt mean we conclude that Indian music gave birth to the music of Timbuktu or vice-versa!

So, can someone explain to me how one arrived at "Pann is considered to be a precursor to the Raga system in Carnatic music,.." from 1, 2 and 3 above?

And in any event, Sambamurthy's allusions to the panns belong (after careful and critical study of its meaning and context) in the Raga article. Not here.

"...while the rhythmic meters found in several musical forms (such as the Tiruppugazh) and other ancient literature, resemble the talas that are in use today.[11][12]..."

Ohh.. now we cut to the Arunagirinathar's 15th century!! 15th century - 3 full centuries after Sharngadeva's encyclopaediac Sangita Ratnakara!...(not to mention, Vidyaranya's Sangita sara). And we are to believe that the theory of the Tala was still waiting for its 'precursor'(?)! And pray, what is that thing about "...and other ancient literature..."?!! Would someone bother spelling out?

Given the amount of bad faith weaseling and the out of context twisting of cherry picked sound bites that has gone into putting that paragraph together, the authors of that para and those who are edit warring to keep it, owe us an explanation. Mere "rv removal of cited information" is not going to fly. Sarvagnya 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Move of Current Title to the Correct Original Name

Based on the valid justifications given by many the title of the article need to be changed to 'Karnataka Music' from current 'Carnatic Music'. It needs to be done soon unless immediate verifiable evidences are shown to prove that music scholars of caliber MS, RKS, BMK, Chembai and similar, respected by all South Indian states, have formally and publicly accepted 'Carnatic Music' as an equivalent name for the original name 'Karnataka Sangeeta or Sangeetam'. Ad-hoc use by some or existence in some dictionaries are not valid justifications as per Wikipedia guidelines. For sure weaselings can not be accepted. After moving, modifications will be suggested within the current format of the article to include the valid suggestions made by editors. Ad-hoc locking of the article by admn as in the past will imply as a consent to start a new article on 'Karnataka Music'. Use of unwarranted words such as vandalism, spam, disruptive, threat, babbling etc. and bringing unrelated linguistic issues by editors in responses to this discussion will be reported to higher Wikipedia staff as unfriendly/stalling approaches, and blocking will be requested.

After move the first 2 paragraphs need to be written as:

---

Template:IndicText Karnataka music which in English is named as ‘Carnatic Music’ (also known in South Indian languages as Karnataka Sangeeta or Sangeetam) is one of the two styles of Indian classical music, the other being Hindustani music. Its classical tradition is from the southern part of the Indian subcontinent, and its area roughly corresponds to the four modern Indian states; Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu.

The present form of Karnataka or Carnatic music is based on documented developments that can be traced to the early 15th century CE after its seminal founding by Purandara Dasa who is revered by all music scholars as the father of Karnataka classical music (Karnataka Sangeeta Pitamaha). Though not all but some elements in the formation of this extensive and innovative new musical form might have resulted from the systematic scientific study of various scattered forms of Dravidian, Aryan and possibly Persian music existed in India before 15th century.

---

Protest to above valid changes without giving verifiable hard evidences respected by all reputed scholars particularly those from South Indian states will be considered as a consent to start a new article on ‘Karnataka Music’ to state accurate facts. Grammar improvements are welcome.

After making immediately needed above major changes in the interest of popular Wikipedia users, the rest of the article needs to be further modified as per other valid suggestionsNaadapriya (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Some editors are tainting this article with unrelated language issues. It is requested that those editors should revisit their ‘kuuppa Manduka’ (Self centered ) approach read the history of Karnataka Sangeeta with the perspective of present day Karnataka Music or Carnatic music practiced by whole world. They will clearly see the framework that Sri Purandara Daasa laid-out for Karnataka Music. As many scholars say Sri Purandara Daasa was an institution than just an individual and therefore he could create such an unique and great music form. World has seen similar great institutions through great people such as Gandhi in humanitarian, Kamaraj in politics, Visweshwaraya in technology, Ramadasa in devotion, Raja Ravi Verma in art, Vivekananda in religion, Basavanna in caste system reform, RamaSwamy Naiker in social reform, RajKumar in movie world so on and on. One needs to visit those institutions with open mind keeping language affiliations on the side. With this I rest my case and focus on editing as disclosed above.Naadapriya (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules state that we use the most commonly used English name for our titles. "Carnatic music" is that name. Badagnani (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We just need to work out a good Etymology section for other historical names. Also, we need to ensure that only what directly concerns Carnatic music needs to be included. Whether other forms of music bear resemblences & similarities to Carnatic music is not pertinent to the current topic. Music forms across the world resemble each other in one way or the other. Providing endless details of that is distracting and unnecessary.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The guideline says

‘Generally, WP:article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.’

It is guideline and not a hard-set rule. Any guideline needs to have an exception when comes to accuracy of facts and so does Wikipedia’s guideline. For words that have origins from outside English world, the original name takes over equivalent names created for convenience of specific group. Typical example is the article on WP:Chennai. It is important to know that NOONE, not even British formally named ‘Karnataka Music’ as also ‘Carnatic Music’. Also one does not see in any reputed dictionary that ‘Carnatic Music’ is referred to as South Indian Classical music. Not even in about 1800 pages (about 270000 words) Webster’s dictionary published by highly reputed publisher ‘Gramercy Books’ of NewYork. At the most some say ‘Carnatic’ is a name of a certain province in South India during Mogul period. Minor technical issues of language is secondary when comes to accuracy of the facts. One of the dangers of using ad-hoc names created by specific groups for political reasons in titles is that it will give provision to distort of facts, as it has happened in this article. I guess Dineshkannambadi is mentioning that. To be accurate the title should be Karnataka Music. In addition Wikipedia is already redirecting to ‘Carnatic Music’ when you search for ‘Karnataka Music’ If needed use of Carnatic’ can be explained in the body.

If this article is left as is a separate article is needed under the title ‘Karnataka Music’ to state accurate facts for Wikipedia readers.Naadapriya (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this issue, but let me point out that the Oxford English Dictionary lists both "Karnatak(a)" and "Carnatic" (among others) as acceptable variants. It also provides citations for each of the forms, many from the second half of the 20th century. Of course, that still doesn't answer the question of which variant is more widespread-- it may well turn out that "Karnataka" is in fact the most common.

I should also point out that it is not always the case that "[f]or words that have origins from outside English world, the original name takes over equivalent names created for convenience of specific group". For example, we always speak of Confucius and Mencius, not "Kong Zi" and "Meng Zi", as they are called in Chinese. Priests in Hinduism are nearly always called "Brahmins", even though the Sanskrit word has no "i". The list could go on. The point is that there isn't any rule that words for foreign concepts should always take the form used in the original language (though that is increasingly the case); decisions on these matters should follow usage rather than principle (especially on an encyclopedia like this). --Śiva (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good piece of info. We need solid citations like this to create an Etymology section.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Siva: Thanks for your constructive and reasoable comments. I agree that it may be OK to use equivalent words if it helps majority as long as the original word is fully acknowledged and its meaning is not distorted. Unfortunately in the case using ‘Carnatic Music’ as English equivalent to the original ‘Karnataka Music’ there is an effort to distort real facts that are proven with current practices and well documented history. This is what several editors are pointing out and trying to correct again and again for the article ‘Carnatic Music’Naadapriya (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Article naming is not a mere guideline, but an official policy. There is no distortion of facts, and no current practices or documented history that state so. This form of music has been widely acknowledged as Carnatic music, whether it is online (try a simple google search) or in several publications. So far, the editor who has pushed for these changes has not produced any valid 'evidences' per Wikipedia's referencing policy. Whatever few 'evidences' given appears to be purely been based on synthesis, and perhaps original research, again suggesting that these changes are POV. If this is not the case, the editor is welcome to show otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Again above the previous editor is using Stalling approach. He is requested to read the meaning of ‘Generally’. To date he has not rebutted above observations on distortions with validated evidences. Several others have also pointed out in discussions wrong information. Novocalist is requested to read all of them before he goes round and round and stalling the progress. The inappropriate titled ‘Carnatic Music ‘ article itself has several references about the correct original name ‘Karnataka Music’ It is strange that he his asking evidence again. It is just like ‘one not seeing a well in daytime that all could see in the night time’. Telling that original name of South Classical music is Karnataka Sangeeta (Sangeetam Music) is just like telling obvious fact that Sun is source of light. Also it is like asking one to prove the obvious fact that ‘English’ is language that British speak. However, let me add some more important reference to the long list already readers have seen for the purpose of educating those giving wrong messages.

1)‘Karnataka Music as Aesthetic form’ ISBN 8187586168 by Mahamahopadhyaya Dr. R. Sathyanarayana who belongs to the third generation of the sisya-parampara (disciple) of the saint-composer Sri Thyagaraja, one of the most prominent composers.

2) KARNATAK MUSIC. Volumes I to III. P.Sambamurti. Indian Music Publishing House. Madras, 1976, 1978, 1976.

3) KARNATAKA SANGEETHADHA LAKSHYA LAKSHANA SANGRAHA. Prof. Mysore V. Ramarathnam. University of Mysore, Prasaranga. Mysore.

4)KARNATAKA SANGEETHA KRITIRACHANA SANGRAHA. Prof. Mysore V. Ramarathnam. Volume I. University of Mysore. Mysore. 1992.

5) KARNATAKA SANGEETHA SUDHA. Prof. Mysore V. Ramarathnam, Dr. V.S. Sampathkumaracharya. Volumes I and II. University of Mysore. Mysore. 1967.

6) KARNATAKA SANGITAM. Higher Grade Practice and Theory.Vinai A.Sundaram Iyer. Music Book Publishers. Madras. 1976,1977.

7) KARNATAKA SANGITAM. Lower Grade. Vinai A.Sundaram Iyer. Music Book Publishers. Madras. 1977.

8) KARNATIC MUSIC READER. Parts 1 to 4. Dr.S.Bhagyalekshmy. CBH Publications. Kerala. 1996,1997,1997,1998.

9)Karnataka Sangeeta Sastra : Theory of Carnatic Music/A.S. Panchapakesa Iyer. Translated by T.T. Vijayaraghavan. Chennai, Ganamrutha Prachuram, 2001, x, 110 p.

10)Karnaataka Apoorva Raaga Compositions Index/compiled by R. Anantha Subrahmanya Iyer. Chennai, Karnatic Music, 2000, 124 p.

11) Karnataka Sangeetha Malika, A.D. Madhavan , 2007, DC Books, Kotyam

One can go on and on giving such references. In addition one can quote live examples associated with prominent Karnataka musicians respected by all South Indian States.

1) Tamil Nadu’s MS_Subbulakshmi accepted in 1974 Ramon Magsaysay international award for her contributions to ‘classical and semi-classical songs in the Karnataka tradition of South India’ (quote from awards official website[15])

2) Most Kerala website posts Chembai as well known Karnataka Music Artist

3) Andhra’s Dr. Bala Murali Krishna accepted honorary doctorate degree from Mysore university for contributions to Karnataka Sangeeta (Feb 2007)

4) In live interview posted on 28/04/2004 reported by ‘oneindia’ South Indian portal Sangeeta Kalanidhi (honor given by Tamil Naadu to artist from Karnataka)) RKS refers to South Indian Music as only Karnataka Sangeeta.

5) on and on

On the other hand defenders of Carnatic Music as original title have not provided any evidence by authors respected in all South Indian States. Most references are like ‘Monday morning quarter backing’ by those from a specific state who are pushing to use ‘Carnatic’ word. As pointed out by others in the discussions they are all Weasel

Hope the commenting editor understands that Google search just points out existence of information but does not endorse the accuracy of information. If one goes by Google search then they can find many numbers responses for “Karnataka Sangeeta Pitamaha’. But Wikipedia relays upon hard evidences not on volume of results from a search engine. The false evidences provided to date about ‘Carnatic Music’ as original name and distorted information are all Weasel.

As mentioned in above Naadapriya is not for completely eliminating the use of ‘Carnatic Music’ which some how got attached to the original name ‘Karnataka Music’. It needs to be well conveyed that it is an equivalent name for the original ‘Karnataka Music’.

To date adequate evidences are given to prove 'Karnataka Sangeeta (Music) is the original name for South Indian Classical Music. In future Naadpriya may not answer vague comments that stall the progress. He will reply to specific comments supported by valid evidences. Focus on making needed changes through Admns. Naadapriya (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of us doubts that karnāṭaka saṃgīta is indeed the original name of this style of music, in Sanskrit. What is in question is whether it is the most commonly used name in English. To prove this, it would be necessary to show that an overwhelming majority of reputed English-language books (websites may be discredited) on this subject use the term "Karnataka", not only in their titles, but also in the main text. (I mention this because the titles of books 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are not strictly English, but are rather Sanskrit words, and thus do not prove or disprove the case.) The fact that Sambhamoorthy uses "Karnatak" (actually the Hindi form) is certainly evidence in favor of your case. Likewise with Bhagyalekshmy and "Karnatic". But the trouble here is that even experts differ as to the exact form. Karnataka? Karnatak? Karnatic? Karnatik? How do we decide, if the decision is to be based solely on (reputable) usage?

Also, a distinction must be made between Karnataka music (and variants) and Karnataka Sangeetha (and variants). Works that refer to "Karnataka Sangeetha" may be using the term as a Sanskrit word, whereas works that refer to "Karnataka music" use the term as an English word. In my opinion, only instances of "Karnataka music" would count as evidence in favor of "Karnataka" over "Carnatic". --Śiva (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I perfectly agree with this the most logical explanation to date. Yes the title should be 'Karnataka Music'Naadapriya (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Karnatic would not be in favour of his case, as it is merely another way of spelling the word Carnatic. The editor has been very specific in arguing his case that the commonly used term as Karnataka - the name of the Indian state. References 3-7 onwards do nothing to prove/disprove his case, while reference 8 directly disproves his case. Example 2 is both vague and would not qualify as a reference, while 3 is easily rebutted by S.Bhagyalakshmy's book "Carnatic Music Compositions" published by CBH Publications. Also, S.Ramanathan seems to refer to it as Carnatic music in his research as a musicologist at a university in Connecticut (S.Ramanathan, unlike Balamurali, received the Sangita Kalanidhi award as a musicologist rather than for his singing or composing abilities). There are several interviews by contemporary artists that call it Carnatic music, and on and on. Vedambooks calls their books "Carnatic books" [16] and there are several publications detailed under this URL that are in support of the title being Carnatic. There are several organisations that also use the word Carnatic, including Carnatica (founded by Sowmya), The international foundation for Carnatic music (founded by N. Ravikiran) to name a few. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Above websites fall into the category of 'Monday Morning quarter Backing' as they say in US. Most above evidences are recently created to push a wrong message. One needs to show evidences at least respected by all states of South India not by some group from one state pushing a word for political reasons. To date no one has seen anyone writing 'Carnatic Sangeeta or Sangeetam' in Kannada, Telugu, Sanskrit, Tamil or Malayalam. They write either 'Karnataka Sangeeta' or 'Karnataka Sangeetam'. Therefore 'Karnataka Music' is the best choice for the title. Other names can be explained in the body of the article.Naadapriya (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya appears to fail to understand the policies used at Wikipedia. In any case, Sangita Kalanidhis R.Vedavalli & S.Ramanathan, as well as Bombay Jayashri, T.M.Krishna, S.Bhagyalaksmy, P.Sambamurthy, N.Ravikiran are just a few of the prominent names of the authors of these books who use 'Carnatic'. This is English Wikipedia - not any other language. Kerala, Chennai, New Delhi are just a few places where these books have been published. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again above references (some are weasles) are efforts by a specific group possibly with origin from one state ( not by all)to modify the well documented history after about 500 years use of the original name Karnataka Sangeeta (Sangeetam) or Music. Looks like most of them that fall into 'Loose cannon' type were made up for political reasons after Mysore state was renamed as Karnataka State. If South Indian Classical Music is not called originally 'Karnataka Music ' one can wonder whether MS, world's best female musician to date from Tamil Nadu would have endorsed international Magsaysay awards citation (See above) that clearly states that the South Indian Classical Music is 'Karnataka Music'! Quoting those comtemprary musicians with less caliber than MS, RKS, BMK and Chembai is a stalling approach. The history of Karnataka Music is crystal clear after SRi Purandara Daasa founded it in early 15th century and it does not require musicologist to rewrite the original name. Trinity spent valuable time to take it to new highs but not to rewrite the history.

All know English Wikipedia is a not about language it is about information in English language. Hope someone can explain this to the above commenting editor in a better way. Hope he knows that Chennai is in English Wikipedia!Naadapriya (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again with your POV and speculative information. First off, it is POV to assume MS was the world's best female musician. Secondly, MSS cannot endorse it as she has passed away, so stop speculating. Thirdly, talking about mentioned 'musicians being of less caliber' is AGAIN your subjective POV. Forthly, nobody accused the trinity of rewriting history so please stop stalling yourself. Finally, your inappropriate behaviour will be reported to the admins if you continue to fail to comply with talk page guidelines, which specifically state that editors are to discuss content only - not contributors. Make believe accusations and personal attacks against editors of Wikipedia again fail to comply with talk page guidelines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One should stop misinterpreting edits by other editors just to make-up a compliant. For e.g. the evidence provided above was the statement from the official web site of Ramon Magsaysay award not MS herself as interpreted in the previous comment. Again based on solid evidences (Bharata Ratna, Ramon Magsaysay award, invited UN concert etc) Naadapriya still defends that MS is the best female singer from Tamil Naadu that Karnataka music world has seen as of to date. This is NOT POV. Improper use of ‘POV’ will dilute its meaning. Comment on comment by is not a comment on editor or reference. Again use of word is 'Personal attack' is unwarranted. It has been reminded several time and also brought to the attention of Admns about repeated misuse of words.Naadapriya (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources: Western scholars

• The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians - "Karnatak."
• David Nelson - "Karnatak."[17]
• David Reck - "Carnatic"[18][19]
• T. Temple Tuttle - "Karnatic."[20]
• Barbara Benary - "Karnatic."[21]
• Matthew Allen - "Karnatak."[22]
• Bruno Nettl - "Carnatic."[23]
• Michael S. Kinnear - "Karnatic."[24]
• Linda Fujie - "Carnatic."[25]
• Daniel M. Neuman - "Karnatak."[26]
• Philip V. Bohlman - "Karnatak."[27]
• David P. McAllester - "Carnatic"/"Karnataka."[28]
• Kelly Boyle - "Karnatic."[29]
• Bonnie Wade - "Karnatak"/"Carnatic."[30]
• Rolf Groesbeck - "Carnatic."[31]
• Trichy Sankaran - "Karnatak."[32]

Badagnani (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources: General

I am only presenting those google searche results that have several pages for reading, not the snippets.

