Talk:Carnatic music/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Modern Period - The Evolution of Kriti

One of the greatest influences in the development of Karnatic music was that of the immortal bard, Purandara Dasa (1484-1564). He made great contributions to both Sacred and Art music. He is the most prolific of all the South Indian composers. He perfected a systematic approach to train students of Carnatic music which has since become a standard format. He composed the "Swaravali" (simple exercises based on the Scale), "Alankaras" (exercises based on the seven basic Talas) and "Gitams" (simple melodic compositions in praise of the various deities), songs in Kannada known as "Devarnamas". He was the creator of the musical form, "Kriti" which was later perfected by the great composer "Thyagaraja

source : http://sify.com/carnaticmusic/fullstory.php?id=13167675&vsv=597

I want discussion on this topic.In few days i will be posting my comments in article which if deleted will be considered as vandalism. Nrupatunga —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.176.35 (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

The information provided is incorrect, POV based, and the source is unreliable. Any comments (placed in the article) related to this will be deleted. Ncmvocalist 10:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you say that informationm is incorrect,I will try to get more reliable source to quote for.

Also see this quote with source mentioned.

[i]The most common form of composition is the 'Kriti' , a model which Purandaradasa used, but which gained its highest popularity in the 18th Century.[/i]

http://www.amc.org.uk/education/articles/carnatic_music.htm Nrupatunga You proved your own point wrong. Purandaradasa did "use" the kriti model (like most composers), but did not create it - it also shows that Sify is all the more careless. This isn't worth mentioning where you propose it to be mentioned. Hope you understand. Ncmvocalist 13:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I happened to see this in sify and thought its worthy to be mentioned.Anyhow who is the first composer who used this kriti format? Nrupatunga

Please sign your posts. It's good of you to have included in case it was (unfortunately, this time it wasn't). I believe the answer to your question was Annamacharya. Ncmvocalist 00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Annamachary kriti mentioned about pallavi,but there was no mention of either anupallavi or charanam.But purandaradasa kritis seemed to have this kriti model which was later perfected by tyagaraja.correct me if i am wrong.And also purandaradasa's main contribution was fusion of bhava,raga and laya into orgain units which i find missing here.But i will leave it you people to weather add it or not.I feel wrong things like 4.75 compositions are highlighted leaving his most important contributions. Nrupatunga

Well, pallavi anupallavi and charanam were technically discovered by Muthuthandavar, although the tunes to most of his pieces appear to be lost (except a few Javalis or Padams). Some people believe otherwise, but it's all subject to debate. It wasn't perfected by Tyagaraja, but promoted and advanced further - the format can be considered to be perfected even today? (again debatable). Very debatable notion that Purandaradasar fused all 3 organ units. In this sense, these can all be excluded as they do wreck the flow of this section of the article and more importantly, little to no complete certainty exists on these issues. Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist 09:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Carnatic music should be article of Carnatic music not for article of modern artist. I found lot of and repeated images of same person. If any body would like please put images particular person's article. Other wise Quality of article should be Stub. I feel somebody trying to put some unfamiliar composers images to show they are very famous.

Rgds A4ay 11:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

To All,

This is the article of Carnatic muisc not for modern artists. A4ay 05:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Images aren't a necessity for this article, and why some musicians get their images over others is also another issue. For now, until this is resolved, I shall delete the images.

If DKP's credit for being the first female to sing RTP on stage is ommitted, then descriptions of both MSS and Brinda, as well as Jon B Higgins will be deleted.

This is the only fair way to handle it. Ncmvocalist 06:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, this is article of Carnatic music not modern artists or Vocalist. A4ay 07:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There are several issues that need to be discussed with respect to this article. These involve external links, modern artists, images and nature and learning of Carnatic music. Until consensus is reached on these topics, please avoid making edits (especially contestable ones) in those areas especially.

1) External links - the issue is of what is acceptable and what is not.

2) Modern artists - the issue is whether to include extra information about female yesteryear artists or not, and whether to include information on Jon Higgins. (if we do include this info, where do we draw the line? if we don't, are we just listing artists?)

3) Images - whether it is neutral, appropriate and relevant to include images of modern artists throughout the Carnatic music page. The pictures that were up:

a) MSS EMI Record Cover b) Ariyakudi c) DKP and DKJ with respect to RTP d) DK Pattammal e) Madurai Mani Iyer f) concert pics including mysore v and palghat, balamuralikrishna, and n.ramani g) Chembai h) Balamuralikrishna i) Jon B Higgins

Ncmvocalist 07:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect to 1), see WP:External_links.

With respect to 3), pictures are avoidable altogether. There are so many composers and musicians to provide a netural point of view by just providing images of a few of them, exclusively, over others. Perhaps the only picture that is neutral in its inclusion is the tanpura - this I will leave up to someone else to insert, hopefully in the appropriate section of the article.

Ncmvocalist 02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:IMAGE "Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text." In this context would you object to the use of some images located near relevant text? Addhoc 11:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I might, depending on the circumstances. Could you specify such circumstances?

