Pulkesi, whose blog I first posted this response, finally replied:
----------------
Very contradicting indeed! the passage between the first revelation and the
last statement defies the purpose of not to make comparisons. Pondering over
the text in the passage, it clearly indicates the comparisons being made by the
perceptions and notions that one `explanatory system' has created over another
kind of `explanatory system' which has been created by the others and tries to
drive home a point of `worthlessness' of the others system and commands them to
look inside not outside according to their system. huh.
Words are very tricky indeed and these slips are bound to happen when we
are living in the world of words. Foolishness yes - but what else do you and me
are doing here. You call me a `fool', comparing your understanding over
something. I dare to call Rahman incompetent in comparison to Raaja. So what.
You have the choice of either proving me wrong with reasonable `words' or get
into the textual jargons of `Advaitha' spewing venom or simply sitback looking
within yourself and meditate. You post because you want to say something. The
moment you say something it becomes contrived from what this cosmos is really
about. But we perform exactly in this continuum with no other choice. So lets
Debate and get it over.
Does it seem silly to you when someone says my moms food tastes better than
any other food because of love? Does it seem silly to you when a women appeals
more in showering their love on us and we feel blessed - `comparing' with other
loveless souls or womens who did not appeal to us? If yes, so be it for you.
Yet you wont understand the comparisons dwelling deep inside you
Why
Mozart? why not Salieri? Why Rahman's composition are a study material for you?
why not `Deva's? How silly is it to write about Rahman's genius while ignoring
the genius of Deva?
Why do you add `Great' before the composer word here? Why cant `he' be a
composer alone? or a Genius alone? With who else did you compare to call them
`Great'? So what if the revelation to the genius great composer `Sirpi' came
from multiple resources in `Ullaththai AllithA', Which illusion of yours is
stopping you from recognizing it? The same illusion is stopping me to recognize
Rahman in the same lines of Raaja as a genius. Period.
-----------------
I replied,
-----------------
Good point about mom's food being better than any other food because of the
love within it. By which, you mean to say that anyone's attributing genius, or
measure of genius onto another, will always be a subjective enterprise
it can
never be a scientific undertaking. In other words, genius shall always only be
a matter of opinion - this is where your point leads.
I, for one, look to the sparks of genius, and indeed, Ullathai Allitha would
have been a work of genius by Sirpi if it wasn't for the fact that the songs
were lifted off some hindi and arabic albums/soundtracks. But then, rather than
that, let's consider "Malare Mounama" by Vidyasagar
which to my knowledge is
an original work (relatively speaking - for what is truly original?) - and
therein lies the point
During a writing seminar the keynote speaker, Billy Marshall Stoneking so
succinctly expressed that "Where the work's origins intersect with the artist's
origins, it produces that extraordinary and timeless freshness we so clumsily
refer to as ORIGIN-ALITY."
Bearing this in mind, what becomes uproariously evident is that anyone who
strives to create art with integrity, with genuineness and an unbending
passion, will surely have sparks of originality.
For this very reason, I do not denounce any artist, any creator
I focus on the
work much more than I focus on the artist
because in the end the artist is
merely a vessel and it is God who is creating the art.
For this very reason, it is always better to be open, embracing, and be ready
to find genius in the most surprising of places.
What you are doing rather, is being so hell-bent on building a fort around what
you call classy artwork, that you are infact locking yourself in.
Or in other words, so adamant to believe that only mother's cooking is best,
that suddenly its no longer about love - but about fanaticism.
For in, essence, your claim is simply that God works only through Illaiyaraja.
For some reason, God cannot come through anyone else, cannot create art in any
other way
no one else is open enough
is that so? Or is it that you have
blinders on, possibly?
The Genius is God's. You cannot call Illaiyaraja a genius for being more open
(which, at the most, is all he is doing). The word, genius, is in fact
misleading when it is considered in those terms, for it is discrediting the
actual source of inspiration.