• Ralph Alexander Smith - "Karnataka" [33]
• Simon Broughton - "Karnatic" [34]
• R.K. Narayan - "Karnataka" [35]
• Charles Yesalis - "Carnatic" [36]
• Peter Leavezzoli - "Karnatak" [37]
• Saraswati Baidyanath - "Karnataka" [38]
• William Joseph Jackson - "Karnataka" [39]
• Alain Daniélou - "Karnataka" - [40]
• S.p.ruhela - Karnataka music school in Tamil Nadu [41]
• Martin Banham - "Karnataka" [42]
• Rajendra Prasad - "Karnataka" [43]
• Devi, Nirmala - "Karnataka" [44]
• James R. Brandon - "Karnataka" [45]
• Thomas P. Lewis - "Karnataka" [46]

I am sure one can find numerous usages of other names as well.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It's not a good idea to "prove" that "Karnataka" applies to Carnatic music when the mention is strictly to the "Karnataka College of Music" or Karnataka College of Percussion (which is the case in more than one of the above examples), which is located in Karnataka. That would be similar to "proving" that Western classical music is really called "Manhattan music" because there is a school called the Manhattan School of Music. Badagnani (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we need such links to books/publications by various Indian/South Indian historians and scholars too. But one needs to keep in mind that many English books written in India may not be available on google search, which is a pity.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On related matter, most scholars have accepted the words that had origin from other languages in to English. One example is irrigation project related word ’Anecut’ a Kannada word that was originally invented I guess during Vijayanaga period. Anecut is used as is in technical books written in English. There is no evidence that English speaking world attempted to advocate a parallel name for ‘Karnataka Music’ as ‘Carnatic Music’. It is a specific group from India that is trying to push for short sighted political reasons. All scholars give respect to the original word that came with a particular language and use as is. It applies to the many English words that Indian languages use as is. I do not think that any western English scholar will object to use the original name ‘Karnataka Music’ as the title. It is just like using the original name Chennai instead of Madras. The founder Sri Purandara Daasa is revered by all South Indian respected music scholars as ‘Karnataka Sangeeta Pitamaha’ NOT as either ‘Carnatic Sangeetha Pitamaha ‘, or ‘ Karnatic Sangeeta Pitamaha’ or ‘Karnatak Sangeeta Pitamaha’ that sound odd. Quite often people from North may be due to Mogul influence chop-off the words from South by habit but not by any purpose to offend. Ex is 'Karnatak' or 'Karnatic' instead of correct word 'Karnataka'. It does not mean to say one should change the original word. The correct title for the this article if it needs to represent South Indian classical Music is ‘Karnataka Classical Music’Naadapriya (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, can you find web links for the items #1 to #8 you provided up/earlier. These books may be available on google search. We need to establish how many well known Indian scholars use the term "Karnataka". This is important. If google search is not available, scanned pages are fully valid and can be scrutinized by a neutral party.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

May we be certain that the editor will not selectively choose only sources that serve his/her preferred version of the term? The mode of argument I've seen suggests that this will be the case. In my case, I simply looked up the North American scholars who are best known for their studies and performance of South Indian classical music, without regard for which version of the music's name I prefer. Badagnani (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, google search is available for all of us. I am sure a simple search will pull up several Indian writers and their mode of usage will become apparent. Data which has been brought so far by different users shows that all the discussed names are used quite often, Carnatic music perhaps being the "the most often". We are only trying to satisfy the needed data to settle on the etymology.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think we don't have the needed data? Scanning or producing references with texts made available online, has never been a requirement. In any case, this long list of titles that use the word Carnatic:

• Aesthetic and Scientific Values in Carnatic Music/lecture-demonstrations by Vidya Shankar. Chennai, Parampara, 1997, viii, 255 p., (pbk). Details No. 30895

• Aesthetic and Scientific Values in Carnatic Music, Vol. II/Vidya Shankar. Chennai, Parampara, 2005, xiii, 196 p., (pbk). Details No. 44721

• The Art and Science of Carnatic Music/Vidya Shankar. Reprint. Chennai, Parampara, 1999, vii, 216 p., (pbk). Details No. 30894

• Core of Karnatic Music (Karnataka Sangeethamrutham)/A.D. Madhavan. Kerala, Music Zone, 2003, 626 p., Details No. 34334

• Institutionalised Teaching System of Carnatic Music/T. Unnikrishnan. New Delhi, Agam Kala Prakashan, 2006, xii, 138 p., ISBN 81 7320 068 8. Details No. 45616

• Laksana and Laksya of Carnatic Music : A Quest/T.V. Manikandan. New Delhi, Kanishka, 2004, xiii, 219 p., tables, ISBN 81-7391-659-4. Details No. 36575

• Krti Samskrti (Krti Tradition in Karnatak Music)/Lalita Ramakrishna. Bangalore, Kalpatharu Research Academy, 2006, xv, 264 p., Details No. 45609

• Perfecting Carnatic Music, Level 2 : Varnams and Krtis/Chitravina N. Ravikiran. Chennai, The International Foundation for Carnatic Music India, 2005, vii, 120 p.,(pbk). Details No. 41107

• Raga Pravaham : Index to Carnatic Ragas/M.N. Dhandapani and D. Pattammal. Revised and Enlarged Edition. Chennai, The Karnatic Music Book Center, 2002, 286 p., (pbk). Details No. 40332

• Raga Sudha : Understanding Carnatic Music/B.R.C. Iyengar. Secunderabad, B.R.C. Iyengar, 2003, vii, 184 p., (pbk). Details No. 40319

• Ragas in Carnatic Music/S. Bhagyalekshmy. Reprint. Nagercoil, CBH Pub., 2003, xi, 384 p., tables, (pbk). ISBN 81-85381-12-7. Details No. 40495

• Sangita Sampradayam : A Collection of Lectures on Carnatic Music, Vol. I/Sangita Kalanidhi R. Vedavalli. Chennai, Devaganavali Trust, 2005, 96 p., (pbk) (Vol. I). Details No. 43793

• Voices Within Carnatic Music : Passing on an Inheritance/Bombay Jayashri and T.M. Krishna. Chennai, Matrka, 2007, xii, 178 p., ISBN 81-7525-555-2. Details No. 49738

• What is Carnatic Music?/Vidya Bhavani Suresh. Chennai, Skanda Pub., 2002, 32 p., (pbk). [Demystifying Fine Arts-Volume-10]. Details No. 30984

as well as the titles above it make it pretty clear that 'Carnatic music' is what is in usage today. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious observation. Dr Madavan book whose title includes 'Karnataka' does not fall into the category to justify the use of yet to be proved equivalent name 'Carnatic Music'. The rest above references were written after Mysore state was renamed as Karnataka State in 1973!. Any authentic references before that to show that music scholars respected by all South Indian states formally gave an equivalent name to Karnataka Sangeeta, the original name known since early 15th century when Sri Purandara Daasaru founded it.? Naadapriya (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody denies that Carnatic music is the name that is most widely used "English" name, but that is not what we are trying to prove or disprove here. We are trying to find a basis for a correct etymology section with all popularly used names. Also, Its not for you alone to decide what methods have to be used.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Nadapriya was arguing that the article should be called "Karnataka music" - which under WP:NAME is only possible if "Karnataka music" is more commonly recognised by readers than the English form. To that extent, the question of which is the more widely used English name is very relevant. If you agree that "Carnatic music" is the most widely used English name, do you also agree that changing the article title to "Karnataka music" as Nadapriya wants is against policy? -- Arvind (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

hi arvind: Wish you had participated in the discussions from the beginning and read all discussions in detail. Naadapriya is not against Wikipedia policy. See similar e.g. chennai. Also he is not trying to eliminate the use of 'Carnatic music' if it is convenient to majority. All know English formally allows use of original words as is, e.g. Anecut, Bungalow. Here another main issue about this article as mentioned earlier is the distortion of facts about 'Karnataka Music' under the pretext of using the equivalent English name 'Carnatic Music' (no proof that British endorsed it). Allowing the use of equivalent name as title that came about 500 years later for reasons not well known may further facilitate more distortion of facts (see above discussion). Using original name in the title as for e.g. chennai and explaining the use of equivalent words in the text should be logical for all and Wikipedia readers will understand that. Use of words in Wikipedia is not based on popularity or a weasel web contest. Accuracy of information is of primary importance It is OK for the existing title if it wants to represent contributions to South Indian Classical music music from a specific state. As many evidences are already provided in this discussion, the word ‘Karnataka ‘ is widely used in English literature and dictionaries and 'Karnataka Music' is the undisputed original name for South Indian Classical Music and that should be the title if the article wants to represent complete South Indian classical Music.Naadapriya (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the discussion quite well, thank you. -- Arvind (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not in this debate to do anything aganist Wiki policy. This exercise is only to work out an eymology section per Badagnani's original comment, which I am sure is per wiki poicy.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, as long as we're agreed that the name should stay as it is, it'll make it easier to put that to one side and focus on the etymology. You know I'm usually in favour of native names for places - I argued for Bangalore to be moved to its official name, Bengaluru - but applying it to things like this would be a step too far, I think. Anyway, if it's not an issue I'd better not ramble on. -- Arvind (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One can not understand the statement 'but applying it to things like this would be a step too far'. Word is a word in encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not apply different rules to different words. Rules are same whether it is 'Chennai', 'Bengaluru', or 'Karnataka Music' when using the original names. Also none of the editors is 'rambling', all are discussing. Appropriate choice of words in discussion is requested.Naadapriya (talk) 08:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This link in Encyclopaedia Britannica should give a fair dea what the word Carnatic itself means and how it has changed over the centuries (page 361, column 2).[47].Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If the southern "Carnatic" region was Tiruchirapalli that would be right in the middle of what is today Tamil Nadu. Ongole (the northern "Carnatic" region) is in Andhra Pradesh. Badagnani (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, Carnatic music did not reach its current state of development during the British Raj, but rather in the 15-16th century, long before the British or the Moguls could take control and misapply names. Carnatic music reached this standard of classicalness during the rule of Vijayanagara Empire, which ruled from Karnataka.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "this standard of classicalness." Much of its "current state of development", both in "sastra" and "prayoga" is definitely post-Vijayanagara. The creation of a whole range of new ragas taking the number of actual (as opposed to theoretical) melas up from 19 to 72 and the concept of melakarta ragas, janakaragas and janya ragas - all of which are at the core of modern Carnatic music - did not develop during the Vijayanagara period, but much later in the courts of Mysuru, Thanjavur and Thiruvithamkoor. Ultimately, as far as etymology is concerned, it boils down to the question of when the label "Karnataka" was first applied to the music, but as far as the history of the music form is concerned, things are more complex. -- Arvind (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Much of its "current state of development", both in "sastra" and "prayoga" is definitely post-Vijayanagara." -- Not exactly. Not really. All advances in musicology in Tanjore, Mysore and travancore proceeded from where Vijayanagara tradition had left off. Increase in ragas from 19 to 72 also was based on consolidation/tweaking/improvising/improving existing musicological traditions and concepts. Thyagaraja acknowledges the contribution of the Haridasas(Vijayanagara period). Maratha king and musicologist Serfoji(?) acknowledges it. Various treatises acknowledge it. No art form of the level of sophistication of Carnatic music can evolve overnight. To point to an evolutionary stage that immediately preceded its present state and claim that this immediate predecessor was the be all and end all of its evolution is rather simplistic. Purandara Dasa's teaching models are still being used today and these are models that date back to Vijayanagara.. not the Tanjore of the Marathas or the Mysuru of the Wodeyars.
• "Ultimately, as far as etymology is concerned, it boils down to the question of when the label "Karnataka" was first applied to the music" -- I agree. And if memory serves me right, I remember reading somewhere that it was Vidyaranya's(?) Sangita sara or perhaps even Haripala Deva (like u say below) who first used the term to describe this form of music. I read it a long long time ago and I'm afraid I will need to dig fairly deep into my hopelessly disorganised bookmarks to find it.. or perhaps may even need to revisit libraries and hunt down many books I'd read long ago. I'm positive I can find it.. but it may take a long time given the fact that I'm far too busy in RL than my participation in WP over the last few weeks may suggest. Sarvagnya 21:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To point to an evolutionary stage that immediately preceded its present state and claim that this immediate predecessor was the be all and end all of its evolution is rather simplistic. I wouldn't disagree. But similarly, to point to the Vijayanagara period, or the Sangita Ratnakara, or the Brhaddesi, or the Natyasastra, and claim that that's the be-all and end-all of Carnatic music is also simplistic. And that's the point I was trying to make. -- Arvind (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. But, given the fact that Purandaradasa is caled "Father of Carnatic music" and that he graced the Vijayanagara courts gives us one clear indication; that a major development in the art must have happened during that time, something no one will dispute, or that honorific would not have been applied to him. Having said his, I believe we should not draw a line based on our convinience at some historical point either.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that Purandaradasa's systematisation of Carnatic music was a pretty major development and that's it's traditionally be seen as being of foundational importance for Carnatic music today. But was that the origin of the title "Carnatic music", or was it later, or possibly even earlier? In Vijayanagara itself, the term "Chaturdandi" was quite commonly used - even Venkatamakhin called his treatise Chaturdandi Prakashika, rather than Karnataka sangita prakashika or some such thing. On the other hand, a few Tamil books I've read say that the term "Karnataka sangita" was first used in Sangita sudhakara, a treatise written in the early 14th century by Haripala Deva (who, apparently, was a Western Chalukya king who, on being deposed, repaired to Srirangam where he composed the work on the banks of the Cauvery). It'd be fascinating if this were true, but Haripala Deva's text appears to have never been published - it only exists in manuscript form - so I have no idea how to check. Other sources simply say that he was the first to mention the distinction between the northern and southern styles. -- Arvind (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What the article tried to explain is not to misconstrue what the word Carnatic means. Depending on which period is under consideration, the geography of Carnatic changed. Which is why the book cays Carnatic or Karnatak (Kannada, Karnata, Karnataka Desa) which it tried to justify is the original meaning. In other words, all these words mean the same thing.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Caldwell, to whom the Britannica refers, gives a slightly different explanation, as does Hobson-Jobson (both suggest that the term included parts of the Telugu-speaking country in ancient times). Monier-Williams very unhelpfully says "central districts of the peninsula, including Mysore," which suggests that parts of the Telugu-speaking country may have been included, but isn't that clear either way. -- Arvind (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this useful information. What do the extant sources from the 15th century (or subsequent centuries) call this musical style -- in all of the written languages in use in the South Indian regions where it was performed? Badagnani (talk) 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This we will no doubt have to nail down, and should not be impossible. There should be info on all the musical treatises written in the late medieval era and the modern era as well.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is important to figure out exactly when the term was applied, and which part of southern India it was intended to encompass. But it's difficult to find scholarly secondary sources on this, and I am a little concerned that primary sources will not necessarily explain what region they mean when they refer to the "Karnataka style of music" - was it Karnataka in the sense of "south-central India", in the sense of "Vijayanagara region", in the sense of what we today recognise as the Kannada country, or something else? Anyway, let's find the sources and deal with this issue when we have them. -- Arvind (talk)

This is not going to be easy for sure. For instance, King Krishnadevaraya wrote of God Virupaksha of Hampi, in his Sanskrit writing Jambavati Kalyanam as Karnata Rajya Raksha Mani --protective jewel of Karnata empire (the citation exists in the Vijayanagara Empire article). Later, when the empire was defeated in the Battle of Talikota and a diminished empire moved down to Chandragiri (in modern Andhra Pradesh), the newly coronated Tirumala Raya was given the epithet, Reviver of the Karnataka Empire (Shastri, 1955). Forget about the English or Moguls, even the Indian princely have carried that name around, perhaps based on tradition. So even if we dig up info on one musical treatise after another, this problem is going to follow based on when the treatise was written. And regarding the etymology "Karnataka music", we are trying to establish how often this term has been used, by who, when, and how appropriate it is to include it in the Etymology section.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Origin and History of Carnatic music (Karnatak music)

Please refrain from adding diversionary content regarding similarities between carnatic and other music systems. Only information directly pertinent to evolution of Carnatic music and its history is needed.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not diversionary content. There are no sources that can rule out that ancient Tamil music did not evolve, or did not contribute in the evolution of Carnatic music. Though some editors would like nothing better to label these as 'coincidences' and 'mere similarities that are unrelated to this section of the article', there is no evidence or source to suggest that ancient Tamil music played no role during the historical evolution of Carnatic music. On the other hand, when one sees that the modes used in the cited style of music are not just similar, but identical to ragas used in (and following the melakarta system of) Carnatic music of today, there is enough doubt. The modes that were used in ancient Tamil music (that are identical to the ragas in Carnatic music) is found in the musical research of musicologist and Sangita Kalanidhi, Dr. S Ramanathan, who published this information in a dissertation paper that earned him a Ph. D. from a university in Connecticut. The content is fully cited and has therefore been included. So please refrain from removing cited content from the article, as it constitutes page blanking and/or vandalizing the article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On another note, editors are (yet again) reminded that they are to keep cool heads while commenting on this talk page, as per the tag at the top of the page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

NCcmv, please create a seperate article "Similarities between Ancient Tamil music and Carnatic music" where your arguements are better served.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One can logically say that all scattered forms of music associated with all South Indian languages possibly including some North Indian languages in general served as backgrounds when Sri Purandara Daasru innovatively and systematically founded the new Karnataka Sangeeta a.k.a Carnatic music. While getting trained as diamond merchant in his early age by his father it is obvious that Sri Purandara Daasa had good contact of all societies and gained the knowledge about existed informal music forms. It is known that merchants typically have more general knowledge than the rest of the society since they travel more. The statements in thousands of Krithis by Daasaru composed during 15th century C.E. serve as important evidences. Kannada was chosen to facilitate and immediately establish the complete formation Carnatic Music. Later all other South Indian languages significantly contributed. However, due to lack of documented evidences such as Krithis for time before 15th century related to the present day Karnataka Music pin pointing a specific element for pre 15th century becomes speculative.

It is nice to know that all discussions for the past 2 weeks are following Wikipedia guidelines and they are significantly helping to improve the quality of this important article. Most editors are using cool and balanced approaches. Also thanks to Admn Blnguyen for his decision to unlock the article for highly needed editing by all.Naadapriya (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference http://www.carnatica.net/origin.htm is quoted multiple times and each time parts of its content are omitted systematically; conveniently glossing over mid-period -- the period between Natya Shastra to Purandara Daasaru, is inappropriate. Take the reference in its entirety please. If you doubt its authenticity, please remove it.

"Purandara Dasa who is known as the Sangeeta Pitamaha meaning the father (founder) of Carnatic music, laid out the complete fundamental principles and framework for Carnatic music.[10][4]" is mistranslation/interpretation, even by [4]. First, Pitamaha is grandfather; second, father needn't be the founder. For instance, Gandhi being National Father doesn't mean he "founded" the concept of India; it's a token of reverence -- which, in the case of Sri Purandara Daasaru, is immensely apt. But, founder is a _very_ strong attribution; so, unless equally solid references to this effect are provided, it is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarion81 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As for "One can logically say that all scattered forms of music associated with all South Indian languages possibly including some North Indian languages in general served as backgrounds when Sri Purandara Daasru innovatively and systematically founded the new Karnataka Sangeeta a.k.a Carnatic music. ..." is it not POV or Original Research?! If you genuinely think so or if it is so OBVIOUS, may be some objective-party would have publishied something on that. Please quote it.

Quoting from Purandara Daasaru Wiki: "Purandaradasa was a vaggeyakara(performer), a lakshanakara(musicologist) and the father of musical pedagogy. He is credited with having elevated Carnatic music from merely religious and devotional music into the realm of a performing art. For all these reasons and the enormous influence that he had on Carnatic music, musicologists call him the "Sangeeta Pitamaha" or the grandfather of Carnatic music. [10] Some scholars believe that for Purandara Dasa giving it a strong foundation and a clear sense of direction we would not be having Karnataka Sangeetha today. [9]" .. This is _far_ more accurate and s ubstantiable compared to that we have in the Main Carnatic Page..

Well, removing Bias Tags without a proper reply is highly inappropriate, IMHO. If you would like to push exclusively your POV and suppress the rest, well, may be wiki ain't the place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarion81 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar, in his "The Concert Tradition" essay [48] specifically says that "Karnatak music took its final shape and form from the time of Purandaradasa, who systematized the laws of teaching music and wrote of innumerable padas and prabandhas, besides composing svaravalis, gitas, suladis, tayams and alankaras in the saptatalas as preliminary exercises and early lessons which must necessarily be learnt". So, still maintaining that Carnatic Music is "founded" by Purandara Dasa is highly incorrect and positively insidious. I presume someone like Ariyakudi "knows" better than any of us here and would really appreciate any of you that "could" edit(apparently i cudn't; the editing is disabled) the page to effecuate an appropriate edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarion81 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All of us have great respect to Sri Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar. In his article he does not say that Sri Puradara Daasa is not the founder of todays Carnatic music. In fact his statements strongly support that Sri Purandara Daasa is responsible for all aspects of todays Carnatic music. Your reference is a web site not a book and it is missing the very important fact that Sri Purandara Daasa is also responsible kritis which is the main part of todays Carnatic music concerts. The current text has kept a lower profile than needed when giving credit Sri Purandara Daasa. Please do not attempt to change it.Naadapriya (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not even wish to deny the influence and contributions of Sri Purandara Daasaru in our presentday Carnatic Music. My only point of dispute is that the present text claims him to be _the_ "founder" of Carnatic Music: Panini, despite his prolific "Ashtadhyayi", is NOT the "founder" of Sanskrit -- not even Unadisutra, Dhatupatha, Ganapatha texts can claim so; and, the case in hand is rather similar: Purandara Daasaru structured the process of learning _and_ practice of Carnatic Music, for that the title of Sangeetha Pitamaha is appropriate and _just_. Ariyakudi, in the given link, acknowledges this, and no more; that is so because such _is_ the case. His words are "Karnatak music took its final shape and form from the time of Purandaradasa", the operative word being final. He also acknowledges other musicologists who contributed to Carnatic Music further. Ariyakudi talks about "Concert Tradition" and Purandara Daasaru, _if_ "founded" Carnatic Music, would necessarily be decorated as such.