My idea for the modern artists section was adding the image of the first artist mentioned per para. (considering Purandaradasar -first mentioned composer- was added in the composers section as opposed to the Trinity). A couple of people disagreed, one insisting I was undoing their painstaking work without remaining neutral. So all contentious images (which aren't a necessity for the article in the first place) have been removed unless/until consensus is reached to maintain WP:NPOV.

In the context of your quote however, it may be fair to insert an image of a faceless musician putting anudhrutham (tAlA) with their hands OR in the concerts sections (or shruti section) inserting an image of a tanpura....Ncmvocalist 01:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you have a look at the jazz and folk music articles to see how WP:IMAGE has been interpreted. Addhoc 12:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

all the south Indian scripts from the article on 15 November were removed with the label of a 'minor edit!) without discissuon. As this a collaborative project any such actions need to be discussed and consensus reached in the talk pages. However there is an ongoing discussion at the Village pump regarding the usefulness of these vernacular scripts in an English language encyclopedia. Until this issue is resolved, and to maintain neutrality, I'm removing Sanskrit also from the article. This article is not about the Sanskrit term, rather it is about Carnatic music. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Karnataka Sangeetham (both words) are sanskrit, so sanskrit's inclusion appears fine. This is not only 90% useless (being unreadable), its also like making the same thing said in several languages just to make it appear politically correct.

Secondly, I did not remove any content. I merely commented the relevant text out. The text is still there in the edit page and can be displayed once the comments are removed. Some people who probably hate sanskrit might have a problem including it without including their other favourite languages. Other than this, I dont think there's any purpose served by inclusion of all languages. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Carnatic music" and not Karnataka Sangeetham. Sanskrit is equally unreadable to 99.999999% of the population of this world. In this scale keeping Sanskrit is also useless. I am not in favour of any vernacular scripts in any English language article. They only lead to useless and non-productive arguments.

Whether you used the html hide tag or deleted the scripts is irrelevant to the outcome. You removed them from the article without discussion and marking the edit a minor one. I would recommend you not to make any unfounded assumptions about other editors' likes and dislikes. Keep the discussion to the subject in hand. Thanks

Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Parthi,

I am sorry that, I am a Keralaite, we saying Karnataka Sangeetham, In Sanskrit It also saying Karnataka Sangeetham. I think In Telugu Also it saying same as Karnataka Sangeetham. I an very neighbor to Tamil Nadu but I don't know how pronounce in Tamil Karnatka santham/ Carnatic music.

There was an spelling mistake in Sanskrit text. It was pronunce like Karnataka sangeeth (in Hindi)or "sangeetha" (in sanskrit).

We have to tolerate with all language. Carnatic music and Karnataka Sangeetham is same as Madras and Chennai. or Cochin and Kochi. Carnatic music is the colonial name of Karnataka Sangeetham. A4ay 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A4ay, I don't hate any language. the point under discussion is whether Sanskrit should remain in the article when the rest of the south Indian scripts were removed unilaterally. The name of the article is Carnatic music, which is a recognised English name. We don't need any script other than English on this page. Thanks- Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Sanskrit, but I hate people 'piggybacking' Hindi on Sanskrit into many Hindu/Sanskrit related articles. I am sure that this is NOT the case on this article, but still, I am for either using all scripts or not using any vernacular script. IMO, the Devanagari script(not Sanskrit) is least representative of Carnatic music. Sarvagnya 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think, where possible, sticking to English (and no vernacular script) is the way to go. However, this bit doesn't bother me as most people skip it when reading - usually because they don't understand....Ncmvocalist 01:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is commonly called "karnataka sangeetham" by everyone who knows anything about carnatic music. Its a very common term, and is in fact the commonest term. Obviously English Wikipedia will have its article names in english, but that is no reason not to include the most common native term by which it is called. And it is in Sanskrit, so it is represented in its own script. I see no problems so far! Problems arise only when people find a need to push their own languages just because sanskrit happens to be there. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article says Carnatic music and that is sufficient. What it is known as in other languages need not appear in the lead paragraph. If you want you can insert an infobox with other scripts and transliterations. I recommend you do not assume anything on the likes and dislikes of other editors. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on in village pump, and the majority votes are to include the main native script relating to the Indian articles, neither to include many relevant scripts, nor to not include any script. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:EL links to forum websites are to be avoided. WP:COI specifically forbids inclusion of websites owned by one of the editors of the article. The website in question breaks both these guidelines. Whether this website adds value to this article may be determined by the following guidelines:

1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

IMO the site does not meet any of this. I am a member of this forum and all I see is what happens in any forum. There are other reputed sources for carnatic music than a forum. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have told already, both personally and publicly to those concerned, that:

1. Wikipedia does not prohibit an editor's website from being included as an external link by a third party.
2. The website in question is not referenced in the article in any way to compromise NPOV
3. It is not a forum website. It is a website which also includes a forum, among other non-forum content. Again forum thread reference is not an issue here at all. Else all websites containing forums should be debarred?
4. None of the other policies of Wikipedia are broken by its inclusion.
5. What is a genuine or reliable website is anyone's lookout, its merely a perception, not an empirical fact. I dont think my website includes any propoganda material or illegal stuff.