Your second point that was also very valid was the question of why I am chosing
to devote my time to certain composers over others
especially after talking
about not comparing, by what measure am I choosing? That very question is
integral.
Seeing as art is an all-encompassing medium
the most illuminating answer would
first come from me explaining why I chose my favourite writers
Which, funnily
enough, inevitably is a result of my favourite books
The Alchemist - Paulo Coelho
Lion of Macedon & Dark Prince - David Gemmell
Thief of Time - Terry Pratchett
Perfume - Patrick Suskind
Satanic Verses - Salman Rushdie
Shantaram - Gregory David Roberts
Illusions - Richard Bach
Starseed Transmissions - Ken Carey
Red Dwarf & Better Than Life - Grant Naylor
Timeline - Michael Crichton
Siva - Ramesh Menon
Life of Pi - Yann Martel
I am bringing this up for specific reason - I do not like all works by any of
these writers. I am not fanatical about any of them. I try to view creativity
with a discerning eye, practicing the art of recognising hidden gems, of
moments of ephiphany bountifully captured
Of the ghost of a magnificent idea
manifesting in the art of a sculptor
Who lets his hands work without his
mind's interference
Of mediumistic storytelling, tribal, intrinsic, heartfelt
- with precision and flair. These sorts of works do not happen often. Not often
at all. They are hard to find. And I cannot say that any of these writers get
it right every time.
But every now and then, they come upon a brilliant seed of an idea, and they
bring it to perfection
And each time even they admit that their work is one of
inspiration, not creation. I cannot tell you this is an objective process - I
am not certain that it is
But I have certainly studied the guidelines of how
to tell a powerful story, of the inner struggle the writer himself must go
through in order to tell it.
The writers repeatedly reveal to you, that their characters have a life of
their own, that their characters act on their own
And the role of the writer
is very much as a medium.
Which is remarkably parallel to what composers tell you
Or painters tell you
I loved Satanic Verses, the book was laced with a hallucinatory perfection, yet
Salman Rushdie's other books didn't have that powerful an effect on me. Some
people say that Midnights Children was their favourite, that very well may be -
yes, favouritism is a subjective enterprise.
But that's my entire point! A person who truly recognises that his selection of
art is a learning, evolving process, doesn't stop to block, to lock himself up
into a barrage of close-mindedness. Declaring some poor fellow a genius, and
lacing his footsteps with petals, all the while forgetting to explore what else
is out there in the world.
I gave a list of favourites
That list grows with time. With time, I add new
authors to the list. And as to comparing between them, that is often a case of
comparing apples with oranges. And just because I like apples better doesn't
mean oranges are of any lesser value! I recognise this! And again, if I am
writing to question you now, it is for this very thing - because this entire
thread has been about your need to devalue oranges in order to give high
standing to apples. You seem to need to claim that Rahman is somehow lesser
than Raja in order to feel that you are not blaspheming. It certainly bears all
the signs of textbook fantaticism.
>From my earliest memories to my youth, Ilaiyaraja, and yes, Deva, even less
>frequest composers such as Hamselekha, dominated my love for Tamil film songs.
>Even so, even then, the song came first. The song took priority. And as I
>counted my most favourite tamil songs, I found that nearly 90 percent of them
>were songs by Ilaiyaraja. So, I loved him for it. Even then, the song still
>came first. I didn't get blinded by that love as to create a new religion.
And because the song came before the composer, when Rahman's Roja, Gentlemen
and Thiruda Thiruda were released, the song blew me away. Only then did I
notice Rahman. And I can understand that some people felt it was a matter of
loyalty, of allegience. Which, is what I call silly. Just as I call religious
wars silly. The time tested term needs to be applied: Unity in Diversity.