Well, thanks for letting me know that you think/opinion that the "current text has kept a lower profile than needed when giving credit Sri Purandara Daasa.". Truly unfortunate that the facts appears to support an even lighter -- in your POV, may be -- profile for Sri Purandara Daasaru. I dare NOT call that suggested changes would lend Sri Purandara Daasaru a "lower" profile: by structuring Carnatic music teaching and practice, his contributions are patently singular and, in a way, far reaching than that of the Trinities. In this view I would practically hail Sri Purandara Daasaru as a Giant among Giants -- that he, un doubtedly, _is_! That is my POV; you might differ -- that is the thing with POV, apparently.

Whether Sri Purandara Daasaru should enjoy a higher status or lo were is not the point am tryingto make. The singular concern is that of the truth; I implore you to see the reality and do not let your "apparent" dedication for Sri Purandara Dasru to cloud your judgment. (end of previous unsigned comment by Anarion81)

Just because Sri ARI's article does not mention explicitly it does not mean to say that Sri PD did not compose thousands of krithis and Ugabhogas which completes the list of his contributions on which todays Carnatic music is based on. Similarly since Sri ARI did not mention in the specific article it does not mean that Sri PD is not the founder (father) of today's Carnatic Music. Also I do not think that Sri. ARI implies in his article that Carnatic music existed before Sri PD and they did not know how to teach it. The fact based on evidences already provided in the article is that today's Carnatic (Karnataka) Music is founded by Sri Purandara Daasaru who is revered as the father(founder) of Karnataka (Carnatic) music. Having stated the accurate fact it does not imply the contributions by other great musicians are not important.

BTW: To quote an analogy, apples were falling and equations existed before Newton but Newton is the founder (father) of gravitational theory. That does not mean to say scientists who invented equations before and rockets later are less important. Also please read earlier discussions about the use of 'father' and 'founder'. Naadapriya (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Similarly since Sri ARI did not mention in the specific article it does not mean that Sri PD is not the founder (father) of today's Carnatic Music." Wrt this, I find your logic amusing to say the least. We are not here in Wikipedia to read between the lines, or extrapolate what RS say. We are here to state what is said by RS, and leave it for the reader to derive their own interpretations out of it. That is my understanding of how WP works. I believe what you're doing is OR. That said, if you can provide RS that explicitly use the term 'founder', I have no objections to the use of the term in the article. --Madhu (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

All including above comment acknowledge that Sri PD is the father of Carnatic music. In the English language 'father of' and 'founder of ' are mutually exchangeable phrases meaning the same. Please see literature on Newton. Some references call him 'father of modern physics' and other call him 'founder of modern physics'. It is not myOR. Many other references say the the same about Sri Purandara Daasaru[49]. They are facts based on well documented Sri PD's original innovative contributions and use of English language. Naadapriya (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ariyakudi article states explicitly that "Karnatak music took its _final_ shape and form from the time of Purandaradasa". Let me make myself clear: Ragam/Talam/Nadai/Kaalam/Compositions, all these concepts existed before Sri Purandara Daasaru. Ariyakudi and few other sources acknowledge it. So I do hope you are not claiming that Sri Purandara Daasaru "invented" the concept of Ragam/Talam/Improvisation/the-idea-of-lyrical-compositions. If so, please do let me know. Of course, Sri Purandara Daasaru may have "invented" Ragas -- am stating this with a pinch of salt for I personally do not know -- but so did Balamurali Krishna, from Mahati, Sumukham, Vallabhi to Lavangi. So it is safe to say that Sri Purandara Daasaru has not garnered the apt title Sangeetha Pitamaha -- The Grandfather [ http://vedabase.net/p/pitamaha] for creating Ragas. Am stating this last merely to _systematically_ clear the ground for a more fruitful/consistent discussion.

Sri Purandara Daasaru _structured_ this knowledge of elders and formulated it into a PERFORMING ART: as Newton would have said, he stood on the shoulders of Giants and saw further. In order to be a performing art, music needs _rigorous_/_impersonal_ teaching and modes of practice that must be learnt; so he systematized the teaching and practice of the art form and gave it a _final_ form. (quoting Concert Tradition of Ariyakudi "[Sri Purandara Daasaru] systematized the laws of teaching music and wrote of innumerable padas and prabandhas, besides composing svaravalis, gitas, suladis, tayams and alankaras in the saptatalas as preliminary exercises and early lessons which must _necessarily_ be learnt.") Format alone, be it Krithi or Varnam, does not _define_ Carnatic music -- especially Carnatic Music being an improvisation based music form: Ragam/Talam signatures and the _rules_ of specific Raga improvisations matter the most, the structuring of presentation in terms of swarajatis, varnam, kriti is a presentation/pedagogy issue and need to be systematized. Ariyakudi says as much.

Coming to the question of format, Ariyakudi's concert format is the ubiquitous format followed by everyone presently: that definitely does NOT make him the founder of concerts. Concerts/Katchri and it's content -- Ragams/Taalam/Compositions -- existed long before Ariyakudi arrived at the scene. Similarly both Raamamaatya and Venkatamakhi (of Melakartha schemes) are NOT inventors of various Ragas, they classified/symetmized them. "Fathers of Melakartha" are _compilers_ and NOT progenitor of the concept of Ragam itself: they pruned a "consistent" framework for associating names to modes/Ragas, so to speak. The actual Ragam naming was done much later, of course.

Ariyakkudi praises Sri Purandara Daasaru by stating that "Karnatak music took its _final_ shape and form from the time of Purandaradasa". If he said final shape, well, I take it that he meant "final shape", with forms predating this final form. Much like Kutcheri existed before Ariyakudi and Ragas existed before Raamamaatya, Carnatic Music did exist before Sri Purandara Daasaru.

If you are partial to "absence of evidence is NOT an evidence of absence", well, one might even state that Carnatic Music has it's origins in Aliens from Andromeda galaxy -- nothing can refute, nor support such claims. So, please, lets stick to what is said, NOT what you think it _meant_. What I do think is my POV. I might "think/hope" that Carnatic Music owe it's origins to one Mr. Ford Prefect from Betelgeuse, but that is NOT what should go into Wiki, I believe. So if you can give a proper reference -- not a blogger URL, please -- and without too much of interpretation of the written word, you sure can keep the "founder" phrase. Let me know.

As for father "deduction" , well, pitamaha Sanskrit does not translate to Father English[50][51]. It is plain incorrect: Bhishma was named Pitamaha; if you remember he remained a bachelor all his life without a Son. Besides, it not like Carnatic music does not use the word Pitah, remember "Srutir mata, layam pitah" [52]. Bhishma was a GREAT old man, so to speak, and hence a Pitamaha, I believe. Pitamaha is a title given to some one grand/great and old; please do correct me if I am wrong.

Please, pretty please, do not compare Issac Newton to Sri Purandara Daasaru! Before Leibniz and Newton, we KNOW that there was NO Calculus, no laws of gravidation(save that of Kepler), No bold, _verifiable_ theories oas to how celestial and terrestrial laws being the same. There is still Newtonian mechanics as a subfield of Classical Mechanics. There are the conservation laws that he "discovered"/stated. His theory of Colour. His Netonian telescopes. And,he gave the _ever_ first result in Calculus of Variations, No Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica before him and the list is _rather_ long. What is IMPORTANT is that all these are _tenable_, historical FACTS. So one can definitely call Newton a Forefather of Modern Calculus, and transitively Physics: be warned, it is MY opinion. But the historical facts: that there were things that did NOT exist before Newton or Einstein, remain true. Establish to me that the core of Carnatic music Ragam/Thalam/improvisation et. al did not exist before Sri Purandara Daasaru: of course, we _know_ they existed. So as a second life line to you, _at least_ establish that certain Major Scales that are so intimately connected to Carnatic music per se, say, Kalyani, Todi, Kambhoji, Shankarabharanam, Karaharapriya, did not exist before Sri Purandara Daasaru. Before establishing that, please do not execute the "father to founder" leap of faith; besides the very translation father is a bone of contention. You are basing your deductions on at least one leap of faith and one possible mistranslation.

To quote yourself "All including above comment acknowledge that Sri PD is the father of Carnatic music.", I completely fail to see how did my comment and things thereafter ACKNOWLEDGE that "Sri PD is the father of Carnatic music." Please do NOT twist my words, or for that matter, anyone else'! My words do not need too much of creative interpretation(s), much less a creative, tenuous assertion, thank you!

To summarise my stand, I do agree Sri Purandara Daasaru structured the teaching and _influenced_ (not founded, please) the present form of Carnatic music as a _performing_ art. So Sangeetha Pitamaha (grandfather[53], even one of the present citation says "grandfather". how could ONE distort it to push a POV?!!) is _just_. But founder claim requires, as of now, a leap of faith, a good one at that. In present form the article suffers from POV and Original Research biases and do hope I made my point legible and my objection legitimate. Any refuting academic references with logical interpretation are most welcome. So far I have not seen a solid reference that unquestionably sets Sri Purandara Daasaru as the "founder". May be in certain cultural milieus such a "fact/hope" might be held self evident, but I would like at least a handful of consistent, un-biased, well cited, well argued academic references.

I do not deny the "singificant" Lakshana contributions from Sri Purandara Daasaru. To claim that no developed form of Carnatic Music Lakshna existed pre-Purandara Daasaru era is ikely incorrect (i just am being _rather_ polite here): one just simply have no evidence whatsoever to support that "hypothesis". On the contrary, there are evidences to support that form(s) of Carnatic music (Ragam, Talam, Style) existed much before Sri Purandara Daasaru: Ariyakudi explicitly acknowledges the existence pre-Purandara Daasaru music forms that are particularly close to present day Carnatic Music.Anarion81(talk)

Another source that asserts that Carnatic music, as the classical music of South, existed before Sri Purandara Daasaru is this book review in The Hindu, dated 27th of July, 2004: [54]. To quote the reviewer verbatim "It is astonishing how Purandara Dasa single-handed, through his reforms, rescued classical music from near disintegration and also revived the Haridasa movement, giving new strength to it. He also in his own way laid a sound foundation to the newly-evolving Hosa (new) Kannada, a contribution hailed by Kannada litterateurs". It specifically states that Sri Purandara Daasaru _revived_ the then _existing_ classical music form, that later came to be named Carnatic Music. The author also states, again, explicitly, that the "pure _older_ Indian music that survived in the South came to be called Karnataka music because Vijayanagar, which included both the Telugu and Kannada areas..". The text also acknowledges Kanaka Daasaru's contributions, as it should. The text also acknowledges, again explicitly, that Sri Purandara Daasaru laid sound foundations to (Hosa) Kannada.

One does not, I suppose, need any creative interpretation to understand the reference in hand. I do hope it is sufficiently clear that "grandsire to founder" leap of faith was POV and/or OR and/or SYN.Anarion81(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Response to above two comments by Anarion81

Above comments further support that Sri Purandara Daasaru is the founder of today's Karnataka (Carnatic) music. It does not mean to say there were no other forms of music that might have influenced todays Carnatic music founded by Sri Purandara Daasaru. Sri ARI is highly respected musician. His article does not say that Sri Purandara Daasaru is not the founder of todays Carnatic music. Since it is a translation one need to give benefit of doubt about the English Version ( BTW. ARI’s translated article uses 'Karnatak' . TBMK none of the South Indian scholars use that word and it is possibly a typo for 'Karnataka')

The second reference quoted from Hindu is a review article on a book on ‘DASA SAHITHYA MATHU SANSKRITHI’ The book appears to focus on founding contributions of Sri PD to Kannada literature which he used as a main vehicle to found todays Karnataka (Carnatic) music. Hindu article is the reviewer’s opinion and it does not argue against the fact that Sri Purandara Daasa is the founder of todays Karnataka (Carnatic) music. (BTW: I agree Hindu is a well established news paper. But it is not immuned from occasional regionally biased articles).

There are many references including that already quoted earlier as reliable as one given for Sri ARI’s translated article that explicitly state that Sri Purandara Daasa is the founder (father) of Karnataka music. To quote another important one Shri P.N.Krishnamoorthy a scientist and Director [55] of The Sangeetha Vidyalaya states ‘Purandara Dasa (1484 - 1584) can be said to be the principal founder of the Carnatic system as we know it today.’

Sri Purandara Daasa used Kannada language as the main vehicle to found today’s Karnataka (carnatic) music. Therefore the title he was given by scholars ‘Pitamaha’ or ‘Pra-Pitamaha’ mean ‘Great father’ or ‘first great father’. Some interpret as grand father based on Sanskrit. But all lead to conclusion that Sri Purandara Daasa is the founder of Todays Carnatic (Karnataka ) music. Again it does not mean to that bits and pieces of music existed before 15th century.

Again none of the above are my OR. They are obvious existing facts with RS. Naadapriya (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A Response to Naadapriya and a Forlorn Supplication for (better?) Logic

---Above comments further support that Sri Purandara Daasaru is the founder of today's Karnataka (Carnatic) music.

NO, they DON'T! For umpteenth time, please do NOT begin your "exposition" so utterly unjustifiably! First, I wrote them I do know what I said -- that making Sri Purandara Daasaru the founder is a make-belief . Second, one seldom starts off with "the" conclusion and try arguing around it. AFAIK, one usually assume a basic set of axioms and certain natural notions of deductions and strives to arrive at the inescapable conclusion. Your concluding starting (oxymoron?!) statement, for instance, is _entirely_ escapable.

---It does not mean to say there were no other forms of music that might have influenced todays Carnatic music founded by Sri Purandara Daasaru.

Good that you agree there _were_ music forms before Carnatic Music and that Ragas and Talas existed much before Sri Purandara Daasaru. And did I see the first appearance of the word "todays" suddenly/insidiously before Carnatic Music? Please, today's Carnatic music is essentially that of the Melakartha schemes. In fact, while at it, I might even call Ariyakudi as the "founder" of today's Carnatic music -- owing to the _fact_ that present day concert format is truly his "invention". Here is a credible reference [56]. Only decency/etiquette, modesty and, above all, sensibility prevents me from clamoring after this claim.

---Sri ARI is highly respected musician.

Glad we agree on the sanctity of the source!

---His article does not say that Sri Purandara Daasaru is not the founder of todays Carnatic music.

Well, in case you failed to read my _long_ reply: if you have to follow that convoluted/incorrect logic of connecting implications to double negations, I must dutifully point to you your apparent logical fallacy. If one is to go by your "reasoning" (lets just "name" it so, for the time being), ancient forms like Egyptian music could very well be "argued" to be the source of Carnatic music: articles on Egyptian music does NOT ever say that Egyptian music is NOT the source Carnatic music: so Egyptian music must be the source of Carnatic Music, right? Well, dead wrong. I DO hope you get your logic straight in the near future for other Wikipedians sake. Again, good starting point is Laws of Thought by George Boole. So, the final takeaway point is that: Ariyakudi, a respected musician, in his essay explicitly titled "Concert Tradition" does NOT say that Sri Purandara Daasaru is the founder. Ariyakudi explicitly states Sri Purandara Daasaru " systematized the laws of teaching music and wrote of innumerable...".

---Since it is a translation one need to give benefit of doubt about the English Version ( BTW. ARI’s translated article uses 'Karnatak' . TBMK none of the South Indian scholars use that word and it is possibly a typo for 'Karnataka')

Well, that the correctness of the inference "father to founder" is provisional on benefit of doubt from most sources is apparent. That precisely _is_ the point. One needs leaps of faith to believe the "founder" claim -- as opposed statements to the contrary from multiple sources that are sufficiently respectable [57][58][59] [60] [61]: all these sources specifically state Sri Purandara Daasaru systematized Carnatic Teaching, hence named "Pitamaha (grandfather) of Carnatic Music". Besides, if you are linguistically hair-splitting (which is good, appreciate the first sign of rational argument), so is the (mis)translation of Pitamaha to Father -- including your claim that it is Kannada. In similar spirit, I do hope you let other wikipedians to challenge it: I do challenge it; please do provide credible evidence that it _is_ kannada and it is _Father_. BTW, apart from that panoptic "given by scholars", you have any actual evidence that any of the Trinities -- three of the greatest musicologists that we know of, or any of the Malakartha founders, actually named Sri Purandara Daasaru as "father/founder" of Carnatic music? I am sure they _all_ acknowledged Sri Purandara Daasaru as guru or a great saint -- that he is; but is there any account of him being called "founder" by any of them? That is, apart from your handpicked sources?

---The second reference quoted from Hindu is a review article on a book on ‘DASA SAHITHYA MATHU SANSKRITHI’ The book appears to focus on founding contributions of Sri PD to Kannada literature which he used as a main vehicle to found todays Karnataka (Carnatic) music. Hindu article is the reviewer’s opinion and it does not argue against the fact that Sri Purandara Daasa is the founder of todays Karnataka (Carnatic) music. (BTW: I agree Hindu is a well established news paper. But it is not immuned from occasional regionally biased articles).

Unfortunately, I do not know Kannada, so I really can't read the ‘DASA SAHITHYA MATHU SANSKRITHI’. I _do_ hope the reviewer knows Kannada though! Hindu is _bound_ to it's reviews -- I did not see any disclaimer that "the reviewer's views are his only and Hindu is not responsible for the views". The review was printed by the editor and surely Hindu employs credible reviewers? Plus, if you know Kannada, and _if_ you are after truth, may be you could enlighten us about the book? It evidently is published by "Kannada Books Authority".

Please, where is the justification for the "REGIONALLY biased" response of yours?!! Well, do you personally know the works of the author or the reviewer and they were known to be polarised? Or, is that regional is _anything_ that does not lend you to the easy -- and, apparently standard, "conclusion" (of yours), that "Above comments further support that Sri Purandara Daasaru is the founder of today's Karnataka (Carnatic) music." etc?! Please enlighten us.

The reviewer flatly acknowledge that classical music -- that was extant much before Sri Purandara Daasaru, was "saved" by Sri Purandara Daasaru from near demise. Please do NOT make a case for your POV/OR by _selectively_ rejecting references, as it was done with "grandfather to father" mishap in [62]. It is totally theoretically possible to fit any story to any data points by "selectively" rejecting sufficient number of points; please do refrain from that.

---There are many references including that already quoted earlier as reliable as one given for Sri ARI’s translated article that explicitly state that Sri Purandara Daasa is the founder (father) of Karnataka music.

I again state it, a lonely blogger does NOT make a credible reference. All I need to do is to start a blog saying that Egyptian music is the foundation of Carnatic music and quote it here. Again, academic/credible reference please. As far as I could see, there just simply were NO credible reference for the "founder" claim.

---To quote another important one Shri P.N.Krishnamoorthy a scientist and Director [55] of The Sangeetha Vidyalaya states ‘Purandara Dasa (1484 - 1584) can be said to be the principal founder of the Carnatic system as we know it today.’

Mr. P. N. Krishnamoorthy's credentials as a scientist does NOT automatically pass onto his statements on music: his academic credibility is salable exclusively in his academic field of expertise; please do not make a straw man. If Ariyakudi(a prolific, established, much followed and respected musician -- whom you apparently "respect") and Hindu (that you take to be a " well established news paper") is not convincing enough, there is absolutely no reason how one could take Mr. P. N. Krishnamoorthy into confidence. As I said, does any one quote this page? Ariyakudi at least is quoted by GNB - G._N._Balasubramaniam. Just and unbiased, academic reference is what I am begging for. BTW, what is a _principal_ founder? Are there OTHER founders too? Please DO clarify.

This reference [63] raises more questions than it solves, if any. Again, please read the article titled "Carnatic Music Origin & Development": [64] from the _same_ site/organization. It specifically states "Purandara Dasa (1484-1564 AD) refined the teaching of carnatic music so creatively that today he retains the title 'Sangita Pitamah."; the Pitamaha claim is, as I said countless times, and as Ariyakudi states, is for systematizing teaching. NOT for "inventing" Carnatic music nor to have "found" the Carnatic music genre. Diluting your stand with "today's" Carnatic music does not behove/sell either: there are giants -- _both_ performers and composers, that carved and shaped today's Carnatic music (300/400 years after Sri Purandara Daasaru) and Carnatic is ever evolving.

--Sri Purandara Daasa used Kannada language as the main vehicle to found today’s Karnataka (carnatic) music. Therefore the title he was given by scholars ‘Pitamaha’ or ‘Pra-Pitamaha’ mean ‘Great father’ or ‘first great father’. Some interpret as grand father based on Sanskrit. But all lead to conclusion that Sri Purandara Daasa is the founder of Todays Carnatic (Karnataka ) music.

Again, with all humility, your conclusion simply does NOT follow! That is the gift of sweeping judgements -- especially to "save" the cause, I might say. Please argue your case with couple of academic references. Hopefully, I am not asking more.