Anyone can check that both the times it was included (and removed), it was not I who pushed for it or included it.

Removing the link therefore, appears to me to be motivated by other extraneous considerations not having anything to do with wikipedia's policies. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• But you are pushing for its reinclusion.
• It is irrelevant how this site is dressed up. The introductory page of this site defines itself as "This site is about discussions and sharing of knowledge about Indian music." - meaning this is a discussion forum. It also requires registration to participate.
• The website does not add any neutral information that is not already contained in the article. All the information contained in the site is discussion between members on the subject of music.
• The inclusion of the link breaks WP:EL, WP:COI

Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Parthi, according to WP:EL "use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against". Addhoc 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, rasikas is primarily a forum with other stuff running off it, which is quite the contrary when compared to a site like Carnatica. The other issue is with neutrality. At previous moments, and at this moment in time, I'm sorry to say that the link is inappropriate for this article. Ncmvocalist 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please note that pushing for its exclusion and pushing for its inclusion are both "pushing", and one is no better than the other. The only fact that remains is that it was twice added to EL by outsiders, and both times removed on flimsy grounds or misunderstanding.
• Words mean nothing, substance should be over form. The website contains non-forum content also. It is not a forum website, but a website on music that also happens to contain a forum. Merely because forum appears to be conspicous is not enough to call it a forum website.
• It is clear that the website is not a propoganda website, and it is also clear that external links exist mainly for content that cant be included on wikipedia due to various reasons.­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As an interested party, your pushing for the reinclusion of the link is in violation of WP:COI. WP guidelines are not there to pick and choose. They are there to maintain the integrity of the project. Two members (myself and Vocalist) of the forum have openly stated here that it is simply a forum website and not a website containing a forum. Forums are to avoided because of the unreliable information that tend to be found there. Thanks - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the link, it does appear to be a chat forum. Could you detail what useful information is contained? Addhoc 19:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's briefly see what this non-forum form website contains other than the forum:

• An events calendar
• An occasional blog by Srkris
• List of links

How is this relevant to the article? -Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The URL in question is contestable from both sides, with some valid arguments on either side. As a general note, external links should be kept to a minimum. If someone (not anyone in particular!) wants to include rasikas.org without going into dispute resolution etc., then the next step is to specify the link further to the relevant material (eg;, rasikas.org/Purandaradasar or Carnatica.net/Music Handbook - IF SUCH LINKS EXISTED). Otherwise, such links will need to be deleted. The options are there. Take your pick. Ncmvocalist 10:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the consensus of editors determines whether the link should be included or not. As opposed to for instance, the burden of proof being on me to prove the link contravenes policy. Have a look at WP:CONSENSUS, WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Addhoc 11:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing is wrong with the relevant external link or the way it was added here. I'm asking why should it not remain? I have read all the relevant guidelines, and I dont see any conflict of interest since I did not add the link. I am merely protesting against the link's repeated removal by the same editors by twisting the meaning of guidelines.

OK what does WP:EL say? It says forum websites cant be included, and that editors cant add their own websites since it would lead to conflict of interest. None of the two are applicable in the present case. I am not arguing that I have the authority to add my website. I am merely saying that third parties can add my website without having it deleted by another editor (provided the website satisfies other guidelines, which it apparently does). If you think I'm wrong, I'm asking you to say where I'm going wrong.

If you think the onus is not on you to show that it violates wikipedia's policies, then what's the purpose of this discussion? ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest the consensus of editors on this page is the link should not be included. Addhoc 17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

One can't convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. The link should not be included because of

• It is a forum website (plus an events calendar and a bunch of external links. Violates WP:EL
• Srkris has been pushing the inclusion of his sites (rasikas.org, chembai.com) in numerous articles. Violates WP:COI, WP:SPAM
• It does not add any further value to the article. Violates WP:EL
• Whether pushing for its inclusion or pushing for its reinclusion is still pushing. Violates WP:COI

Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I havent still found any logical discussion other than the mere quoting of Wikipedia guidelines, which are not violated anyway. If I ask where the violation has occured, no one is prepared to indicate, other than referring me again to WP:COI and WP:EL! ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 15:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You clearly need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies (evidenced by your failure to understand why 'consensus' was reached against the inclusion of the website in question). Ncmvocalist 09:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Refer to Manual of Style - headings - capitalisation... Addhoc 15:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest this edit war is a waste of time. If there are two sides in a dispute, one side attempting to include several images and the other side hoping not to include any, eventually there is going to be a compromise of just including a few. Pretending otherwise and continuing the edit war is pointless. In this context, could we agree on an interim compromise of including two images? Addhoc 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.... Ncmvocalist 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that relevant sections in the article should have corresponding images. I support addhoc and appreciate his help in his efforts to mediate a solution. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 14:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You can see lot of Chembai's images in lot of article. Just look at Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer article , You can see the image of chembai again. What is the important of that iamge ? there with a big size.Pluto.2006 15:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I will check it. A4ay 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kris,