Then there are those who claim in vain attempts at rationalism that they simply
do not like the "sound" of Rahman. Which suddenly reminds me of a very wise
move by a member of a tamil music appreciation online group
After months, nay
years of fighting between two staunchly opposed sides in the group, one
vehemently standing by Ilaiyaraja, weapons poised, and others in strike pose by
Rahman's side
A member of the group said (and I am paraphrasing), "Ok, both
sides have been fighting about which composer is better for some time now. But
you know what, I am sure that all Ilaiyaraja lovers still like a few songs by
Rahman, and all Rahman lovers still like some songs by Raja, so why don't we
all share which songs of the other composer we like?" What followed was a long
list of one side appreciating the other. Ha ha, would it be ironic to say it
was a stroke of genius without being misunderstood?
So, yes, if you want to compare, then compare, but not crudely, not violently,
imagining that you are somehow being politically correct by calling Rahman some
pop music genius
Instead, better to run for politics and convince people that
indian slums don't actually exist. If you want to compare, then compare, but do
it as objectively as possible, without needing to feel guilty that you owe your
idol a special pedestal - you will see clearer that way.
Refering to a statement you made in an earlier post,
"Hell I care Because I know `Raaja is getting paid for composing music,
which is his passion' and `Rahman is composing music for getting paid' which is
his passion'. Music is means for Rahman to make money, if not music he would
have become an `Electronics Engineer' to make the same money. Come what may and
if the whole life & world had been against `Raaja' He would have become a
composer in Tamil films. "
This is exactly the kind of bias I am talking about. Suddenly if a man is a
recluse he is humble, and if he is in the limelight, he is capitalistic? That
is your criteria? Take a good look around you, remove the blinders. There are
hundreds of examples the world over that reveal that this is not at all the
case whatsoever. That people are reclusive for reasons that have nothing to do
with their view on making money. Director Shankar is one of the most
commercial-minded directors (and very successful at it) that you will find -
and yet he stayed out of the limelight till it came time to promote Sivaji. On
the other hand, someone like Daniel Day Lewis actually goes into reclusiveness
because of his need to investigate his own life through introspection - but,
again, this is not always the case - and not always the reason. It is pure
immaturity to stereotypically categorise reclusiveness and showmanship. But
then again, you have made your biases very clear. What remains amusing is that
you seem certain that you are somehow being objective about your prejudices.
Robert DeNiro, as was told by Shurtleff, does not give interviews because it is
an ability he was never very good at, he had little to no interest in
self-promotion. Yet does that make him somehow more humble? People who
personally know Rahman express time and time again that he is the humblest
person they have ever met in the Tamil Film Industry. There are documentations
of Illaiyaraja fighting with film producers and directors, claiming that his
songs makes or breaks any film (it is not up for debate if that is true or not,
what is integral is that it definetely shows no humility).
Yet, again, what you have done, is taken only what you wanted to hear, and
disregarded the rest. Bad decisions are made that way. Illusions are created
that way. What you have is prejudice, you cannot even call it opinion. Opinions
are formed after considering all the evidence, impartially.
But what is curious is that you NEED for Ilaiyaraja to be the King - you cannot
be at peace without it. You need him to be a virtuous, honorable man, and you
NEED in comparison, for others to lack any integrity as a human. You needed it,
so you created a story to suit it. Otherwise, you would have noticed the very
very obvious;
"I can never forget a line of Rahman's, which he said to me while at his
studio, "I've decided that whatever goes from here has to be good". He said it
with neither arrogance nor extreme confidence. It was just so very simply said
just as a decision he took and that single sentence made me understand A.R's
greatness, more than his music itself. I have known many including myself who
said, thought, and wished the same, but with the exception of A.R I have yet to
meet a single man who practiced it and continues to practice it." - Ram Gopal
Varma on Rahman (And this guy has actually met him. Read most of the articles
of people who have met Rahman - you will be surprised).
So, the question actually is, where are you imagining up these conclusions on
Rahman? Actually, that's rhetorical - it's clear you haven't given Rahman much
of a chance to begin with. As for me, I love them both just the same, Rahman,
Raja, like my two eyes.