--Again it does not mean to that bits and pieces of music existed before 15th century.

bits and pieces?! Do we hear any end of it, even when it is just a POV/OR?! Raagas, Taalas, Improvisation, vast number of composition, systematization that is close of Melakarthas, metric poetry, and above all, a practice of sophisticated music existed long BEFORE Sri Purandara Daasaru. BTW, have you even read the very first line of your alleged "founder" reference :"Over the millenea, Indian music had developed as a single system of music until about the thirteenth century." Besides Mr. P. N. Krishnamoorthy claims that "Purandara Dasa made a most significant contribution by codifying the teaching of the elements of Carnatic music in various graded steps. These teaching methods have also survived over the centuries and are being followed today by all teachers of Carnatic music." He then jumps to Venkatamaki. For 100th time, even your references state that Classical Music tradition of South India was pretty much existed before Sri Purandara Daasaru, if only you "choose" to see it.

--Again none of the above are my OR. They are obvious existing facts with RS. Naadapriya (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, from your own references and your own logic, the founder claim is pretty much POV and/or OR. There is nothing "obvious" about your "facts"; otherwise we would not be discussing it over days. All I end up doing is to just keep increasing your life lines! establish that: Raagam/Taalam did NOT exist before Sri Purandara Daasaru OR absence of major scales before Sri Purandara Daasaru OR Trinities hailing Sri Purandara Daasaru as the "founder" OR Melakartha fathers hailing Sri Purandara Daasaru as the "founder" OR any unbiased, well cited academic reference stating that Sri Purandara Daasaru is indeed the "founder" of Carnatic music. Even I will run out of life lines soon enough, so please _do_ feel free to produce appropriate data from RS for your OBVIOUS facts.Anarion81 (talk)

None of the above lengthy arguments or citations state that Sri PD is not the founder (father) of todays Karnataka (Carnatic) music. On the other hand many citations already provided state that Sri Purandara Daasaru is the father or founder of todays Carnatic music. Just because many improved Carnatic music after Sri PD, the fact that Sri Purandara Daasaru founded Karnataka (a.k.a Carnatic by British) can not be changed. It is irrational to argue that there was Carnatic music before Sri PD and no one knew how to teach it till Sri Purandara Daasaru did. Sri Purandara Daasaru founded all elements of todays Karnataka Music and devised systematic scientific procedures to teach them as stated in many quoted citations. It is well-known that the best teachers of new technologies are those who invented them. BTW : If one does not know the basic words used in Karnataka (Carnatic) Music or the title of the book refereed then they should refrain from making comments related to them. Kannada is used as a vehicle to found Todays Karnataka music by Sri PD. Naadapriya (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A Plea for Credible (academic, peer reviewed) References and Logic

Authors and Sources that talk about a person' achievements say what that particular person DID, not he/she did NOT do. For instance, no sources will tell that Sri Purandara Daasaru did NOT invent Newtonian mechanics: that does NOT mean that Sri Purandara Daasaru DID invent Newtonian Mechanics: the set of things that someone did is easily stated (as being finite) compared to what one did NOT do (as being potentially infinite). The not-did part is "usually" part of insidious propaganda: like, English maintain that Leibniz did NOT contribute to calculus et. al. If you ask for a propaganda references, sorry, I am more academically inclined and is after truth, NOT make-belief, bed time stories abundant in most cultures. Again, I implore you to ingrain a sense of logic to your "argument/reasoning". It is _as_ folly as to argue that the concept of Universities as we know today did NOT exist before Wilhelm von Humbold: of course institutions knew how to teach before Wilhelm von Humbold; just that many of them were inefficient/ineffective. Similarly, Sri Purandara Daasaru style of teaching was simply the most robust way to teach Carnatic Music back then.

To explicitly quote the OR and POV in your statements: "It is well-known that the best teachers of new technologies are those who invented them.". By your account, Einstein must be a singularly great teacher of General/Special Relativity, not Richard Feynman or anyone else, except that Einstein is not even remotely into reaching. His explicit shrinking from teaching is legendary; please read Einstein's Wiki or any of his biographies. It is folly to connect research excellence to teaching excellence: they are altogether different skills; of course, once in a while you get legends (that we know nearly first hand from his audio/video/written lectures and publications, plus documented evidence) like Feynman. Please do NOT connect excellence in teaching to excellence in invention: you are fiddling with straw man again.

You say, "Just because many improved Carnatic music after Sri PD, the fact that Sri Purandara Daasaru founded Karnataka (a.k.a Carnatic by British) can not be changed.". My point is this: Sri Purandada Daasaru DID "improve" on the then existing system of South Indian Classical music: systematizing/teaching an already vast practice (as acknowledged by even Ariyakudi in [www.narada.org/ariyakudi/tradition.html]) is a mind boggling task and Sri Purandara Daasaru understood and excelled in it absolutely _NO_ uncertain terms, for that the "Sangeeta Pitamaha' is verily just. And, please, do refrain from stating your POV as "facts", unless you provide credible evidence. Plus, you need NOT be dogmatic on that "can _not_ be changed". We are still arguing for each of our cases, right?

You state "It is irrational to argue that there was Carnatic music before Sri PD and no one knew how to teach it till Sri Purandara Daasaru did". Now you not only have a (self assumed) monopoly on what construes as a "FACT", you also now have (again, self assumed) monopoly on rationality, especially with your if-negate-then-negate style of perceived "rationality". As I repeatedly plead, why don't you just LET a credible RS speak for _itself_ than YOU having to colour a non RS to suit your _pet theory/POV_? As one of the RS said, Sri Purandara Daasa moved/revived the then South Indian Classical Music to a performing art. As for the pedagogy, if you have _ever_ undergone both Hindustani training _and_ Carnatic training, you would readily spot the amazing edifice of Carnatic music teaching. Even when AlApanai is not explicitly taught, as in Hindustani, a non-expert Carnatic student can sing a decent Raaga AlApanai merely from his well dealt with pedagogics, the "system of structured learning". As such it is my POV, will post a credible RS stating experts acknowledging this statement, reinforcing the role of Sri Purandara Daasaru's _teaching_ genius in Carnatic music. This apparent accessibility of complex AlApanai to a beginner, in my opinion, is solely due to Sri Purandara Daasaru -- how else one would call this teaching genius but the Pitamaha of Carnatic music?! His selection of "Mayamalava Gowla" as the first scale, instead of the then prevalent "Kharaharpriya" alone speaks in volumes for his eye on teaching. See [65]. Regret to inform you that Karaharapriya -- the equiv in Hindustani is (Misra) Kapi, I guess -- existed _before_ Sri Purandara Dasa. So either you have to argue that Kharaharapriya -- that one of the flagship ragas of Carnatic music that has _immense_ scope for improvisation, is NOT, after all, Carnatic, OR, you should ADMIT that Kharaharapriya -- transitively, Carnatic music, _existed_ before Sri Purandara Daasaru. Please explicitly state your stand and, importantly, back it up with credible evidence. Please go through the following references for that delineate the history of various _Carnatic_ ragas and practices: [66]; [67]; Academic Publication in JSTOR: "Indian Literature on Vocal Abuse" [68]; Academic Publication in JSTOR: "An Introduction to the Vina" [69]. These academic/credible resources ascertain the existence of a Raagam/Taalam/improvization/composition based complex South Indian Classical music _much_ before Sri Purandara Daasaru. In particular, the book titled "Foundations of Indian Musicology: Perspectives in the Philosophy of Art; google book URL [70]; Chapter 5, titled "Music and Tradition" literally states that "It will be a mistake to say that South Indian music has no tradition and is purely individualistic both in origin and development"; that was a _verbatim_ quote from a RS without having to resort to creative interpretation of the original text. I _do_ hope the references are explicit enough.

I do NOT know Kannada, but I _do_ know enough of Telugu,Sanksrit, and English to understand/appreciate/argue for Carnatic music; my humble POV is that Telugu and Sankrit more than amply serve the purpose of understanding Carnatic music Musicalogy and history (with English forming the lingua franca), especially with most Musicologists using Sanskrit as the scholarly language. So, not knowing Kannada is definitely a handicap to relish an awesome Yakshiagana recital, but not for Carnatic music. Besides, knowing Kannada is by no means a prerequisite to quote review from a respectable national news paper The Hindu, written in English, and written by someone who evidently KNOWS Kannada. You have the amazing asymmetry of conveniently omitting RSs especially if they do NOT conform to your PET theory/POV/OR. I assume you are native Kannada speaker and would really appreciate if you could read that book quoted and enlighten us, instead of asking me to NOT to quote anything in native Kannada; I would very much obliged if you could literally translate few excerpts from the book to English: of course, sans your native flair for creative interpretations, if you please.

BTW: you have NOT answered any of my objections -- except your statement assuming monopoly over rationality. My posts are long for a _very_ good reason: I do take my _rational_ arguments seriously and the God/Devil lies in the _details_ -- as Feynman once rightly said; details entail long prose. Do note that I tend to argue _every_ point of yours and show how they largely are POV and/or OR, if I may say so, with a terrible bias; I tend to prefer a open, _rational_ arguments compared to assuming monopoly over rationality. I again implore you to go over the stated ACADEMIC, Books, and RS references: [71]; [72]; Academic Publication in JSTOR: "Indian Literature on Vocal Abuse" [73]; Academic Publication in JSTOR: "An Introduction to the Vina" [74]; Foundations of Indian Musicology: Perspectives in the Philosophy of Art; google book URL [75]; Chapter 5, titled "Music and Tradition".

Please do _read_ the references and respond _CRITICALLY_ (that is, instead of assuming "rationality" monopoly over most other mortals). Short replies asserting that arbit things are "facts"(wo any RS) are pure propaganda/POV/OR. I do hope your replies are short NOT because you just simply don't have any factual grist that stands any rigorous logical grinding!

As of now, it appears that the "father/founder" claim is largely an OR/POV claim. All the credible RSs repeatedly state that: Sri Purandara Daasaru restuructured the teaching and composed quite a few devaranama; that South Indian Classical music, with concepts close to that of present practices, existed _at least_ centuries before Sri Purandara Daasaru. None of the _reliable_ references state that Sri Purandadara Daasaru "founded/invented/fathered/begotten/and-wat-not" Carnatic Music. In fact, one of the RS -- a book titled "Foundations of Indian Musicology: Perspectives in the Philosophy of Art", (ISBN:817017273X) -- explicitly states that it is WRONG to presume that South Indian Classical music is individualistically founded/developed. As far I know, Sri Purandara Daasaru is an "individual", not a _poetic_ reference to a collection of individuals lived in vastly diffrent time/space.

I do hope you do see beyond "what you want to belive" or, worse, "what you are taught to believe". Keep your biases personal, Wiki is NOT the place to push your pet theories/pipe dreams/POV/OR. Again, please either PROVIDE credible refrence for your POV/OR or challange the provided references critically, the operative word being critically/logically. If I were you, I would freshen-up my logic by reading bits of Bertrand_Russell / George Boole or any pop/text book in logic. That would indeed do you -- and, consequently the Wiki -- some good.Anarion81 (talk)

Most of the above comments are mute since no one has argued that music did not exist before 15th century. Melodic patterns or modes of human vocal sounds have existed since humans started to speak. The scientific identification and classification of ragas followed in todays Karnataka (carnatic) music was invented by Sri Purandara Daasa therefore as above commenter and rest agree he is revered as Pitamaha (Great Father in Kannada or grand father in Sanskrit) of Karnataka(Carnatic) Music. In English language ‘father of ’ and ‘founder of’ are synonymous. The references provided such as one by Sri TNK that states Sri PD is the ‘primary founder of Carnatic music’ is as reliable as those quoted in above comment. It is obvious that there were no formal ways of teaching before 15th century since todays Carnatic music did not exist before Sri PD. Though no one is designated as secondary founder, if one wishes more than one can be named.

BTW: Lengthy responses since as stated it is with academic background but however most of it are not related to the issue. Also one will be surprised to know if there is a respected Carnatic (Karnataka) music scholar who does not have a basic knowledge of Kannada in which todays Karnataka (Carnatic) music was founded. All music scholars (see for e.g. Sri ARI article) acknowledged that basic learning methods are based on Sri PD’s lessons that are in Kannada. Sri PD demonstrated his invention in all major ragas through his Kannada Krithis. Naadapriya (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All the references given establish that Carnatic music -- specifically major Carnatic ragas like Varali, Kalyani, Kharaharapriya, Nattai, all existed well before Sri Purandara Daasaru. In fact, the reference specifically state that Varali is more that 1000 years old, and was called Varati back then. The reference on Veena and vocal abuse in South Indian classical music give names of various Carnatic musicology books (written in Sanskrit) that well precede Sri. Purandara Daasaru time. So it is obvious to any unbiased, objective, non-regionally-found mind that the practice of Carnatic music, in it present form, existed much before Sri Purandara Daasaru: again, do read the quoted references before coming to the recurrent and ill founded conclusion that "Sri Purandara Daasaru invented/founded carnatic music". Also "The scientific identification and classification of ragas followed in todays Karnataka (carnatic) music" was by and large done by fathers of Melakartha scheme (based on permutation/combinations), and melakartha scheme was NOT an invention of Sri Purandara Daasaru. Please susbtantiate your weasling.

Purandara Daasaru contributed heavily to Carnatic music by improving it's teaching methods and by popularising Carnatic music as a performing art by writing large number of Devaranama in many ragas -- on rags that were known/practised much before him. When we look for raga lakshana, one looks for the kritis of Sri Tyagaraja or Sri Dikshidar, not Sri Purandara Daasaru. Purandaradasa was called Pitahama (grand father/grand sire -- it is Sanskrit and NOT kannada; please don't twist facts to suit your conclusion) for his enduring teaching methodology contributions; see my references from various sources, including books, sites. Your two references -- where Kannada authors stating factual inaccuracies/POV about Sir Purandara Daasaru (a Kannadiga), quoted by a Kannadiga, apparently -- are an attempt at weasling. On the contrary, my references are varied sources -- including academic, books, web sites -- where authors are from very different linguistic/regional background, hence devoid biases. In short, your ill founded logic (?!) and totally biased references are a VERY fine example of wiki weasling! Please do NOT weasle in your POV.

In short, Karnatic music existed much before Sri Purandara Daasaru: in fact, Sri Annamacharya -- a prolific Carnatic composer of bhakti kritis and Padams, lived a good 100 years before Sri Purandara Daasaru. There simply is no evidence, apart from your weasling references, that Sri Purandara Daasaru "founded" Carnatic Music: in fact, every evidence establish that Carnatic music existed much before Sri Purandara Daasaru and Sri Purandara Daasaru codified and organized the teaching strategy for Carnatic Music.

Kannada has no special part on Carnatic music. If any, most of the Kritis are in Telugu. Carnatic Trinities composed mainly in Telugu, Sanskrit -- not in Kannada. Sanskrit, Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil and Kannada, _all_ are vehicles of Carnatic music. Again, please do NOT bring in your regionalism. Anarion81 (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

For your perusal, please note that, in present day, Semmangudi_Srinivasa_Iyer aka SSI is also acknowledged as "The pitamaha of Carnatic music" . Now, no one can say that Carnatic music did NOT exist before SSI!! Pitamaha is grandsire/grand father and is bestowed out of respect: it definitely is not meant as a progenitor/creater/inventor/father/wat-nots.. So please stop weasling and aggressively pushing your POV with straw man references and vacuous logic(?!). Anarion81 (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to above 3 comments

1. Some music existed before Sri PD and music got improved after Sri PD. However the beginning of Today's Carnatic music is after Sri PD's invention.
2. There is no need to bring language issues here. Only statement made was that Sri PD adopted Kannada language as a media to invent an algorithm for Today's Carnatic Music.
3. See references at the end of discussions that state Sri PD is the founder of Carnatic music. They are as reliable or even better reliable than those cited in above 3 comments. One can not exclude a valid reference based on the language based origin. It is againest the gudelines.
4. After acknowledging sofar that Sri PD is the 'The Pitamaha of Carnatic music' the previous comment contradicts by pointing out to one other name as "The Pitamaha of Carnatic music"
5. Purandara Daasa, Kanaka Daasa and others had composed thousands of Krithis in Kannada before Trinities. Many such as the great trinity filled in the gap in Telegu and Sanskrit and Sri Papanasam Sivan in Tamil. Sri Thygaraja Swamy learned Kannada compositions of Sri PD from his mother Smt Seetamma at young age and he paid his respect to Sri PD in Prahalada Charitrum. Devara Naamas are just one aspect of several creations by Daasas. Daasas also introduced Ugabhogas to Carnatic music which later led to alapane. CDs of MLV, SR, MS, MSS, RKS, Bombay Sisters etc etc are objective evidences for Kannada krithis. Talking about role of Kannada on the origin and growth of Karnataka (aka Carnatic) music is about reality not a regionalism issue.

Based on the references and cited interpretations of 'Pitamaha', Sri Purandara Daasa is the founder of Today's Carnatic music.Naadapriya (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

YajnavalkyaSmriti quote

I took the liberty of fixing the Sanskrit of YjS 3.115, but I'm curious where the original mangled version came from, because the English translation seems unsourced too: the reference given has something else (besides lacking the Sanskrit). This google search shows only one site that doesn't show a clear dependency on this WP article, and it too has a different English version (which is wrong because the verb niyacchati is 3rd person singular - the nominatives all apply to the same person, not three different ones). Anyway, here is a literal analysis in case a translation can't be properly sourced:

vīṇā-vādana-tattva-jñaḥ

veena-musician-essence-knowing (= one who knows the essence of being a veena player)

śruti-jāti-viśāradaḥ

sruti-jati-skilled/experienced (= one who is skilled in sruti and jati)

tāla-jñaḥ ca aprayās(ena)

tala-knowing also no-effort(by) (= and one who knows tala, effortlessly)

mokṣa-mārgaṃ niyacchati

moksha-way/path binds/rules/controls (= ?)

The point here is that the verb niyacchati has the same root as the noun niyama (rule, restriction, discipline), so words to the effect of "effortlessly attains bliss" aren't as close to the meaning as something like "effortlessly masters the path of bliss". rudra (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The N in Carnatic is not retroflex

The N in Carnatic has been represented as retroflex in some scripts, and as non-retroflex in other scripts. It is actually not retroflex. --Masatran (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is retroflex in Sanskrit, where you almost never see -karn-, only -karṇ-. Malayalam also uses a retroflex (actually, a doubled retroflex karṇṇāṭaka). It isn't retroflex in Kannada, Tamil or Telugu. -- Arvind (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Need poll

We need to come to a concensus if this weasel paragraph, which does not convey any information about the evolution of Carnatic music, should reside in this article or not. Since some users have been bent on adding it back, I feel a straw poll may be necessary. That paragraph is,

While it is not clear whether ancient Tamil music has evolved into the tradition of Carnatic music,[8] the unique similarities shared by both styles of music through history has been undisputed.[9] Many of the modes used in ancient Tamil music (known as Panns) are entirely equivalent to the ragas used in the melakarta raga system of today's Carnatic music,[10][11] [12] while the rhythmic meters found in several musical forms (such as the Tiruppugazh) and other ancient literature, resemble the talas that are in use today.[13][14]. thanks,Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the above paragraph is going to be changed, as there is a verifiable and reliable source that is more clear-cut stating that there is indeed something more between both styles of music - it is not a mere set of similarities. Of course, you have erroneously called the paragraph weasal given that no scholars have said the opposite to what has been said in the above paragraph, so unless you intend on proving otherwise, I suggest you reword what you have said.

I intend on adding a new reference that has been considered reliable as per the discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (- a second opinion) by editors who have not made edits to this article. The author is S.Ramanathan.