You can create any article as your wish in your own website. But in wikipedia It is not possible. You edited lot of article which are belonged to Carnatic music. And It is clear that you are trying to put images of Chembai in the article of Carnatic music as in the article say eg: Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer and Yesudas. And putting a music website in carnatic article. I don't like to say more. I will never allow any partiality in this article. A4ay 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The references are impertinent and false. They dont relate to the statements being referenced ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean impertinent? How do you know they don't relate to the statements? Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 10:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove cited passages based on your opinion. It may be termed as POV pushing. Please donn't delete {{cn}} tags without giving appropriate citations. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dont give {{cn}} tags as you please. ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:V, articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources and material not supported by reliable sources can be challeged and removed. For the avoidance of doubt, an individual editor's opinion on what looks better or whether he agrees with a reference doesn't over-rule policy. Addhoc 19:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I second User:Addhoc. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now extensively cited the passage Srkris keeps deleting. This passage in now with the most citation in the article. Every sentese is cited. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the structure of this article so that there is flow. In this section, "Composers", the languages have been married into the mudra paragraph (or final paragraph). This is to avoid any linguistic tints. (The Kannada-Karnataka aspect is explained just prior to this section in origins and history.) This way, there is a WP:NPOV sustained throughout.

The tala parts have been edited to include material that another editor has worked so painstakingly on. The Tiruppugazh reference has been restored here too.

The kriti section has been handled impressively, however, I have readjusted it to be 'verses' rather than 'units' - this word isn't quite appropriate. However, if there is a better word than verses that is appropriate, feel free to add it in.

The Varnam section has been adjusted to include a bit of the previous material - this description is quite adaquate.

The external links are kept to a minimum. Commercial sites are not mentioned, as with forums etc.

Modern artists - an unfair emphasis has been put on vocalists, with a lot of unreferenced (let alone POV/biassed) material. So, this will be the way it stays to maintain neutrality among artists. If we are to be fair and neutral, then one image for each of the modern artists will flood the article. On the other hand, there will be a huge picture edit war if some are included over others in this section. So the only fair, neutral way of dealing with this issue, without wrecking the article, is to stick with the latter, no pics. Hopefully, people will respect this aspect, or they will be the cause for why this article will always remain in a B-class!

Hopefully, any further adjustments in content will not reflect POV - just factual content please. Thanks. Ncmvocalist 14:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• History should come before musical treatises for readers to gain an understanding of who wrote them or how they relate to the article.
• Purandara Dasa had many other pioneering contributions not only "such pioneering contributions" mentioned here, hence language is wrong, now corrected.
• IAST diacritics should be used where relevant since plain english does not make much sense for Sanskrit words and names.
• Language of each composer does not merit a mention since this is not a language article. A general reference would suffice, particularly for the trinity. Thyagaraja composed a lot in both Sanskrit and Telugu.
• A new reader who does not understand what a tala is cannot take all the technicalities mentioned, these should go in Tala article, and this article should give a general idea.
• It was I who mentioned Tiruppugazh's use of chanda talas, and it's I who removed it now since I found Thiruppugazh uses some but not many of the 108.
• Kriti structure is not made up of just 3 verses. Pallavi, Anupallavi and Charanam should be called "units" for better clarity.
• Difference between chittaswaras and muktayi swaras will be blurred when the nonsensical statement about their identicality is mentioned.
• RTP involves a lot more than mere pallavi and swaras, and the mathematics involved should be mentioned, that is its speciality.
• Instruments paragraph made little sense earlier, so I made changes.
• Photos were removed without discussion and against good faith. POV statements about female trinity were present.

-- All the above issues have now been dealt with appropriately. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that all the above issues were dealt with appropriately.

• • The structure is still clumsy in a lot of areas but that can be dealt with over time.
  • Absolutely no excuse for the POV in modern artists, and the inclusion of Chembai or Balamuralikirshna pictures over others has now been dealt with appropriately - no one may push for the inclusion of certain pictures over other pictures as established earlier. The issue is of neutrality - not relevance here.
  • Instrumentalist changes reflect POV again. This part has been removed, but previous version now makes sense.
  • Picture changes of Purandaradasar and Thyagaraja were made without discussion and has been reverted for now. The change would work if there was an image of the Trinity there (not one of the three), but someone else may bring up the issue of why Purandaradasar's image is not used first when it should be.
  • There is no reason to include the language of one composer over another so this has been reverted too - please assume WP:NPOV.
  • There is enough information given in the important musical treaties section to establish its relevance to the article - the flow of the article is not disrupted this way. However, placing it elsewhere so it doesn't disrupt the flow of the article may also be welcomed.

Ncmvocalist 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Which citation is supposed to be fake: "The History of Tamil Music"or "The Story of Indian Music: Its Growth and Synthesis"? Addhoc 19:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

More than fake, both of them are totally impertinent. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can confirm "The Story of Indian Music: Its Growth and Synthesis" by O Gosvami - 1961, using Google books,[1] however the only book I found called "The History of Tamil Music" is by Celam Es Ceyalacumi - 2003. Is there a ISBN reference for this book? Addhoc 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some books published in India, especially by the University of Madras donot have ISBN allocated. The details of the book: The History of Tamil Music/Salem S. Jayalakshmi. Chennai, University of Madras, 2003, xvi, 235 p. See here. I have the book in pocession. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Addhoc 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In light of this would you mind reverting back Srkris's reverts? thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know he's been blocked for a week. Addhoc 23:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya has deleted the following paragraph:

Ancient Tamil works like Cilappatikaram, Tolkāppiyam and other Sangam literature works describe how a modal shift of tone (shifting the reference Shadja) from an existing scale can develop new scales.[6][7]. Inscriptions dating back to the seventh century CE found in a cave at Kudimiyanmalai, Tamil Nadu, has an array of musical notation. The Tevarams from the eigth century CE contains more than twenty scales with Tamil names that are equivalent to the present system of Carnatic music.[8] The rhythmic meters found in several sacred musical forms like Tevaram, Thiruppugazh, etc., resemble the talas that are in use today.[9][10][11] These works also give Tamil names for the seven notes in the octave.[12] The concept of Pann relates to the modern Raga in Ancient Tamil music.[13][14][15] Due to this there is a belief that Tamil music has also influenced the development of Carnatic Music in its early years.[16][17].

Every sentence in this passage has been cited as you can see. This user labels it "removing blatantly false and misleading half truths" in the edit summary. I want to know what is blatently false and misleading half truth in the aforementioned passage. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He has however not answered my legitimate question on which of the seven sentences in the paragraph is false or misleading half truths.

• The paragraph in question does not claim that Carnatic music evolved from Ancient Tamil music
• All it points out, akin to the paragraphs above point to the Samaveda, the Upanishads, God and the epics as a possible source of Carnatic music, that the long tradition of music of the Tamils influenced the evolution of Carnatic music. It does not claim to be the sole source.
• Every sentence is cited, some from multiple sources, from published books by renowned musicologists such as Prof Sambamurthy and Selam S. Jayalakshmi, the current president of Madras Music College. Whereas many statements pointing to Natyasastra et al have no supporting citations.Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit of history: The paragraph in question was first added by User:Ncmvocalist on 25 October 2006. User:Srkris began to unreasonably deleting this passage almost immediately without discussion. He gave up after a few reverts. Then on 5 November User:RaveenS changed the heading to Ancient South Indian music. Suddenly on 15 November User:Srkris deletes the entire section unilaterally. This is the background of this paragraph. I eventually revived the paragraph and added more citations to it. Now users claim that suddenly the paragraph is 'misleading half-truths' with 'fake' citations. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 09:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• User:Parthi, first you said this(see your edit summary) . I/we have discussed/been discussing these edits/reverts at excruciating length on this page and you know it. These portions, regardless of the history/background you concoct for it above have always been disputed and were precisely the subject of the discussions on that page. In this light, you mouthing off on the edit summary that I was reverting without discussions is as ludicrous as it is false. Sarvagnya 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion in the archive have nothing to do with the current paragraph. They were to do with the Tamil trinity and the appropriateness of including them in the history section. The paragraph is question has been paraphrased from the same article in carnatica.net from which the text about the Vedas and the divine being the possible orgins of Carnatic music. So your selectively questioning the Tamil contributions only shows your anti-Tamil POV Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't answered my questions above. What in the paragraph is false and misleading untruths? Which citations are fake? Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More 'fake' references:

• 'These ancient Tamil scales are comparable to the grama of Sanskrit musicology. But the Tamil authors usually mention five scales, while in the Natyasastra the scale is usually reduced to two'...'The term raga is not found in Natyasastra...[Matanga] was the first to define this concept... Tamil language has a similar term to define such a melodic device, namely pan...While the ancient Tamil poetics offers a detailed system of poetics offers a detailed system of poetics, musical and religious associations ... in Sanskrit musicological literature such complete sets only appear much later...' From Sangītaśiromani: a medieval handbook of Indian music By E.Wiersma-Te Nijenhuis, ISBN 9004094989 pp 38 - 39
• 'Most Tamil musical forms eventually merged into what came to be known as Carnatic music' From On Concepts and Classifications of Musical Instruments By Margaret J. Kartomi ISBN 0226425495 pp 67
• 'The musical system expounded in the thrid canto Arangetrukathai (Cilappatikaram) seems to be older than than that found in the Kudimiyamalai inscriptions' From Tamil literature By Kamil Zvelebil ISBN 9004041907 pp 8

Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The books Parthi is naming are published by Brill and University of Chicago Press. I think that Wikipedia's guidelines about what sources are reliable are given in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. According to these the books are more reliable than your websites. If you say that the books published by these respected publishing companies are fake then you must produce sources from respected scholars that say they are fake. Otherwise you are doing original research. I think the paragraph should be inserted again. -- Ponnampalam 15:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The references Venu62 cited are totally irrelevant for the sentences for which they were cited. If the statement is "He is a man", you cant include a reference that says "She is a woman". Even if the citations are reliable, they are nonrelevant when placed in context of the statements for which they are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.59.162 (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2006