So, once this has been changed, polling would not be an option that one should pursue as we include text in the article based on verifiability - it is pointless to vote on something that has been cited to a verifiable source. Polarizing opinions and contributing to a further break down of incivility and lack of good faith is not going to help either, which is why Wikipedia warns that polling, although not forbidden, should be used with care. This really isn't an option. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not being incivil. Please dont use words like "incivil" lightly.Dineshkannambadi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to read the relevant policy to understand that it was a basic summary of what was written - I did not state, or imply, that you were being incivil. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We dont need any polls to remove what is demonstrably weasel and worse, sourced to non-RS screed. Sarvagnya 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that Kalabhras took away whatever proofs that were present about Tamil music, else it could have been easily proven that Tamil music was pre-cursor to both Carnatic as well as Hindustani music, as well as Western Music genres like rock, jazz and pop. May be rap as well evolved from it, and I am sure Ghazals as well -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Above stated paragraph in the article falls into the category of 'Monday Morning Quarter Backing' with weasels. Those who saw apples falling before Newton did not invent the Gravitational Theory. Just like that possibly there were some scattered forms music and rhythms before 15th century but the formal organized form practiced today is based on the well documented invention Karnataka Music (a.k.a Carnatic Music in English) of Sri Purandara Daasa in the early 15th century. Related to South Indian Classical Music the concept 'Tala' was first adopted by Sri Purandara Daasa in laying out format for alankaaras and also used the word in his Krithi (undisputed documented evidence) 'tala MeLagalliddu'.Naadapriya (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very much disputed, and the so-called evidence does not satisfy Wikipedia's referencing standards. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Publicly recorded information with hard data is an evidence as per Wikipedia guidelines. One can see for e.g. in Mozart. Current speculative statements on 'tala' need to be removed.Naadapriya (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The example is not even closely similar to the evidence and suggestions you have proposed. There are no speculative statements. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Above comments is not agreeable. As per Wikipedia 'Evidence in its broadest sense includes anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion.... In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world’. Therefore documented public concerts, authentic websites and legal modern multimedia sources are all evidences. Sri Purandara Daasa Kritis has all this along with published books already cited in Wikipedia.

Looks like later comments are side tracking the original purpose of this sub-topic. With a firm statement that above quoted weasel paragraph need to be removed Naadpriya will leave the rest to other editors and may not further continue to respond on this subtopic since he has given adequate input.Naadapriya (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia states no such thing. The link you have given is not in any way considered part of the rules, policies, procedures and guidelines observed at Wikipedia. What is observed at Wikipedia generally has special links, like WP:OWN. The 'evidences' you have given do not satisfy the referencing criteria of Wikipedia, and therefore, cannot be used. If you wish for me to make a formal report to the administrators, they will clarify this for you upon making a decision. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New Proposal on 'Move Title' Based on Consensus To-Date

Summary of comments to-date on move to the original name.

Editors participated intensively since beginning 8.

Regarding move:

3 in favor

1 no opinion

2 explicitly oppose

1 implicitly oppose

1 indecisive based on language issue than subject issue

The best compromise is as suggested follows.

1)Leave title as is since for some unknown reasons it is embedded in English languages meaning the same as 'Karnataka Music'.

2)Rewrite (a must) the first two paragraph as:

---

Template:IndicText Carnatic music which is the name commonly known in English for the original name Karnataka Sangeeta (Music) (also known in South Indian languages as Karnataka Sangeetam) is one of the two styles of Indian classical music, the other being Hindustani music. Its classical tradition is from the southern part of the Indian subcontinent, and its area roughly corresponds to the four modern Indian states; Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. In this article, ‘Carnatic Music’, ‘Karnataka Music’, ‘Karnataka Sangeeta’, ‘Karnataka Sangeetam’ and ‘Karnatic Music’ all mean the same.

The present form of Karnataka or Carnatic music is based on documented developments that can be traced to the early 15th century CE after its seminal founding by Purandara Dasa who is revered by all music scholars as the father of Karnataka classical music (Karnataka Sangeeta Pitamaha). Some elements in the formation of this extensive and innovative new musical form might have resulted from the systematic scientific study of various scattered forms of Dravidian, Aryan and possibly Persian music existed in India before 15th century.

---

3) Modify rest of the article to comply with corrections pointed out by many editors to reflect the first two paragraphs. ( a must)

a) Remove all speculative information before 15th century.

b) Use only official websites (e.g. maintained by Oxford University, Ramon Magsaysay International award, etc..)

c) Limit references to books prescribed (or officially referred ) by Universities that has dedicated and established departments for South Indian Classical Music (e.g., Madras University, Mysore University etc ) respected at least by all South Indians. The Karnataka music is not English referring to authentic books in other languages should be allowed requesting exception from Wikipedia

d) Avoid using ‘Mushroom’ type 'weasel' books by less known authors and publishers published only to push POV of a specific group mostly those after Mysore state was renamed as Karnataka State.

To date comments by all editors are constructive. Above recommendations are mutually dependent on others and they need to be considered as whole not item by item. Should the article stays as is without corrections, as suggested by many editors it should fall under the category specific language that the article is currently trying to center-on and a separate article is needed for South Indian Classical Music to serve justice to Wikipedia readers. It is time to move on than going round and round. Naadapriya has presented adequate material in the discussions and he may not comment further on this topic unless a deliberate misinterpretation takes place or clarification is requested.Naadapriya (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, I reject this proposal. FYI, #2 and #3 would violate several Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

None of the above proposals violate 'Wikipedia policies and guidelines'. Except one editor, to date the majority of editors want significant corrections to the existing contents of the article. The incorrect contents of the article can not stay as is if it is intended to authentically represent the South Indian classical music which from beginning to date is known as 'Karnataka Music' with way later English equivalent name ' Carnatic Music'. Comments should not to mislead discussions with deliberate misinterpretations. Editors who make such repeated comments will be reported as in the past. Also editors should stop exercising ownership on the article and let constructive editings go smoothly.Naadapriya (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And to date, it seems, other than editors who are pushing for an eminently Kannada POV, there has been no agreement by any other editors as there is no (real) justification for such changes. And btw, Purandaradasar was NOT the founder of Carnatic music - he is known to have founded the system by which Carnatic music is taught.

To date a majority of editors( appears except only one), many wikipedia articles (Carnatic Music, Purandara Dasa) and documented references have proved that Sri Purandara Daasa is the father of Carnatic Music (Karnataka Sangeetha Pitamaha) Music. Therefore above statement And btw, Purandaradasar was NOT the founder of Carnatic music is mute without any dispute. The article will be modified to reflect the correct fact with out any ambiguity.Naadapriya (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Such disruptive editing will not be accepted, and may result in immediate consequences as final warnings have already been given to the concerned editor. It is blatant synthesis. He founded the system of teaching - not Carnatic music. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In English use of phrase ‘father of ’ stands for founder or inventor. E.g. Albert Einstein who founded theory of relativity is known as ‘Father of Relativity’. Therefore undisputedly Sri Puradara Daasa who is revered by all as ‘Father of Carnatic music’ is the founder of Karnataka (Carnatic) Music practiced today. Nothing disruptive about this statement. Admns have been alerted about unwarranted and annoying use of warnings in comments. It is repeatedly reminded that comments should be technicalNaadapriya (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have a problem with reading comprehension - that is blatant synthesis. It is also false as he is not the founder of Carnatic music, but is merely the founder of the system of teaching Carnatic music. So, making any edits to reflect otherwise will be considered disruptive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya will ignore the above unfounded comment that contradicts evidence based opinion by the rest of the world. It clearly implies wrong information that Carnatic music existed before Sri Purandara Daasa but there was no method to teach. It is illogical to think that music existed without a procedure to teach. As all valid references already quoted including the official website of MIT music department states Sri Purandara Daasa is the father(founder) of todays Karnataka (Carnatic) music and he also devised a systematic method to teach all levels. Since there are no comments from other editors on this topic (initiated on 3 February 2008) Naadapriya will proceed with needed correction to the article. "Undo without discussing with valid evidences will be considered as disruptive and vandalism. Those who do not agree that Sri Purandara Daasa is the father (founder) of todays Karnataka (Carnatic) music should show with a strong objective and nonweasel evidence that who founded it. Evasive answers as in the past referring to multiple pre-historic weasel-evidences are not acceptable as per Wikipedia standards.

Also the editor of previous comment is urged withdraw immediately the inappropriate statement 'it seems you have a problem with reading comprehension - that is blatant synthesis.' It is offensive.Naadapriya (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You clearly fail to address this issue again and again - what you are saying is blatant synthesis. And please do not inappropriately misrepresent what I have said in the future, as this may in itself lead to you being blocked. There is no implication that there was no method to teach - that is your imagination. Purandaradasar founded the method of teaching that has been generally followed since it was founded - this does not automatically mean that there was no method of teaching before-hand. Merely, methods of teaching before-hand were not so systematic or as effective as the method that was founded by Purandaradasar. This does not in any way imply that he founded Carnatic music because there is clear evidence to the contrary. If Naadapriya goes ahead with making such changes to the article, he should expect to be banned for knowingly and consciously making disruptive edits that violate Wikipedia's policy, especially given that there is no consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

tut tut tut. It is unfortunate for constructive editing that previous inappropriate statements are not withdrawn. To date there is no evidence to support the above statement 'there is clear evidence to the contrary' except for some weasels. One editor's opinion is not a consensus when 6 to 7 other editors are involved in these discussions. Comments should not imply ownership and give unwarranted notices. Admns have been alerted on such acts. Deleting valid corrections are clear vandalism and respected Admns will take appropriate action.Naadapriya (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And again failing to address the issue. The sources are verifiable per Wikipedia's policy. The editor should know what to expect upon violating the relevant policy/guideline, having been warned several times both here, and on his talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

tsk tsk tsk Yet no withdrawal of previous inappropriate offensive statements!!!!. Editor should be aware of consequences. Still no real evidence to support the above statement 'there is clear evidence to the contrary'. Again inappropriate uncalled for warnings in comment assuming ownership of the article. Naadapriya has not violated any policy/guidelines. Adequate time was given for valid rebuttal responses with objective evidences. None since Feb 3, 2008 except weasels and inappropriate annoying/insulting/offensive non-technical statements in comments. At this stage immediately needed corrections (first 2 paragraphs) are justified based on consensus. Deletion of valid corrections is vandalism. Hope Admns stop such deletions.Naadapriya (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

They are not valid, which is why you know what to expect. Deletion of synthesised material, blatant nonsense and original research is not considered vandalism, so good luck with that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are valid since the title 'Father of Karnataka Music' which in simple English means 'founder of Carnatic music' is well documented. Statement is neither synthesized material, blatant nonsense nor result of Naadapriya original research. Deleting that correction is vandalism. It is unfortunate that article on a beautiful and devine art form founded by Sri Purandara Daasa and nurished by many other great people is in undesirable present state. For sure it requires a good luck.

Yet no withdrawal of previous inappropriate offensive statements!!!!. In addition again use of unwarranted word 'nonsense'!!!Naadapriya (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This article, like all articles in Wikipedia, must observe WP:NPOV - your proposal violates this policy by giving undue weight to a POV. In addition, several other editing and referencing guidelines would be violated. The information is not speculative, and the proposed editing is disruptive - not constructive. The proposal is rejected. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments without specifics on so called use of 'POV' is not productive and it will stall the progress. Stating the facts is not POV irrespective of which language it comes from. For e.g. no one can argue that the great Trinity and Sri Paapanaasam Sivan contributed significantly to Karnataka Music(a.k.a. Carnatic Music) using Telugu and Tamil languages, respectively.

Unwarranted dragging of linguistics issues which no other editor has mentioned to date is against the Wikipedia policy. Wild assumption about the origin of other editors related to the language is extreme violation of the policy. Editors are repeatedly requested not bring unrelated issues into the discussion which is stalling the progress.

If Sri Purandara Daasaru was not the founder of Karnataka Sangeeta ( a.k.a. Carnatic Music) then the music scholars would not have revered him with the undisputed title 'Karnataka Sangeetha Pitamaha' (Father of Karnatka a.k.a. Carnatic music). This is already stated in the article. Many evidences already presented by several editors clearly restates that he founded the complete music form of Karnataka (Carnatic) music practiced today. Based on the list presented in the article, he is originally responsible for raaga, tala, krithi/Keertana format, Ugaaboga (that led to allaapane), divine and social topics in the compositions and 1000s of compositions for beginners/ advanced musicians, of South Indian Classical music practiced today. Bringing back well settled and agreed solid evidences based on facts into discussions will [[stall] the progress.Naadapriya (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

Purandaradasar was NOT responsible for raga, tala, krithi or any of the other things mentioned - he is responsible for the system of teaching Carnatic music. He used the already existing concepts of ragas, talas etc. to create these lessons. This is a fact. As an experienced reviewer of Good Articles, and the WikiProject India Assessment Team, and as an editor, this is the final time I will remind you: the evidences and proposals suggested by you (to date) do not satisfy the referencing criteria and violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no assumption about about the origin of editors - again, Naadapriya continues to misrepresent what is being said.

Editors have tolerated (out of good faith) Naadapriya's persistent pushing for violations of Wikipedia policies, including WP:OWN, WP:OR, synthesis, POV-pushing etc. up until now. Please consider this a final warning - continuing to violate, or push for violating Wikipedia policies and guidelines in this manner (even after being informed of doing so) will result in Naadapriya facing consequences, which may include a permanent ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is observed that no other editor has made similar inappropriate comments. Using word 'editors' is incorrect. Again one cannot answer vague/abstract/attacking comments such as above. It is requested to keep comments specific on the topic and not attack the editor as per Wikipedia guidelines. Evidence supported editing is an on going process in Wikipedia and no one wants to freeze an incomplete article. Giving unwarranted notices to the editors such as above are against the Wikipedia policy and they have been alerted in the past. Naadapriya may not respond to further repeated comments such as above that violates Wikipedia guidelines.Naadapriya (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you would prefer that an administrator tells you that the notices are warranted, then I can proceed directly to making a formal report. The comment is not an attack - it's a warning. The word 'editors' is correct, as there is consensus that the article's title 'Carnatic music' is most appropriate (which Naadapriya appears to fail to accept). If Naadapriya chooses to continue editing and commenting in such a fashion that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and is banned as a result, of course, Naadapriya is welcome not to respond. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop intimidating and threatening newbies. If you have to do it, take it to your own talk pages, this isnt the place for your squabbles. Sarvagnya 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Repeated Undos

Two editors have repeatedly done 'undo' of consensus based corrections made by Naadpriya. One editor has not given any evidence based reason for ‘undo’. It is assumed that undo by Badagnani is solely based on the absence of the word ‘Karnatak’. As good practice if one had strongly felt about adding ‘Karnatak’ due to objective evidence, then it should have been added with an edit rather than undoing the whole consensus based correction. Earlier, the word ‘Karnatak’ was discussed where Badagnani participated and it was only in the context of the title. As a compromise, though the consensus was in favor of ‘Karnataka Music’, the title was allowed to remain as ‘Carnatic Music’ to comply with Wikipedia’s general guidelines on titles (in spite of exception as allowed for other titles could have been made). ‘Karnatak’ is short unofficial distorted version (some think it is slang) of ‘Karnataka’ by some North Indians similar to the use of ‘Mardrasi people’ instead of ‘Madras people’. People from South do not like such uncalled for distortions of the original words. However, somehow ‘Karnatak’ has seeped into English language. Though the use of ‘Karnatak’ is not popular among scholarly articles ( see publications from the prestigious Mysore University) about Carnatic Music, accepting Badagnani’s language based justification Naadapriya will modify the text to include ’Karnatak’ and add to the article. The mods will include the constructive edits made by editors who did not ‘Undo’. Editors who did not participate in discussions and those who undid in the past without giving objective justification should stop ‘undo’ and discuss first with evidence. Otherwise it will be reported as disruptive and vandalismNaadapriya (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Though the use of ‘Karnatak’ is not popular among scholarly articles" is incorrect; the evidence (provided weeks ago) shows that this is the favored term by Western ethnomusicologists specializing in this music, writing in the English language. Badagnani (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Following are results from todays Google search matching the exact words.

Karnataka Music - 4050

Karnataka Sangeetha-2540

Karnataka Sangeeta.-1790

Karnataka Sangita- 671

Karnataka Sangeetham-318

Karnataka Sangeetam.-90

Karnataka Sangitam- 136

Karnatak Music- 5780

Karnatak Sangeetha - 4

Karnatak Sangeeta -2

Karnatak Sangita - 0.

Karnatak Sangeethm - 0

Karnatak Sangitam - 0

Taking both India (I guess all agree that one cannot ignore the input from the country of origin of Karnataka Music!!) and other countries into considerations the original word ‘Karnataka’ is more in use than the short version ‘Karnatak’. Also not all scholars from West use Karnatak. Those honor the original name still use it. For e.g the reviewer’s excerpt from the book by German Music scholar Mr. Ludwig Pesch -The Illustrated Companion to South Indian Classical Music. By Ludwig Pesch. (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-564382-8), reads as ‘Two of the most common conceits of this musical cornucopia are the classical music traditions of North and South India (Hindustani sangit and Karnataka sangita, respectively).’

For now Naadpriya will defer the validity issue of ‘Karnatak’ to other experts and agree with English language based justification of Badagnani. In the revised version of edit by Naadpriya, ‘Karnatak’ will be cited in the first paragraph and ‘Karnataka’ will be maintained as the original name based on the strong objective evidences and consensus. This should answer the concern of Badagnani. Further ‘undo’ is considered as disruptive and vandalism and will be reported.Naadapriya (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The title remains because it is correct, not because of some sort of compromise - again, stop misrepresenting what has happened. Such a google search is not valid. Naadapriya's disruptive non-encyclopedic edits will be reported if they continue - stop violating POV, and synthesising material. They do not improve Wikipedia and continue to be disruptive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To date no one has shown real evidence that how 'Carnaic' used by Mogul kings was attached to the original name 'Karnataka Sangeetha'. The best guess that majority agree is it is a result Anglicization. English speaking world is accepting the withdrwal of Anglicized words say for e.g Chennai. Current title is based on compromise not accuracy.

None of my edits are synthesized material and they are not based on Google search. I posted data for information. Please stop misinterpretation as in the past that is stalling the progress towards posting accurate information. Still no withdrawal of offensive statement made in replying to my earlier comment.Naadapriya (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The history section

Wouldn't it make sense to extend the protection by another week, and try to work up an agreed draft of the section here in the meantime? As things stand, unprotection seems bound to simply ressurect the edit war, as I don't see any sign that the dispute that led to the repeated reverts has been resolved at all.

On the substance of the dispute that led to the protection, it seems to me that there are two separate issues here:

• (1) do we mention ancient Tamil music in the section on history
• (2) was ancient Tamil music a "source" from which Carnatic music evolved.

Regardless of what the answer to the second issue is, it seems to me that the anwer to the first issue is "yes." In addition to tracing the evolution of the theory of Carnatic music, we also need to trace the history of the music itself in South India. The Sama Veda was composed in the North, as was the Ramayana. When do we actually see evidence of this musical tradition in the South? It's here that citing the Silappadhikaram is relevant - there are academic sources such as Emmie te Nijenhuis's Indian music: History and Structure which take the view that the paṇs of the Silappadhikaram were "ancient Karnatak modes" (pp. 4-5) (as an aside, there are also some 17th century Tamil musical texts which use the Silappadhikaram's terminology to describe Carnatic music). Similarly, the Kudumiyanmalai inscription - and, to the extent scholarly literature (e.g. Sambamoorthy) supports the view that its paṇs are old ragas, the Thevaram - deserve a mention, because they evidence the fact that this particular musical tradition was practiced in South India at that date.

As far as the second issue goes, the history section really needs a substantial rewrite, which'll require us to consult the academic literature in some detail. If ancient Tamil music was a source from which Carnatic music evolved, there should be academic articles or treatises tracing the process of its evolution, which we'll find when we're doing the research. -- Arvind (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• 3) You forgot the third issue. Whether "Karnataka music" should be included in the etymology section. Seems like it is a fairly commonly used name and I dont see a reason not to include it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That was because I didn't think that that was being disputed any longer. As I saw it, it was just a question of finding the sources which set out the etymology and what it might have meant at the time. I agree that it should be included. -- Arvind (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• 4) fourth issue: The sections pertaining to Carnatic musicians, instrumentalists, templates there in all have to be cleaned up to include only "Legends" and not every other musician, however notable they are, locally speaking.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• 5)It is important to elaborate on the Musical treatises written in the 12-16th century time frame since this part of Carnatic history is well accepted and established. Just stating that some developments took place in the Vijayanagara era is insufficient. I believe Sarvagnya was the one who took the trouble to write a gem of a page called the "Vijayanagara musicological nonet". In addition, this article on the "nonet" has to be made a sub-article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

One option may be to write an FA-quality article on History of Carnatic Music, discussing each of the phases of its evolution (of which Vijayanagara is definitely an important one), and then to summarise all of that in a history section here. That might actually be the best way to resolve all the disputes here - writing an article of that sort would require an amount of research that should iron all these issues out. -- Arvind (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read this. Well, I had just created this article Origins and history of Carnatic music thinking it would iron out these issues too, so I think we can go from there. I would suggest no further direct ill-informed (bad-faith) comments are made (by editors such as Dineshkannambadi) that are a misrepresentation of other editors, their intentions, comments or edits in general, as this is a policy violation in itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of the forth, all of the issues should be elaborated, I think, on the new page and sifted there, prior to deciding what should be included here and how to include it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To elaborate on my suggestion above, I'm suggesting a couple of sentences along these lines:

An early example of the practice of this musical tradition in South India are the panns of the Silappadhikaram, a fifth century epic in Tamil, which have been described by Emmie te Nijenhuis as "ancient Karnatak modes" (Nijenhuis 1973, 4-5). The seventh century Kudumiyamalai inscription contains a series of musical notes were used to instruct pupils in the full melodic qualities and materiel of the seven earliest ragas in Indian music (Widdess 1979, 119-120, 140). By the tenth century, South Indian musical compositions such as the Tamil devotional poems of the Tevaram displayed many features of modern Carnatic music, such as bhashanga and jiva ragas (Sambamurthy 1974, 91-92).