I came to this page looking for information about chaturdandi and prabandha music. I was surprised that the History section did not mention it, so I came to the talk page to see if there was a reason. Ponnampalam 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If ATM had concepts akin to the raga and tala, it is totally incidental. It had no role to play in the evolution of the raga and tala in CM and HM, atleast not enough to justify a huge paragraph about it in the history section of this article. This info should go into the ATM article. Raga, tala and other concepts of CM developed independent of any ATM grammar. Bharata of NS or Sharngadeva of SR were not within 500 miles of tamil country nor did they have any CDs and cassettes of auvaiyar singing. And yet, they developed all the grammatical concepts independently. PD worked on these foundations and consolidated and gave it pretty much final shape(which has more or less survived 'as is' till today).

So, if there are any similarities between ATM and CM, we should only put it down to either Tamils plagiarising from other traditions or maybe reinventing the wheel. Neither can justify throwing in large paragraphs suggesting that ATM somehow had a greater role to play in the evolution of CM than it really did.

Citations and sources mean nothing when the content itself is irrelevant to the article. This is like Vaikunda Raja pushing for Ayyavazhi in all articles saying that he has cited college/university papers. This is going beyond ridiculous now. Sarvagnya 20:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Samaveda Carnatic music? Then the article says CM evolved from it. Is there any connection between the two in the contemporary context. Are all these academicians whom I have quoted simply lying as well? If you read the paragraph, all it does it attempts to give a NPOV picture of the evolution. It says, due to such and such reasons, 'some scholars claim that ATM contributed to the evolution of CM'. Why is this such a bad thing to remain in the article. There are seven sentences pointing out the similarities between CM and ATM. Why sould these seven sentences cause so much heartache in you two? Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the first line saying that karnataka means sweet to ears etc etc.First oof what are the fanatics trying to prove.It looks like they want to mislead people meaning of karnataka itself. Karnataka is nothing but sanskritised form of kannada and if not the current day karnataka would have never kept it. Karnataka word has been used in many literature works since 12th century.There has been reference of word called karnaTa in mahabharath also. In fact Tamil itself sanskritised form of word Dravida. The word karnAta as a region is used to represent current day karnataka and few regions of Andhra from centuries.That does not include Tamil nadu which was referred as Dravida region since centuries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nrupatunga (talk • contribs) 04:46, 10 December 2006

shouldnt we have a separate section for the instruments special to carnatic music? Chitra Veena, Flute, Gottuvadyam, Ghatam, Gayathri Veena, Jalatarangam, Kanjira, Mridangam, Nadaswaram, Veena and others? Also non-standard instruments that are used heavily such as Guitar, Keyboard, Electronic Organ, Mandolin, Saxophone and Violin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejas81 (talk • contribs)

I think we should. Do you want to add one? Also please sign you posts in the Talk pages with four tildes (~). Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 01:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry for not signing parthi, thanks for seconding. i have at best an amateur understanding of carnatic music itself, i was hoping someone else would note the comment, and write a knowledgeable section. --ti 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

According to linguist M.V. Seetharamaiah, the names of a few places referred to by Ptolemy (150 AD) in his geographical treatise are undoubtedly the ancient versions of present-day names of places in Karnataka (viz., Pounnata, Modougalla, Kaligeris and Banavoause). The word "Karnataka" and "Kuntala" that are mentioned in the Mahabharata and the grammar of Panini are a Sanskritised form of a Kannada word, which is according to many scholars "Karunadu," meaning large or an elevated country or black soil.

Sources
http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/31/stories/2006103108870500.htm http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+karnataka+sanskritized+form+of+kannada&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nrupatunga (talk • contribs) 20:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I was requested to take a look at the conflict on this page. I think part of the conflict over the relation between Carnatic music and Ancient Tamil music stems from different uses of the term Carnatic music. Is Carnatic music an art form that has its origins over 2500 years ago (per introductory paragraph) or is it something that first became recognizable as such around the 1200's?

If the article discusses 2500 year old origins, if it discusses Rg Veda, etc. then I think it is appropriate to mention the research that connects Carnatic music with ancient Tamil music. To the extent that there are references to opposing views among experts, the connection to ancient Tamil music should be presented as one POV among experts. To the extent that there are no reliable sources with alternate POV's, the connections with ancient Tamil music should be voiced as the consensus view of experts.

On the other hand, the article could be written about Carnatic music from about the 1200's. References to origins in Rg Veda, 2500 year old origins etc. could be removed. In that case, the research, whether accurate or otherwise, connecting Carnatic music with ancient Tamil music, need not be mentioned, nor any opposing views.

That is my initial opinion of the conflict. Of course I welcome new information. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 21:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BostonMA. It is exactly my point. When discussiing the origins goving back to the Vedic times, it is appropriate to mention varying POVs including published opinions of scholars regarding the influence of Tamil music. If the article is to be rewritten to merely reflect the modern Carnatic music, then there is no need to mention any of the influences. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks also BostonMA. Addhoc 22:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, I'm glad someone is atleast attempting to resolve this brawl. Apropos your comments, IMO, regardless of dates, when one talks of 'history' of Carnatic music, one must mention the various pre-existing musical traditions that influenced the gradual evolution of what we now term Carnatic Music. The idea insisted upon by one side here, that CM evolved out of one single source, in a hermetically sealed, insular social clique, with no connection whatsoever to its (south Indian) environment is quite, quite untenable. Equally so is the idea that in the distant past, there was only one type of music spread across all of India. Note, I don't say "classical" music, I refer to the pre-existing traditions that gave rise, in the 14th-15th centuries, to the Hindustani and Carnatic styles. Also untenable is the assertion that the style was somehow created or mutated by a single person, Purandaradasa. This cannot even be said about Rabindra Sangeet. No sensible write-up can endorse the idea of singular origin. The discussion can move to the question of how much emphasis to place on what tradition, and based on what sources, after there is consensus on this fundamental (and IMO intuitive) point: of eclectic origin. Hope this helps, but I doubt it. Regards, ImpuMozhi 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there was never in the past "only one type of music spread across all of India". I further agree that if one mentions the 'history' of Carnatic music, one must mention the various pre-existing musical traditions that influenced the evolution. I do have a concern, however, to avoid a historical leap. If the historical narative starts with Vedic times it should also include Sangam period. However, if the narrative starts in 1200, another issue arises. It is not enough to raise the intuitive point that Carnatic music must have been influenced by Tamil music of the time. One must also have sources that describe that influence. Are these sources available? --BostonMA ^talk 01:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how it was construed that my use of the word "intuitive" was a call to relax adherence to WP:CITE -- quite the contrary. My comments were concerned with:

• respecting reputable citations and recognizing that literature out there identifies a variety of influences as having informed the evolution of CM. (I count 12 citations in the paragraph that Parthi wants to include, and I'm sure numerous works identify the Vedas as being a seminal source)
• avoiding undue weight or emphasis being given to any one source. (whether Vedas or ATM -- I do not even refer to ATM but only to south Indian music)
• demuring from the idea that if CM became recognisable in the 1200's, that somehow is grounds for cutting out mention of the traditions that it developed from, whether Vedas or ATM.

This last point is made by you, Boston, and I cannot understand it. Can you please explain the rationale behind this view? Regards, ImpuMozhi 03:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. My remarks were in part prompted by the use of the word "intuitive". You have explained that you did not intend a relaxation of the need for proper citations. My last sentence was just a question intended to inquire if there were suitable references to show the influence of later Tamil music upon Carnatic music. I hope that help clarifies. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 13:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is only about Ancient Tamil Music. It merely co-existed with ancient Indian Classcial Music and eventually seems to have died out. There are no historical practitioners of ATM that we know. Carnatic instruments like mridanga, veena, flute, tanpura etc are used throughout India (even in non-carnatic music forms), and definitely Carnatic Music split from Hindustani Music which was also descended from Ancient Indian classical music.59.92.83.63 15:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted a number of academic publications. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding this bit in case it helps to resolve the wordings under dispute. Muthuswamy Dikshithar has composed the song Sri Venugopala in the raga Kurinji. Is there evidence that this raga has some connections to the ancient tamil music? If so, atleast we can surmise that some of those musical ideas have been adopted into 17th century and prior Carnatic music practise. (I am not sure if Nattakurinji falls in the same league. He has composed Sivakamipathim and Budhamasrayami in nattakuriniji). I will leave it to the more learned editors to consider the validity of this. If the actual wordings are under dispute, then another approach to solve this is to work out a compromise by toning down the strength of the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.102.138 (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2006

No one ever claimed that Ancient Indian Classical Music was monolithic or unvaried. The bone of contention is only that Ancient Tamil Music did not have a lot of influence, if at all it did have any, on the core of Ancient ICM (which was the ancestor of both CM and HM). No one is claiming that there was only one "unvaried" type of ancient classical music that existed throughout ancient India. 59.92.52.148 14:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there are acceptable sources that testify to learned opinions regarding the influence of Ancient Tamil Music on Carnatic music. They don't assert that the influence was "a lot" (however that might be determined}. However, they do assert specific "types" of influence. If there are acceptable sources that contest any of these types of influence, then these should be presented also. --BostonMA ^talk 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Both arguments should be presented with appropriate citation. The influence of Ancient Tamil music in the evolution of Carnatic music is supported by a number of academic references. If there are any equally reputable journals, publications asserting that the Ancient Tamil music did not have any influence, then it should be presented. In either case the mention on the influence of Tamil music must be made in this article. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

This short article about “Karnataka Shaastriya Sangeeta” (Anglicized: Carnatic Classical Music) is a translation of various articles written by late Dr. D.V. Gundappa (1887 - 1975).