...and then continuing into the theoretical developments in the Sangita Ratnakara, the Haridasas, Purandara Dasa, the Vijayanagara period, Chaturdandi, post-Vijayanagara developments and so on.

I'm not wedded to this wording (I'm not very happy with the last sentence, for example), but is the general idea acceptable? -- Arvind (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not the best judge of this issue. A large audience will have to included. Also, growth of traditional temple music in all parts of South India needs to be included in the evolution during the early medieval era. I can provide citations for advanced level of music prevailing in the Badami Chalukya kingdom based on sculptural depictions (7th century) of musical intruments etc. I am just giving an idea how the evolution has to be described and expanded, not laying down a norm.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, that definitely needs to be there. I hadn't thought about sculptural depictions. -- Arvind (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)Will reserve comments on (1) but (2) doesnt belong in this article simply because it would be a case of undue weight. References to panns and ancient tamil music in scholarly works is few and far between. Emmie te Nijenhuis (along with Sambamurthy), I am aware is one of the few who makes a throwaway mention of the Silappadikaram and panns. He doesnt substantiate enough for us to afford it space in a WP:SS article. Even Sambamurthy, if memory serves me right, only glosses over the similarities between ATM and present day Carnatic music. He retroactively reconciles and consolidates ATM under present day Carnatic concepts. That is far from a reconstruction of CM history where ATM had served as a pitstop.

Also, by the time of the Silappadikaram and the Tevarams, Sanskritic culture had taken firm roots in all of South India including Tamil Nadu. Contemporary kings were issuing grants primarily in Sanskrit and Sanskritic and quasi-Sanskritic shcools of aesthetics had taken root through not only Vedic/Brahamanic but also a great deal through Buddhistic an Jaina schools. So it is anybody's guess how much, if at all, ATM influenced CM. Passing similarities dont equate to ATM giving birth to.. or even being a source of CM. It may well have been a source, but I am yet to see any evidence of that in scholarly literature. It is at best, speculation. For that matter, Hindusatani Music (HM) and CM have a helluva great deal in common.. but it would be disingenuous to claim that one is a source of the other. The only informed conclusion we can draw is that both emerged from common traditions which must have been pan-indian. And pan-Indian musical tradition (of which we have any historical attestation) starts with the sama veda.

Months ago, I'd pointed out that entire books on CM have been written without so much as mentioning "Panns" or "Silappadikaram" or "ATM". In contrast, not one book or paper dealing with the evolution/history of CM fails to mention (even if without elaboration) the Sama Veda or the Natya Shastra or Brihaddesi or SR or Haridasas etc.,. And saying SV is north indian and that ATM is the earliest instance of south indian tradition we have evidence for can seem rather contrived. Sama Veda was written more than a 1000 or more years before recorded south indian history (or even Indian history for that matter) even starts. I am not saying south indians or tamilians didnt have musical traditions before Sama Veda got introduced into the south. imo, it is almost intuitive that any group of ten people or more should have had some form of a music going in them. But if we do not have historical attestation of that, we do not have historical attestation of that and we simply dont take it upon ourselves to overcompensate somewhere else by stretching and extrapolating what we have. Sarvagnya 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the majority of treatises about the history of Carnatic music do not talk about the Thevaram or Silappadhikaram. But I'm not sure that's so much a reflection of their lack of importance as of the fact that the majority of books deal mostly with the history of the theory of Carnatic music prior to the Haridasa period: the Thevarams (and the Divya Pirabandham) are musical compositions, not theoretical works, and the Silappadhikaram has descriptions but is not expressly theoretical, so they don't feature. But this is starting to change, as shown by works like those of Sambamoorthy and Nijenhuis (or even N. Ramanathan, though he deals with a much later period).

That having been said, I do not personally think there is much to be gained by debating which was the source of the other in relation to ATM and Carnatic Music. By the time of the Thevaram, at least, it's clear that they're part of the same tradition. But, from what I know of the literature on ancient India, whether that tradition was a native South Indian one influenced by Sanskritic traditions, or a Sanskritic one influenced by South Indian traditions, or something completely different isn't a question we can really answer at present, because the earliest records we have of South Indian society already show contact with the North, so we have little idea of what South Indian society was like before said contact. Still, musical history is somewhat outside my area of expertise, which is why I'm a little averse to totally ruling out option (2). -- Arvind (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

S.Ramanathan is an established expert in Carnatic music, per se. Not only is he qualified as a vocalist and instrumentalist, but he received the Sangita Kalanidhi award as a musicologist, while earlier receiving a Ph. D. in Ethnomusicology by Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut in recognition of his musical research into ancient Tamil literature of the Sangam period, while receiving praise by the same university for his meticulous research into the foundations of Carnatic music and other ancient Tamil works. With a clear indication that "Dr. S. Ramanathan [has] spoke about the classical ragas of Carnatic music derived from Tamil folk music and used by the Trinity in their compositions." (quoted from page 60 of 'Shanmukha’, Journal of the Sri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Sangeetha Sabha, Mumbai), and mentioned in other scholarly literature (including a 2001 university dissertation that off-memory is yet to be sourced), there is no reason not to include this content unless another established expert has directly said to the contrary (and again, there is none). I need not remind certain editors that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is, after all, verifiability. This matter is sufficiently notable for (at the very least) a mention here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ncmvocalist. I don't think anyone seriously disputes the fact that many Carnatic ragams are derived from folk music. Dr. N. Ramanathan makes an even stronger argument in relation to the influence of folk music on Carnatic music in 17th century Thanjavur, to which he attributes fundamental aspects of Carnatic music, such as niraval and kalpana swarams, the "shake" and "oscillation" around svarasthanams, and so on. You'll find his fascinating piece in the December 2005 issue of Sruti (where, incidentally, he also examines the issue of the links between Ancient Tamil Music's panns and ragams, and comes to the conclusion that we can't say which influenced which), and as I indicated on the reliable sources noticeboard, I think this viewpoint also merits mention. But none of this speaks to the issue of Ancient Tamil Music. Tamil folk music is not the same as the music in the Silappadhikaram, and if Dr. S. Ramanathan says that the former was a source for Carnatic ragams, it doesn't automatically mean that there were links to the musical system described in the Silappadhikaram. It seems to me that the best source to ascertain what Dr. S. Ramanathan actually thought about the influence of Ancient Tamil Music on Carnatic music is likely to be his 1979 treatise Music in Cilappatikaaram. It's been over 15 years since I read that work and I don't remember his views very clearly, but I recently ordered a copy which should arrive in a month or so. -- Arvind (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But why is it S. Ramanathan, suddenly narrows it down purely to Tamil folk music? Well, that even I'm not sure about. The viewpoint you have mentioned would merit (at the very least) a mention. As a btw, I did read your reply at the nonet article - I wasn't saying N.Ramanathan isn't an established expert of Carnatic music, per se, but how you ascertained it (will elaborate on your talk page as I fear it may become slightly irrelevant if I post it there or here).(User talk:Ncmvocalist) 12:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding influence of ATM on CM, it is not enough if S. Ramanathan says there are links between the two. It has to be widely accepted. Verifyablity is the first step, popularity is the next most important thing in wiki. Regarding the influence of Tamil folk music on CM, that should go in the section of development, not origin.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly enough if S. Ramanathan has said that CM has derived its concepts from Ancient Tamil works, or any other ancient works for that matter, even if editors here are unconvinced. The mention would be warranted in the article, as long as it is from a verifiable (reliable) source. S. Ramanathan is an established expert in the field (with enough mentions in the academic context, as well as enough recognition and qualifications), so even if it came to down to a source that was, for example, a self-published source, it would satisfy the referencing criteria, as he has spoken about this topic in more reliable publications. This issue has nothing to do with popularity or undue weight, because it is merely a mention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

...the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is, after all, verifiability. - Yes the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, not necessarily this article, is verifiability. Academic hypotheses and scholarly 'loud thinking', regardless of popularity or reception is definitely encyclopedic and merits a place in some corner of wikipedia.. but the inclusion of such material in an article cannot be in contravention of WP:UNDUE and the caveats of WP:SS (for this article). S Ramanathan's views certainly merit a place in Ancient Tamil music and perhaps even History of South Indian music.. but certainly not on this article. Sarvagnya 19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Statements on origins are very big statements. Needs support from several experts. This is the whole reason WP:UNDUE exists. IMO, ATM should be a seperate article and NOT attached as a sub-article to Origin of Carnatic music because even in the origin article, statements need broad acceptance.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not entirely true as it is not a mere 'tiny minority' view. No one has been able to produce a source by an equally established expert in the field to directly contradict what is being said. Even recent 'scholarly' sources have found that they cannot in anyway rebutt the 'big statement' despite additional research. The material is certainly not insignificant, and would warrant a mention because of its direct relevance, and weight by the established expert himself. You are going about it wrongly because it is not undue weight - the mention would be proportionate, upon the completion of the origins and history article. Twisting your own subjective interpretation into the clear words of these sources is not going to resolve anything, nor does it postively contribute towards improving the article. This material belongs in both atm and cm articles and saying it can be included in one and not the other is blatant nonsense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because one expert has suggested similarities and others have not pounced on him to decry it or accept it, it does not mean that its notable. Again, one needs to consider what the topic is about. If one or two or three scholar mentions that ATM existed (just as ancient music did exist all over India, not just Tamil speaking reagions), it is enough to create a small artice on it. If one scholar says that there are similarities between ATM and CM, its not enought to flaunt it in the Carnatic music article. Even for other scholars to give that issue importance and accept or decry it, it has to be considered something worth spending time on. If it is really such a notable observation, it should be mentioned in atleast a few notable journals/documents/scholarly papers giving detailed explanations/justifications as to why he/she belives so. Please read WP:UNDUE carefully. Let us consider the origin of Vijayanagara empire as an example. Untill about 1920's, scholars were convinced tht Harihara I and Bukka Raya I (the founders) were Telugu. P.B. Desai and Saletore argued against it. But because they were local Kannadiga historians, foreign scholars and the academicia in general rejected it as local pride, untill more and more scholars, including foreign and non-Kannada speaking scholars, got invloved using more modern methods of epigraphy, and started to support a Kannadiga origin of the founders. Even today, it is impossible to say which belief is more supported. So, it takes time for a theory to become something worthy of popular research. Then time and research will decide if it is viable one. You really have to wait for this ATM-->CM theory to become popular even from the point of view of " direct influence". Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, stop twisting your own subjective interpretation into Wikipedia policies, as well as the sources. It appears that certain editors are making this a habit now. Your argument about notability is nonsense. The only person you are convincing is yourself and perhaps certain editors of the Kannada project. And again, he hasn't merely suggested there are similarities, nor is he the only scholar. I would suggest you get your facts right. It is not for you to decide whether the reasoning given by these scholars is sufficient/detailed enough or not - you are neither an established expert in the field, nor appear to have much knowledge in the field at all as it stands. And your argument isn't comparible - just because there is no disagreement with S.Ramanathan doesn't mean that it is not worthy of being added. S.Ramanathan, like Sambhamurthy, both have awards, recognition, qualifications and are notable with all of these in all senses of the field - vocal, instrumental AND most importantly, as musiclogists. They are arguably the most authoritative of modern scholars in the field. I would suggest instead of attempting to find ways for it not being included through (invalid) Wikipedia reasoning, that you find some authorities that directly contradict what is stated. Being limited in knowledge, does not limit the level of research one can conduct, I'm sure. However, there is enough authority and notability for this to be mentioned, and it certainly is not unduely being flaunted as unreasonably suggested by editors of the Kannada project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about prominent musicians section

The forth issue is something that I oppose again. They are not musicians that are merely notable locally. They are the most prominent musicians both throughout India (North, South, regional areas etc.), and throughout the world (USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, UAE etc.) The locally known or 'up and rising' musicians are in a list (or should be there), but the link needs to be re-added. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Musicians dont become legends by performaing in Singapore, Canada or USA. Anyway, seems like every issue on this article will eventually boil down to a vote. So be it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

They're considered prominent not just across India, but outside of India is the point that is being made. Nothing was said about them being legendary like those in the golden era, nor was anything said about the requirements for becoming a legend, so stop imagining it and making it out as if it was said. And while you're at it, might as well stop imagining that Wikipedia resolves disputes like this by voting. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how we're going to be able to resolve the issue of who's a "notable" artist and who isn't. The list as it stands at present seems quite reasonable to me, but given that we have at least one contributor here who appear to take the view that T. R. Mahalingam - who I'd personally regard as probably the most notable Carnatic flautist - wasn't significant enough to even deserve an article, I'm guessing opinions are going to wildly differ. It may be worth looking at how articles on other music traditions (Western classical music, Chinese classical music, etc.) handle this. -- Arvind (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

T.R.mahalingam is certainly notable and significant enough to go in. I'm lost as to how he was excluded. Somehow, perhaps due to its unique nature, I don't think either of the Indian Classical Music articles (HM or CM) can be comparible in this regard to articles on other forms of music. But, it is quite a reasonable list, as you have noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

yank the whole thing out -imo, the section about prominent artists as it stands is an eyesore. I would yank the whole thing out and think a little about how, if at all to bring it back. The section is little more than a random list of names. I am not even sure such a section even belongs in this SS article. All those names and more can be dumped in List of Carnatic musicians or some such article. having said that.. and fwiw, imo Mali is notable several times over to merit his own article on wikipedia and enc britannica and any other repository of knowledge worth its salt. But then, so is Ramani.. and Shashank .. even Chandan kumar for that matter. And then there's an endless list of violinists and mridangists and vainikas and .... Once again, imo the entire section is worthless as it now stands. Sarvagnya 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both Arvind and Sarvagnya in that it would be difficult to decide who is notable and who is not, though I am sure there must exist an encyclopaedia that names legends. The encyclopaedia itself must be of generic nature to Carnatic music, without focussing on local performers. As such, just as a host of great performers from (for example) Mysore court have their own sub-article (created by me), so should sub-articles for musicians from Tamil Nadu be created, instead of making them an eye-sore. A seperate article for Carnatic musicians from Rudrapatna (in Hassan) would be another example. Only the greatest of the greats should be mentioned here on the main page. Again for this we have to depend on solid encyclopaedia.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

They aren't prominent as mere local musicians. Complete and utter nonsense. Most of the musicians of today are prominent for having learnt under the legends, or performing with these legends and for continuing the tradition, so that the art form doesn't become extinct today. Even if some people are passionate about history, it doesn't eliminate the fact that the who is prominent in today's context is needed. Priya Sisters for example aren't added purely because they are from Andra, or Nithyashree for example isn't added purely because she is from Thiruvayyaru or Unnikrishnan for being from Kerala. That argument isn't valid at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with above suggestions by 3 editors that the whole section on the controversial list of prominent musicians need to be removed. The deficiency of section was identified in item 7 of section ‘Needs extensive corrections’. Judgment about musicians is beyond the scope of this article.Naadapriya (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Several administrators have been able to establish notability, so ill-informed editors would better serve themselves to stop assuming WP:OWN, as the grounds on which they are being deleted are invalid. All is needed is a rewrite. Editors who are either incapable or deliberately choose not to be bold in contributing to a rewrite do not have the authority to delete this content. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

sigh. This is silly. Dumping a list of artists on this article is akin to dumping a list of all cricket players - past and present on the Cricket article. If you want to rewrite it, why dont you do it on the List of Carnatic musicians article and then depending on whether the article actually 'improved' or the ad hoc list simply got longer, we can sit together and decide what, if at all, to import from that article into this article. For sanity's sakes, this is a WP:SS article and stop dumping a list of random names even if they happen to be of acknowledged legends. Sarvagnya 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

These aren't comparible, and I'm sure you are capable enough to figure that out. There are no valid grounds for the deletion of this content from here, especially while it is being revamped, even if you don't want it to be. You need assume good faith in knowing it will be improved, and more than that, be patient (seemingly foreign concepts to you in recent times). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The long laundary list in the TOC needs to be trimmed. What is 'Past Present Vocalists' and same for instrumentalists. Either an artist is past or present.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The TOC doesn't need to be trimmed as yet. Patience is something certain editors clearly lack. An artist who was prominent in the past, can still live to be prominent in the present. This doesn't automatically mean that they fall in the present category, as their contributions in the past are equally notable. This past-present category removes the need to mention their name twice. However, the rewrite may result in the removal of this category (dependingly). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Too Much Information? Ignore It. Who said that? I guess Mr Marc Anderson, a founder of Netscape Communications. This article is becoming a run-away type. Still the list of Carnatic musicians is not correct and it can never be complete. What criteria was used? Just public performances in a specific state? How can the list of prominent musicians be complete without Harmonium Arunachalappa ( who gave full solo performance even in Calcutta and also accompanied many such as BMK), Mysore Violin Brothers, Mridanga HR Ramachar, Mridanga Praveen ( accompanied Chembai at age of 13!), Bengalluru Benepet Kanjera Thimmanna, Bombay Sisters, flute BN Suresh, Jagadodaarana RajIyengar ( introduced to MS Jagadodarana , a compostion that got high international/UN recognition), todays MS/MLV MS Sheela, Silicon Valley Mrudhanga Narayanan, Bengaluuru Akkipet Morning Raaga Rangachar, Flute Srinath, Mysore Nagamani, Knowledge city Bidadi’s Ramana Shastri, Guitar Praveen, Guitar Nikil Joshi, Silicon Valley Guru and Vidhushi Jayashri (many productions, solos, CDs, Books, 100s of students), Violin Anuradha Sridhar, BMK’s foremost disciple Cisco’s Ragavan Manian ( innovative Jugle Bandhist), YesuDasa’s foremost disciple Sridharan, ManiIyer’s foremost disciple Ramesh Babu, Kalakshetras Pavitran, TVG’s foremost disciple Mrudhanga Vadi Bhat (Karnataka music promoter and founder of Silicon Valley prestigious Lotus group) , Movie Playback and Classical Vocalist Ramaprasad, last but not the least the India’s all time movie star Dr. Raj Kumar who got the prestigious presidential national award for Karnataka Classical style music in a film ........and so on and on and on. I have heard these publicly recognized artists either live in big concerts, in radio, in HMV records or while accompanying them in a public concert. These present/past artists are second to none to the many listed. There is no end for the list. One goes dizzy thinking about it. In addition there may be many prominent Karnakaka (Carnatic) Musicians who stay away from publicity.

Just as it was suggested by many editors the list needs to be deferred to other articles and to keep this accurate SS. Unless there is a regulated international committee to classify artists, what one says here becomes either subjective or speculative. Inadvertently it may also insult those left-out. It is time to focus on fixing the current main deficiencies already pointed out and discussed than introducing more. Wikipedia articles are sources of accurate information not a means of judgment.Naadapriya (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest articles are created for these supposed prominent musicians listed above, because most currently fall under the article list of carnatic musicians, or under no place in Wikipedia for their lack of prominence or notability. It is not Wikipedia's problem if they stay away from publicity to the point they are not considered notable or prominent. It is, fortunate I note, that you finally make something that is actually a positive contribution towards any article in Wikipedia - that would be the list of Carnatic musicians. I suggest you start writing articles to demonstrate each artist's notability and prominence. Bombay Sisters is a name that was missed, but will be added to the list of prominent musicians section during the rewrite. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misinterpret my comments as done several times in the past. Plese refer to the last paragraph again. I have not endorsed adding the list to this article. Bye the bye I forgot Ubaya Sangeetha Praveens (masters of both Hidustani and Karnataka Music) Sri Panchakshari Gavai and Sri Puttaraja Gavai. Like this I am sure that there are many that editors may not know. Wikipedia article are based on accuracy not solely based on publicity. As suggested by many above just let it be differed to a separate article and focus on fixing current short comings of this article. Responding comments should focus on topic and refrain from giving advices assuming the ownership. Naadapriya (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no misinterpretation or assumption of ownership, so again, please refrain misrepresenting what is said or meant. Your reasoning is invalid as they are neither prominent or notable to suggest there will be too many names. This section is in need of improvement, which is why focus is being placed here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All cited and many more artists that can be identified are all as prominent or notable as those already in the list. A accompanying artist can confidently say this. What happened to names of Honappa Bhgavatar of Bengalooru and Radha-Jayalakshmi of Chennai!!!!. Some more e.g.s are the foremost disciple of KVN, Hemmige Srivatsan Los Angeles and President's Gold Medal winning Karnataka music film Hamsageethe's Karnataka music playback singer A SubbaRao. List can go on and on. One editor cannot make a decision on who is notable/prominent and who is not.

Yes the previous comment has clearly misiterpreted earlier comments by Naadapriya. Naadapriya never endorsed adding the list to the current article. He quoated examples to show that adding the list is beyond the scope of the current article. It will be wise to defer the list to a separate article.Naadapriya (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

As the article itself correctly states that verifiable and accessible historical documents for Karnataka (Carnatic) music are available only after 15th century. The important documented evidences are thousand compositions that Sri Purandara Daasa (Sri PD) composed based on the innovative concepts Raaga, Tala and Krithi/Keertana format which are further developed and practiced by millions today. Any statements regarding present-day Karnataka (Carnatic) music based on that before 15th century should go as background or differed to other articles. Just like equations existed and apples were falling before Newton invented Gravitational Theory there were scatter forms of music before Sri PD founded the new formal Karnataka (Carnatic) music. Though specific information is not available, one can make a reasonable guess that all Southern states/languages including some from North had influence on the formation of the new music form, Karnataka (Carnatic) music. High lighting just from one state/language is not appropriate for this article and it should be removed. Such information should be deferred to articles such as ‘Music of ……. State’. As some had mentioned in the past any good article should have a clear upper boundary condition, other wise it gets diluted and looses its value. The well documented 15th Century development is the undisputed and concrete upper boundary condition for Karnataka (Carnatic) music. Also my interpretation is that Wikipedia articles should not be very long like a thesis and they should be a concise road map to accurate and verifiable information.

A generic statement same or similar to suggested earlier ‘Some elements in the formation of this extensive and innovative new musical form might have resulted from the systematic scientific study of various scattered forms of Dravidian, Aryan and possibly Persian music existed in India before 15th century’ should be adequate.Naadapriya (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your proposal has already been rejected. A generic statement (including a vague weasal statement like that) is not adaquate. In future 'proposals', please add constructive elements that adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For a start, see WP:V. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No proposal can be rejected outright. No one owns this space here. Everyone has the right to propose, whether it is eventually accepted or not is a different issue.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If it violates Wikipedia policy, then yes, it would be rejected outright. Everybody has a right to propose, as long as it complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines where applicable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus that article needs many corrections is clearly positive. Except for one no one among about 6-7 editors who participated recently has rejected it. Does the previous comment and one before that by the same editor mean correcting the article referring to Wikipedia's existing articles is against the Wikipedia policy???? Constructive comments than those which stall the progress are needed. Specific reasons for a valid rejection justified with objective evidences are needed. Abstract comments will not help.Naadapriya (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Naadapriya. I appreciate your concern about highlighting just Tamil works. There's an easy solution to that, though. Feel free to add examples of South Indian musical compositions in Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Tulu, Kodava or Sanskrit from the 5th or 10th century which are recognised in at least one scholarly work as demonstrating "Ancient Carnatic modes" or containing "early examples of ragas". -- Arvind (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Arvind, Why dont you show us one writing in Tamil from the period of Sama Veda and prove the same for Tamil? I hope I understood your question to Naadapriya. If I did not, sorry about this reply.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you did. It's not a question of "proving" anything about Tamil or Kannada. Carnatic music is a pan-South Indian art, and examples from various periods exist in various languages. Between the fifth and tenth centuries, most of the pieces which the scholarly literature identifies as containing elements of Carnatic music are in Tamil - just like in the Haridasa period, they're mostly in Kannada. My response to anyone who grumbles about an overemphasis on Kannada pieces in a section dealing with the Haridasa period would be to tell them to find scholarly references to Carnatic pieces in Tamil from that period and add them in, rather than saying that talking so much about Kannada introduces a regional bias. To Naadapriya, I was trying to say much the same thing, only the other way around. -- Arvind (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it. We just need to ensure that each topic gets its due weightage. And the weightage has to conform to "established" theories, not "supposed" theories. Also, as we all have time and agin mentioned on this discussion, the theories should be main stream, not revisionist. I totally agree that Carnatic music is Pan-south Indian and even Pan-Indian. No ethnic/linguistic group can lay claim to it. This, not surprisingly, holds good for other arts as well, such as architecture.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with above comments that no single language can claim credit over Karnataka (Carnatic) music. However most information about present day Karnataka (Carnatic) music from dates before 15th century are either sketchy, speculative, emotional, incidental, specific group-patriotic, accidental, extrapolated or reverse engineering. A generic statement as suggested above is sufficient. For sure all languages and cultures including Vedas had impact on founding of new music form, Karnataka (Carnatic) music by Sri Purandara Daasa in early 15th century. Due to lack of uncontroversial evidences possible contributions to Karnataka (Carnatic) music from languages before 15th century should be deferred to articles on those languages. There is lot to write about the well documented contributions from all languages after 15th century. In fact, I am researching based on real evidences (no weasel) about ‘use of folk music style that Sri Purandara Daasa (Kannada) and Sri Papanasam Sivan (Tamil) introduced for classical Karnataka Music which is successfully experimented in concerts by many famous musicians recently’. Evidences include live recording archived at the Stanford University. Already I am sensing that Tamil has more influence than Kannada for folk style in Karnataka Classical music. I will try to document them.

Finally, for sure the present article needs immediate major corrections that many editors have suggested in above discussions ..Naadapriya (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing that is "supposed" so perhaps you ought to stop suggesting otherwise, or again, you'll be misrepresenting what is said. If one has a limited knowledge or background in the field, then they certainly have no authority to make a statement like that, especially when it has been written about on several occasions.

In any case, at this stage I'm convinced that a new article on the Origins and history of Carnatic music would be the place to include and elaborate any information as everyone is limited in how much they can say in this summary style article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How much knowledge one has in this field was exemplified when one tried to remove the paragraph on Carnatic instrumental music in the Mysore court, several months back. So much for knowledge.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Once one's knowledge and experience in the field actually grows beyond the mysore court, if that ever happens, and once one learns to stop holding onto grudges with all of those who disagree with one being so unreasonable, then perhaps it would be more clear. Of course, it is fascinating to note that this is the only positive contribution made to this article that one can boast about. On the other hand, there are editors who actively demonstrate that they have more knowledge and experience in the field. Perhaps one should gain some of what one is lacking, and learn to move on from these petty grudges. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

NCMV, I have never claimed knowledge of CM, though history is my passion and that does give me the right perspective to approach such issues. In fact, if you could have been a little more deliberate, I could have learnt a few things from you too about CM, but that seems a distant possibility now. No, I dont hold a grudge against you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that reasoning is questionable. If you showed a much more active desire to learn, or took more active steps to learn 'a few things', then the result would have been quite different. A mere passion for a general field does not give the right perspective to approach such issues. Compare it to a combination of passion, knowledge and experience in a particular topic and maybe it would be more clear. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tsk, Tsk.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanking of image

It's not clear why this image was blanked. Can it be explained? That would be great. Badagnani (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A picture of this one trinity is given more importance over the other two, and as seen in previous discussions (in the last couple of years), the only way to keep it balanced is placing the appropriate image near the relevant text - i.e. a picture of all three of the Trinity near the relevant text. There was no reasonable basis for removing the Papanasam Sivan image so this was re-added near the relevant text. Is it clear now?

If this becomes too much of an issue, then like with the prominent artists section, this section would be moved to another article and very generic comments about composers (without names) would make up this section instead. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Like it or lump it, Papanasam Siva simply cannot trump the trinity - one of them or all of them. We will add an image of the trinity (all three of them) once we find such an image. Until then, Muthuswamy Dikshitar will remain along with Purandara Dasa the most notable composer of whom we have an image. Sarvagnya 02:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just not a problem to have both. There's not an overabundance of photos in the article (yet) to prevent both of these eminent figures from appearing. Badagnani (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of overabundance. It is a question of WP:UNDUE. Papanasam Shiva, eminent as he is, is not in the same league as Purandara Dasa or the trinity. He simply cannot be included here at their expense. And the section about prominent composers isnt big enough (yet) to accomodate two images. Sarvagnya 06:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sivan is not being included at their expense. I am not opposing an image of the trinity being included - I am opposing on valid grounds that undue weight is being given to any one of the trinity. (Dikshitar is included at the expense of Thyagaraja and Syama Sastri of the Trinity. This has no effect on Papanasam Sivan's inclusion.) Your argument is nonsensical. As for the image of Purandaradasar, it was kept near the relevant text as agreed in discussions that took place in the last two years. This is the best way to ensure balance. It is senseless to revert this image to the origins section (like the third-rate version of the article that existed a couple of years ago, prior to the improvements made now). And to think you voice these POV arguments because you couldn't upload an image of the trinity instead. And btw, the original image of the trinity that was in the article was tagged for deletion by Amarrg - so thank you amarrg for frivolously having it deleted before a source was added, instead of being bold in fixing the petty issue for yourself - the latter being a trademark of certain editors that coincidentally happen to be from the Kannada WikiProject. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How silly can you get? You want me to search for the source of an image that YOU uploaded, it cannot get sillier than this. You knew that the image was tagged for no source, then why didn't you add the source yourself? By the way, the image does not get deleted immediately, there is a grace period provided to the uploader to provide the source. Lethargy is your problem not mine. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 05:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont get your argument. You're sore that Dikshitar is being added at the expense of T and SS but you're fine Pap. Shiva being added at T and SS' expense?!! Can an argument get sillier? In the absence of an image of all three of the trinity, an image of atleast one of them is 'next best'. Not an image of Papanasam Shiva! If you want Papanasam Shiva, I can jolly well add an image of the Mysore Maharaja who was a renowned composer. And if amar tagged something for deletion and it got deleted, then it means that it indeed was worthy of deletion and he did wikipedia a favour by getting it deleted. We cant have cpvios lying around simply because they happen to be your favourites! And if it was 'frivolously' deleted as you put it, what is preventing you from re-uploading it with the necessary info? Sarvagnya 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything was preventing me from doing so because there isn't - the fact I choose not to is none of your business. Your friend has ensured there is no image of the trinity until someone reuploads it - not my problem. Papanasam Sivan's image is placed at the end of the section where the relevant text exists - the space is still open for a image of the trinity. Threatening to insert an irrelevant image of a Mysore Maharajah only demonstrates what sort of editor you are to this article - a non-constructive one. Purandaradasar, The Trinity and Papanasam Sivan are from 3 very different periods and are by far, the most prominent in their respective times. Petty nitpicking and pushing a Kannada and apparently anti-tamil POV (given the fact you can't even spell his name properly) does not improve the article, but locks it. An image of Dikshithar is undue without Thyagaraja or Syama Sastri, and even you know that. I wonder when you'll actually start showing an actual positive contribution instead of your nonsensical petty issues. If there is still no consensus that these 3 images are the most appropriate, then the entire section would be moved to another article and only generic comments about composers can be given here to maintain NPOV and balance, like with the artists section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An image of Dikshithar is undue without Thyagaraja or Syama Sastri, and even you know that - No. I dont know that! And you dont know the first thing about WP:UNDUE. I cant believe that we're even having this discussion. I have nothing against Papanasam Shiva. But he's simply not in the same league as the trinity. Not even close. Not by a long long shot. Papanasam Shiva, is at best in the same league as the Maharaja of Mysore. And if your ignorance of the Maharaja clouds your judgement, I can only ask you to do a little more reading before you choose to parade your ignorance. Also, I was only giving an example when I spoke about the Maharaja. I think wikipedia has an image of Mysore Vasudevachar and even that image could be a replacement for Papanasam Shiva. Then again, Mysore Vasudevacharya is not in the same league as the trinity either. Or we could even have Swati Tirunal if we have an image of him. Papanasam Shiva is way UNDUE here. Sarvagnya 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a point to note. Papanasamsivan.jpg doesn't qualify as fair use for this article. It may be used as fair use in Papanasam Sivan as it qualifies there. I don't think the same criteria for fair use can be applied in this article for that image. Gnanapiti (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing clouding your judgement is your blatant Kannada and anti-tamil pov, which has been evidenced in every discussion about this article that you have decided to get involved with. They are in 3 different periods, with Papanasam Sivan being the most prominent in the modern era - some knowledge that you clearly lack. Mysore Vasudevachar is far too earlier, and has no relevance to the text that exists. Swati Thirunal is not in the modern era, duh. Stop trying to find excuses to exclude Papanasam Sivan, when there is no valid justification. For now, the section is being moved to prevent the Kannada group edit-warring for POV on this article, as it has done in the past. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is logical, rational and a common sense to include Trinity's photo before posting that of any later composers. The new edit to add one of the Trinities photo in the absence of availability of all three is appropriate. One is better than none. This was also pointed out earlier in Item 8 of 'Needs extensive corrections' section above.Naadapriya (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya is quite correct in this statement. The removal of the image was irrational. Badagnani (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani is requested to read the comments correctly. Random inputs with misinterpretations are disruptive for logical discussions. My comment is about supporting the inclusion of the Trinity's photo not about removal of any photos as implied in the previous comment.Naadapriya (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense Gnanapati. It seems certain unreasonable editors hell-bent on POV as seen in past discussions (Sarvagnya, among others) in this section too, so like with the artists section, all names are being moved to the list of prominent composers article. This prevents further edit-warring on the matter - the section can be brought back once an image of the trinity is uploaded, and as before, the 3 images of Purandaradasar, The Trinity and Papanasam Sivan take this section. Until then, images of prominent composers/artists should not be added as it would be undue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is vandalism. Can anybody here please talk some sense into Ncmvocalist? He'd do well to understand that he cant simply do away with an entire section on whim. Sarvagnya 05:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I second User:Sarvagnya here. Ncmvocalist's actions in the recent past have to be scrutinised. He has resorted to edit-warring without proper justifications, removed proper tags without explanations and threatens users to report to admins for flimsy content disputes. This cannot go on forever. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The unreasonable editors from the Kannada (anti-Tamil) group will have to answer for themselves in a while. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

New section on Ugaabogas needed for the article

Please review this new section and add your corrections/comments say within 2 weeks before it can be sent to Admn to include in the article. Please support your comments with valid references.

---

Ugaabogas

Is integral part of Karnataka Music concert where the artist elaborates the treatment of raga characteristics through lyric based freestyle 'Ugaabogas'. [76]. It is item of Krithi that Sri Purandara Daasa introduced in 15th Century CE when he laid out the format for Carnatic music. Later it led to lyric less freestyle rendering of raga known as allapane (discussed later). Ugaabogas are common in popular concerts attended both by connoisseurs and non- connoisseurs of music. Most of the Ugaabogas are composed in Kannada by Purandara Daasa and Kanaka Dasa. Recently in 19th century CE similar concepts are also introduced in Tamil by Papanasam Sivan [77]. Ugaabogas are attractive for those who may not understand the nuances of raga as they pay attention to meaningful lyrics. Lyrics of Ugaabogas contain either devotional or philosophical topics. They are rendered sometimes with rhythm (tala) similar to allap with Tala in Hindustani music. In modern days it was made popular in concerts by Karnataka music doyens such as M. L. Vasanthakumari. Artists such as Sudha Ragunathan, Vidhyabhusana continuing this important aspect of Carnatic music.

---

Thanks in advance for your constructive feed backNaadapriya (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This book I have often referred to may be useful to you (pages 190-200). It has some basic definitions of the types of Kirtanes etc. invented by Purandaradasa and Kanakadasa. It does mention the Ugabhogas. You can do a google search for this book and access these pages.

• Shiva Prakash, H.S. (1997). "Kannada". In Ayyappapanicker (ed.). Medieval Indian Literature:An Anthology. Sahitya Akademi. ISBN 8126003650.

thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on useful reference. I will extract the information and include it in the revised text along with reference.Naadapriya (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)\

Final draft for inclusion in the article

---

Ugaabogas

Is integral part of Karnataka Music concert where the artist elaborates the treatment of raga characteristics through lyric based freestyle 'Ugaabogas'. [78]. It is an introductory item of Krithi that Sri Purandara Daasa introduced in 15th Century CE when he laid out the format for Carnatic music. Later it led to lyric less freestyle rendering of raga known as allapane (discussed later). Ugaabogas are common in popular concerts attended both by connoisseurs and non- connoisseurs of music. Most of the Ugaabogas are composed in Kannada by Purandara Daasa and Kanaka Dasa. Recently in 19th century CE similar concepts are also introduced to Carnatic Music in Tamil by Papanasam Sivan [79]. Ugaabogas are attractive for those who may not understand the nuances of raga as they pay attention to meaningful lyrics. Lyrics of Ugaabogas contain either devotional or philosophical topics. They are rendered sometimes with rhythm (tala) similar to allap with Tala in Hindustani music. In modern days it was made popular in concerts by Karnataka music doyens such as M. L. Vasanthakumari. Artists such as Sudha Ragunathan, Vidhyabhusana continuing this important aspect of Carnatic music.

---

Naadapriya (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, while you are at this topic, please seriously consider cleaning, building up the individual pages on Purandara Dasa and Kanaka Dasa, with citations and references. These two pages are in dire need of cleanup and polish.ThanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes I will give a try. Currently I am trying to work on fixing major errors that I observed in articles that Karnataka Music and Bhratanatya are REDIRECTED toNaadapriya (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Extremely biased article!!

This is an extremely biased article and someone with admin powers have to intervene. Anyone who reads this article will get the impression that Carnatic music has virtually nothing to do with Tamil language and music, Tamil culture and Tamil Nadu, while in actuality carnatic music and its development has its origins in Tamil Nadu and Tamil culture. Epigraphical evidences starting from 4th century, then 7th century and numerous citations from Tamil, with specific terminology etc. spanning 2000 year literature, have been wholly deleted. This is certainly one of the Wikipedia articles which shows how wrong a description of a topic can be. Truth can not be suppressed with these machinations. Enjoy it when you can :) --Aadal (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

How do you believe the music came to be named "Carnatic" music if it is entirely from what is today called Tamil Nadu, with no contribution from any other regions of India? Badagnani (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could check that it was one of the first topics of discussion in the archives: see here. see this as well. User Robin Klein states in the archive, "Carnatic music is named after the Southern region of the Indian subcontinent named by western colonists as Carnatic. This name was used to refer to the region between the Eastern Ghats and the Coromandel Coast encompassing much of what is called today as South India. Thus the term carnatic music was used to denote South Indian music. See: Carnatic (region) Robin klein 17:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) " One of the well-known authors on Carnatic music, Prof. P Sambamurthi, also explains that it refers to the region and NOT the state of present-day Karnataka. --Aadal (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

To days Karnataka (Carnatic) music is not specific for any state or language. It is the classical music of South India founded by Sri Purandara Dasa whom the whole world as respects as ‘Father of Karnataka (Carnatic) music’. The word ‘Carnatic’ was a name given to certain group of provinces on South India by Aurangzeb [80]. Somehow later during British rule it was attached to Karnataka Music, the original name of the South Indian classical music. Now ‘Carnatic Music’ has become an anglicized version for ‘Karnataka Music’ similar to ‘Tamil Nadu’ had become ‘Madras State’ under British rule. The word ‘Karnataka’ in Karnataka music that came into existence during in early 15th century CE is not the same as ‘Karnataka’ in ‘Karnataka State’ that replaced the name ‘Mysore State’ in 1970s. All south Indian languages have contributed significantly to Carnatic Music. A special mention can be made about only Kannada since it was the language that extensively facilitated the founding of today’s Karnataka (Carnatic) music and continued to contribute with thousands of compositions along with other languages. This is a repetition of facts already well stated in the previous discussions. In future editors are requested to read earlier comments before making comments. Though article need many more corrections it not biased against any language.Naadapriya (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You assert, "..mention can be made about only Kannada" and in the next few lines say ".. biased against any language". So perhaps in your view the article can be biased in favour of Kannada! So, you admit it clearly! You prove my point Naadapriya - about the article being extremely biased.--Aadal (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Aadal, hope the qualifying phrase extensively facilitated the founding of today’s Carnatic Music is correctly interpreted. The only reason Kannada was mentioned is since the founding father Sri Purandara Daasa extensively used it has a vehicle to develop the present day's Carnatic Music. Though following Shakespeare many dramas are written in different languages statement ' modern drama is founded by Shakespeare in English' is not a biased statement.

The article is not biased against any language. The current article has maintained a lower profile about Kannada than it is needed.Naadapriya (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

New page needed

Mallari (some type of rhythmic composition played by nagaswaram). Badagnani (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to include new section on Ugaabogas

{{editprotected}}

The following new subsection was posted on discussion page as of March 16th 2008. To date it has received positive response and no oppositions. Please include this in the article after subsection after '# 6.4 Tala system'.

---

Ugaabogas

Is integral part of Karnataka Music concert where the artist elaborates the treatment of raga characteristics through lyric based freestyle verses. [81]. It is item of Krithi that Sri Purandara Daasa introduced in 15th Century CE when he laid out the complete format for pretsent Carnatic music. Later it led to lyric less freestyle rendering of raga known as allapane (discussed later). Ugaabogas are common in popular concerts attended both by connoisseurs and non- connoisseurs of music. Most of the earlier Ugaabogas are composed in Kannada by Purandara Daasa and Kanaka Daasa. Recently in 19th century CE similar concepts are also introduced in Tamil by Papanasam Sivan [82]. Ugaabogas are attractive for those who may not understand the nuances of raga as they pay attention to meaningful lyrics. Lyrics of Ugaabogas contain either devotional or philosophical topics. They are rendered sometimes with rhythm (tala) similar to allap with Tala in Hindustani music. In modern days it was made popular in concerts by Karnataka music doyens such as M. L. Vasanthakumari. Artists such as Sudha Ragunathan, Vidhyabhushana continuing this important aspect of Carnatic music.

---

ThanksNaadapriya (talk)

I'm going to unprotect the page; hopefully the disputes over the image have had enough time to settle down. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional info needed- A thought

What the article needs is a paragraph on the development of carnatic (Karnataka) music in Tamil speaking regions during the time of the "Trinity" in the 18th and 19th century, on the same lines as Mysore court. Just mentioning the Trinity somewhere in the Prominent musicians section does not fully cover the developments. Naadapriya mentioned sometime back about influence of modern Tamil folk music on Carnatic music. This could also be included. Are there any variants from the Telugu and Malayalam speaking regions? If there are, they should be mentioned too. Preferably, the early development from The Vedas should have its own sub-section called "Early development". Starting 12th century perhaps should be sectioned as "Medieval developments" and similarly 17th century onwards could be called "Modern developments".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

These are good ideas, but there is a separate article entitled Origins and history of Carnatic music, to cover historical issues in detail. Badagnani (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious concerns. Very unfair and biased treatment

In this article under the origin and history section, the entire history and development of music from Tamil Nadu is completely suppressed. The following are some of the important developments in Tamil Nadu, which ought to be mentioned in the historical context.

1. A 4th century musical inscription as reported in Iravatham Mahadevan's Harvard series.
2. A famous 7th century musical inscription found in Kudumiyanmalai in Tamil Nadu
3. A set of 7-8th century inscriptions in Thirumayyam in Tamil Nadu
4. A 4-5th century CE references to Gamakam and several other intricate key musical ideas in Silappatikaram
5. While Sri Purandara Dasa was singing Namasagirthanam, a near contempeory Muthu Thandavar was singing full-fledged kirthanas.
6. Haridasa is talked about in the article, which is a later development and one would argue a follow up development to the musical Vaishnava Bakthi movement and the Saiva Bakthi Movement, spanning 500 CE to 800 CE and it is continuing even today. Nothing about it is mentioned. The Tamil Nadu Bkathi movement is not just devotional, they were set to Pann which is analogous to Ragas. There are more than 9000 extant such songs,
7. Songs set to pann are in Sangam literature covering the period of 200 BCE to 300 CE.
8. All the three Carnatic Trinity lived, learned, practiced , sang in Tamil Nadu.
9. There had been continuous systematic, classical, musical systems and traditions in Tamil Nadu leading to the present-day Carnatic music and it had been sut en bloc.
10. Tamil Nadu was and is the center of Carnatic music, if anyone has any understanding of carnatic music and its history. It is simply extremely unfair and misleading to block all these. I would like to seek an admin to see how this kind of group reverts by 3-4 editors have to be handled. This article is an extremely biased one.

--Aadal (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All these have been discussed several times in the past. Still, lets have another go -

• 1 - 3 -- Inscriptions - Info about inscriptions sourced to RS sources is always welcome. But such information is available in other states/places also and information about inscriptions cannot be allowed to overwhelm this article, a SS article that it is.
• 4 - Silappadikaram - See section above and other sections in archives where you also have been a participant. Silappadikaram is important to Tamil music but Carnatic musicologists do not treat it with the respect you demand for it. In any case, bring some WP:RS sources to the table and we can discuss. For nearly two years now, we've only had assertions and more assertions from you and little by way of sources.
• 5 - Muthu Tandava - sources sources.
• 6 & 7 - Pann - see WP:WEASEL, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:RS or read the section a little further up on this page.
• 8 - They lived and sang in Tamil Nadu. Alright. Who is denying that? Equally undeniable is the fact that their immediate ancestors hailed from Vijayanagara. Their mother tongues was Telugu. They composed in Telugu and Sanskrit, not Tamil. They were patronised by the Marathi rulers of Tamil Nadu. Thyagaraja who by common consensus perfected the Krithi pays his respects to Purandara Dasa, not Muthu Tandava or Arunagirinathar or Tolkappiyar. Does it occur to you that it was in Tamil Nadu that Purandara Dasa was first hailed as the "Father of Carnatic music"? wonder why they didnt choose Ilango Adigal?!
• 9 - Good for you. Come back with your sources.
• 10 - As far as being the primary seat of Carnatic music goes, we have no information until the Vijayanagara times. During Vijayanagara empire, it was Vijayanagara -- after them Tanjore, Mysore and Travancore shared the honours. The second half of the 20th century onwards, yes.. Madras is well and truly the seat of Carnatic music. Who is to deny that? And that is why when we get to that point, Music Academy and Madras will feature richly in the scheme of things when we discuss 20th century Carnatic music. But just because Madras is the reigning center today, you cant simply rewrite history with Tamil Nadu and Tamil plastered all over it. Sarvagnya 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the archives and you have the answers. I've provided the WP:RS. Specific citations and several quotations from reputable musicologists were provided. What is currently in the article is actually full of WP:UNDUE, WP:WEASEL etc. The Carnatic Trinity lived in Tamil Nadu and it was not late 20th century. Unless there is some admin help in resolving the issues (group reverts), there is not much point in the discussions. --Aadal (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and where did anybody claim that the trinity lived in the 20th century? Tanjore and the trinity will definitely figure prominently when we discuss the history of post-Vijayanagara Carnatic music. But since this is a SS article, discussion of Tanjore will have to share space with discussions of the traditions in Mysore and Travancore both of which were contemporaneous with Tanjore-trinity period and also equally important. If you want to add info about post-Vijayanagar Tanjore, go ahead - the article is all yours. Add whatever you can. Where have I or anybody ever spoken against that?!

The article in its present state is definitely far from perfect, but that is because we've spent all our time sieving the fringecruft you and others have continually dumped in this article over the last two years. If we werent perennially fire fighting with fringe, we'd have time to actually look at improving the article. Sarvagnya 17:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Haridasa "movement" is not a founding "movement". It is exactly what is called WP:UNDUE and what you call the type of "fringecruft". When Puradarasdasa was said to be singing Namasangiirthanams, Muthuthandavar was singing full fledged Kritis and Kirtanas. Annamacharya is another very important composer who should find a prominent place in the history. --Aadal (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is getting old now. If it is your desire to put Muttu Tandava on the same level as Purandara Dasa, it is not going to happen - not unless you rewrite history. If Purandara Dasa is called the 'Father of Carnatic music' and not Muttu Tandava, then it is for a reason. You want to write about Anamacharya, go ahead! Who is stopping you? Seriously, what is your point? Sarvagnya 00:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has seen edit wars for over an year .Hence feel we should get a neutral person to mediate and solve this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. user:sundar tried once before. The problem is some of the editors like myself wish to be inclusive, even though we feel some claims are in the category of WP:UNDUE, but there are other editors who support a particular view, who systematically deny any mention of Tamil, Tamil Nadu etc. One of the major disputes is the section on the Origin and Development, but there are many other sections where similar strong opposing currents of thoughts collide. A fair and inclusive approach would solve the problem. The trouble is the word "fair" and the word "inclusive" for some of the editors. When one looks at the history, one can see that systematically all references to Tamil and Tamil Nadu have been eliminated, even when specific references have been given. When indic scripts were permitted, one can see only Tamil language was blanked out (not once, repeatedly). WP requires we assume good faith, but repeatedly that is violated, some kind of protection and the intervention of a neutral person is needed. Thanks Pharaoh of the Wizards! --Aadal (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Language is not issue for this article. There is no effort to suppress contributions of any language or state. The article does not even emphasize on Kannada language based on which Sri Purandara Dasa founded todays Carnatic Music that the article is addressing. The article is moving towards information based on documented evidences by getting rid of weasels. New editors should read all past discussions.Naadapriya (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I truly support the view of Aadal. All references to the Tamil Carnatic Tradition were completely ignored. Silapattikaram was not even mentioned one time in this article. This is absolutley inacceptable. Here are definitley Anti-Tamil POV pushers on work. Stop this. --Thirusivaperur (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Carnatic Music of South India not about music of any specific state. There are dedicated articles about how music evolved in each state. No need to burden this article which is already too long with unnecessary information. The article is not ignoring contributions from any state or language. The great human beings who founded and nourished this beautiful art were beyond the barriers of state and language. Sri Purandara Daasa, the father of Carnatic Music, founded this music for all languages not just for Kannada. Sri Thyagaraja from Tamil Nadu composed music mostly in Telugu. M. L. Vasanthakumari of Tamilnadu revived Kannada compositions in modern concerts. M S Subbulakshmi of Kannada family promoted Tamil compositions with no bias. Please do not stall the progress of this article by injecting unnecessary language issues. All languages are great. Naadapriya (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Modification of section on Origins and History

The first three paragraphs (from 'Like all art forms' to 'relevant to Carnatic music today')is based on prehistoric information and may not be of help to a reader. Therefore it is proposed to replace them with following short paragraph.

---

Carnatic music has a long history. Some aspects of the beginning of Carnatic music was influenced by Dravidian, Aryan and possibly Persian musics existed before 15th Century C.E. Vedas also played a role in the development of Carnatic music just like it has influenced all aspects of Indian culture.

---

Depending on the responses it will be implemented with the help of Admn. Just 'reject' is not a valid answer. Please give reasons. ThanksNaadapriya (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This is oversimplified and the English is not good. Badagnani (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Badagnani thanks. Yes I agree it is some what oversimplified. Additions and English improvements are welcome. The current 3 paragraphs is like 'piece-meal' construction hopping from reference to reference, mostly pre-historic ones.Naadapriya (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To date no oppositions except for suggestions to improve the proposed re-write.Naadapriya (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

Consensus is not reached through lack of input. To date, there has been a concern by Badagani, that the sentences you propose are over-simplified. I suggest that you speak to a few editors active with this article (before it was fully protected) and reach an agreement, but at the moment, this request is  Not done. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is reached since there are no objection to the suggested mod on April 20,2008. Please replace the first three paragraphs of section on Origins and History with

---

Carnatic music has a long history. Some aspects of the beginning of Carnatic music was influenced by Dravidian, Aryan and possibly Persian musics existed before 15th Century C.E. Vedas also played a role in the development of Carnatic music just like it has influenced all aspects of Indian culture.

---

Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the change. The change you're suggesting will produce a section which lacks balance, and does not reflect the manner in which the history of Carnatic music is treated in scholarly treatises. The history of Carnatic music does not begin with the Vijayanagara empire, and no serious scholars treat it as if it does. Continuing the discussion we started at the end of February under the heading The history section still probably represents the best chance of arriving at any kind of sensible coverage. -- Arvind (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see a response though quite delayed. The proposed draft does not say that Karnataka (Carnatic) Music started just during Vijayanagara empire. It does acknowledge the background developments existed before that. The current three paragraphs are in peace meal type format hopping from pre-historic infos to sentimental views. As Badagnani suggested it is desirable for editors expand on the draft proposed. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with trying to work out a wording for the pre-Vijayanagara period, then move on to the Vijayanagara period, and end with the post-Vijayanagara period. Even if it's not going to be perfect, let's at least aim for something that'll be better than what we have now. Is Dinesh still watching this article, and does he have time for this now? -- Arvind (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the 'Origins and history' section already has a huge gap as it stands. There is a big jump of several centuries - from references to Indian classical music in the Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bharata Sastra etc to 'Carnatic music saw revolutionary growth during the Vijayanagar Empire'. Replacing these three paras with the proposed rewrite makes it sound as though Carnatic music begins in the 15th century - which is even worse. I am not very knowledgeable about Carnatic music and its origins, so I will not comment about it.. but surely, scholars have done some research on the origins of Carnatic music that merit at least a brief mention in this section?

As a side note, is Purandara Dasa really referred to by RS as the founder of Carnatic music as the article seems to indicate? --Madhu (talk) 11:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

DOIs

Hi, please update the article with the text of Talk:Carnatic music/DOI improvements, in which citations have been tidied by a bot. Smith609 Talk 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations that state that Sri Purandara Daasa is either father and/or founder of Todays Carnatic Music

1. Dr. Piero Scaruffi (international author on music books) in the article A Summary on Indian Music: 'The founder of Karnataka style is considered to be Purandara Daasa'. : [83]
2. Prof VSS Rao- 'Shri Puradara Daasa is known as the pra-pithamaha (founder) of modern Carnatic classical music.' [84]
3. Shri P.N.Krishnamoorthy – Director. [85] The Sangeetha Vidyalaya 'Purandara Dasa (1484 - 1584) can be said to be the principal founder of the Carnatic system as we know it today.'
4. Kamat Research Database : 'The Father of Carnatic Music Composer Purandaradasa (15/16th Century) was a great literary and musical genius. [86]
5. Independent group: 'Shri Purandara Daasa is known as the pra-pithamaha (founder) of modern Carnatic classical music.' [87]
6. In the book 'MS – A Life in Music' by TJS George. New Delhi: HarperCollins, 2005 (4th Impression).-ISBN 81-7223-527-5. '... the development of Carnatic music from the times of Purandara Dasa (1480-1564), considered to be the father of the genre' Naadapriya (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That's insufficient and mere synthesis - there needs to be supporting evidence and discussion for such a claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and they are not, nor are most of them reliable. Purandaradasar is indeed known as the father of Carnatic music as far as his formulation of how to teach Carnatic music. However, he did not lay the complete fundamental principles today - several were discovered much later and much earlier. For example, Carnatic music in today's form has been undisputedly most commonly performed through krithis - a form that wasn't even discovered during Purandaradasar's life. Until there's reliable sourcing, it's already been questioned by several users as a red flag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Previous comment is mute since it is pure Original Research statements. Naadapriya (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits violating NPOV

As indicated in sections above this, there was no consensus for a variety of edits and proposals made by User:Naadapriya. If such users (who continue to insert these disputed claims) have no intention of bringing this up to a respectable quality in accordance with Wikipedia's core policies, then I will ask for intervention and this article will need to be protected again - please respect the policies of Wikipedia and do not violate them, so that such intervention will not be necessary.

In particular, Wikipedia has a policy called neutral point of view and certain edits continue to violate this policy, trying to give undue weight. The sourcing continues to be unreliable for this section, with some from devotional singers who have no qualifications in this field. Further, it advances an erroneous notion about ughabhoga being integral. Ughabhoga (a form that Kannada persons assert as being uniquely Kannada) is in fact not integral to a concert, in the same way raga alapana, niraval, kalpana swaram, and ragam thanam pallavi have been. Significant literature supports mentions of the latter 4 forms of improvization, but does not mention a form that is limited to one part of India. This is the same as Viruttams and Slokas which existed even prior to Ughabhogas, and have been acknowledged by other devotional singers too.

In other words, there are 2 problems. (1) is unreliable sourcing - sourcing is needed from very reliable sources. (2) is undue weight which is why the section has been removed completely, (there's no dispute over raga alapana, niraval, kalpana swaram and ragam tanam pallavi, and the weight it has in Carnatic music and Carnatic concerts). If users continue to insert this contentious material without resolving these issues, intervention will be required. Neutral point of view policy, which entails the section about undue weight on Wikipedia, is of utmost importance as the policy states. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To address the issue of NPOV, and to give it the appropriate amount of weight, these forms have been mentioned in the compositions section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete valid information. Music legends such as MLV who made Ugabhoga more popular in 'kacheri' and 'sabas' of recent years is from TamilNadu. Carnatic music is independent of language. Above POV comments are mute compared to the statements made by scholars in RS given for Ugabhoga. Ugabhoga was well discussed before it was introduced. Please read earlier discussions and avoid going round and round again. Thanks.Naadapriya (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, please respect NPOV. This is undue weight and views need to be represented accordingly. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy - if you have no intention of discussing and continue to violate the policy, I will ask for intervention. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting valid edits already well discussed. Added material a while ago was NPOV based on RS. Please stop making assumptions about your POV as NPOV. Please carefully read RS and earlier discussions.Naadapriya (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns have repeatedly been expressed over your edits - they are not valid and they are not from reliable sources - i.e. peer reviewed journal articles. I am not pushing for a POV whereby undue weight is given to one particular form that is more commonly associated with Devotional music - that's separate to Carnatic music. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that one has remind again and again to stop exercising ownership on the article and keep pushing POV as in the previous comment. How can above comment ignore and delete reputed books such as that is cited by several including wikipedia editors. As above commentator also defend that Carnatic music is 'Manodharma Sangeetha' (music that can vary depending on the mood and expertise of artists) it cannot be defined just in books and Jl articles. References such as CDs, Radio talks, live public concerts, reputed web sites also serve as valid references. Devotional music is a integral part of Carnatic music. All composers devote their compositions to gods they believe. Except great composers like Purdanradasa. Kanakadasa who also included social topics in the composition in addition to devotional aspects , majority of the rest of the composers (including Trinity) just had only devotional aspects in their compositions. It is requested not to REVERT the valid edits again. Naadapriya (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, there is no consensus for your edits, period. Again, there is NPOV concerns regarding the undue weight you are putting and addressing this is of utmost importance. There are distinct features that separate the genres of music, which is why many reliable sources (scholarly peer-reviewed journals) identify one as Devotional music, and the other as Carnatic music. It is not called Carnatic devotional music, nor is this an issue of compositions merely being dedicated to God. It is requested you do not continue to violate NPOV and consensus until this is resolved - if you continue to violate this policy, you will be subject to dispute resolution for failing to respect our policies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Above POV statements are based on just original research also assuming the ownership of article. Based on it valid a section that included RS (published book with ISBN #) is deleted which is a vandalism. Naadapriya (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, very reliable sources (i.e. journal articles) support what I'm saying, otherwise I would not have removed the NPOV vios. With that sort of tendentious argument, I have little choice but to pursue dispute resolution. Are you willing to go through mediation to resolve this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Just a warning that you guys are flirting with 3 RR and should consider seeking a third opinion or some other consensus seeking mechanism. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 06:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I second RegentsPark's opinion Mspraveen (talk) 06:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Naadapriya if he's willing to try mediation - no response. I guess the next step is just to go straight to RFC? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that there isn't (hasn't been) any response from the contending editor, then RfC is the next step. Mspraveen (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Regents Park comment. Section on Ugabhoga was introduced a while ago after discussions, help and corrections of many editors. Please read the earlier discussions. Majority of music scholars as per citations accept Sri Purandara Dasa (see section in that article) is the father (founder) of today's Carnatic Music. Published books are RS. Ncmvocalist should have first discussed before deleting a valid section and citations that was already present in the article with consent of many editors. (see past discussions). Therefore it is requested from Ncmvocalist to discuss before making any changes to the valid/edited section and agreed citations.Naadapriya (talk) 06:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just finished reading the discussion which is kind of complicated. Some kind of dispute resolution does seem appropriate since the main issue seems to be the reliability of the sources presented by Naadapriya and the reliability of other sources that indicate the existence of Carnatic Music before Puraana Dasa. An Rfc may do the trick but it may be better to seek broader input first, perhaps on the India notice board, for consensus on the reliability of these sources. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 06:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, NPOV is one of our most critical policies like BLP policy and you need to stop continually reinserting contentious material which violates these and is particularly against consensus. There is in fact no consent by many editors - several editors have disagreed with its inclusion per those discussions. I'm opening an RFC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)