In December 1953, Shree C. Rajagopalachari, who was the chief-minister of TamiLnaadu made a controversial statement: “Karnataka Sangeeta” is not apt, and it should be named as “Tennattu Sangeeta” [TheHindu, 26-12-1953]. The reason why a person like Shree Rajagopalachari, who was against the formation of states based on language, who always advised Indians to overcome the barriers of language, and who was against the concept of “Bhaashaabhimaana” to make such a statement can be logically reasoned. Majorpart of Madras Province, which is currently in the state of Tamilnaadu, has seen various movements like“Draavida kazhagam”, which was dominant those days. The unfavorable situation in those days would have compelled Shree C. Rajagopalachari to make such a statement, atleast to ease the tension. However, if we have to believe his words, it would be going against the historical facts.

Let us consider the historical perspective to understand the facts: In earlier times, sangeeta shaastra followed the “Guru-Shishya” tradition, and there did not exist any written text. First classical music began as abhyasa, and it was only later that shaastras were formed. It is estimated that only during the period of Bharatamuni (300 BC) for the first time the theories of sangeeta were documented. It was termed as “Naatya Shaastra”. For a considerable period of time it was the only authoritative treatise (PramaaNaGrantha) for the whole of India. After that, independent growth of classical music occured across different parts of India, in different forms.

In South India, around 1200 BC, that is around 800 years ago, a scholar by name “Shaarjnadeva” wrote a treatise, which was named as ”Sangeeta Ratnakara”. This is considered to be the first documented work on South Indian classical music. He hailed from Devagiri (which is now Daulatabad, province of Hyderabad). This region was part of Karnataka desha (majority of Karnataka Desha is currently Karnataka state), during that time. Later, South Indian classical music obtained a well-defined structure (nirdishta roopa) through the works of Maadhava and VidhyaraNya (1350BC). Apart from strengthening the sangeeta shaastras (sangeeta shaastra pravartane) by writing “Sangeeta Saara”, they were also ministers of the Vijayanagara Empire, and Heads of Shringeri Mutt. Both of them were from Karnataka and kannadigas.

They were followed by Shivayogis (1500) and Purandara daasa (1550) (who is also known Pitamaha of Karnataka shaastriya sangeeta) and other daasas. All of them were from Karnataka. After them, around 1650AD South Indian classical music got a new lease of life from Govinda Deekshit. Even Govinda Deekshit was from Karnataka. He was a minister in the court of King Achyuta Nayaka of Tanjavore. He wrote a Grantha “Sangeeta Sudha”. In his “Sangeeta Sudha” he has quoted a lot about “Sangeeta Saara” by Maadhava-VidhyaraNya. His son was the renowned Venkata Mukhi. He wrote “ChaturdanDee Prakaashika”, which even today is a novel work. “ChaturdanDee Prakaashika” for grammar of sangeeta is like how “PaaNini” is for Sanskrit grammar. It is important to mention at this point that even Kshetrajna who wrote “Shrungaarapadas” (also deals with theory of sangeeta shaastra) with pseudonym of “Muvva Gopaala” was also around this time (1650). Around 150 years after VenkataMakhi, arrived two of the Divine Trinity - Tyagaraaja, and Muttu Swamy Deekshit. It is very crucial to note that both of them followed the Shaastra Paddati set by Venkata Mukhi. During the time of VidhyaraNaya there were 15 meLakarta raagas, which became 22 during the time of Venkata Mukhi. Even for today’s classification of raagas, these 22 meLakarta raagas act as a base. Apart from above mentioned theorists many other theorists like kallinatha, raamaamaatya, somanatha, etc, have contributed a lot to the development of South Indian classical music. Majority of them, if not all, were from Karnataka. In conclusion, starting from Shaarjnadeva to VenkataMakhi, that is over a period of 650 years, scholars/musicians from Karnataka have elaborated on the developed theories for South Indian classical music. So, for the system they had developed, it was named as “Karnataka Shaastriya Sangeeta”. Last but not the least, the terms that are used in sangeeta shaastra : THaaya, Ela, Ovi, KaivaaDa, etc, strengthen therelationship between Kannada and Karnataka Shaastriya Sangeeta.

Point to Ponder: If we can divide people in the field of classical music into: Shaastra (theory) Kartaas, Lakshya (aesthetics) Kartaas, Prayoga (experiment) Kartaas, artists from Karnataka, Andhra and TamiL-naadu will occupy those positions, respectively. It is also interesting to know that only “prayoga kartaas” will perform for the masses. So, it is no surprise that “Tamilians” are more popular in Karnaataka Shaastriya Sangeeta and that could be the possible explanation behind the words of Shree C. Rajagopalachari.

- I am going to add this in wiki.But lets have some discussion before i put this on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.131.50 (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Whatever you add to the article must be backedup by references meeting the verifiability guidelines. Please make sure that there is no original research involved. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

references

References 1. Satyanarayana, R. “Karnataka Music,” Ananya: A Portrait of India. Association of Indians in America, 1997. 2. Viji Swaminathan, ed. Essays on Indian Classical Music and Dance. Philadelphia: Sruti, 2003. 3. Kruti Shreni, D.V.G. “Namma Sangita,” D.V.G. Kruti Shreni Volume 10. Karnataka: Directorate of Kannada and Culture, 1999. 4. Thirumale Sisters, Karnataka Sangita Darpana. Bangalore: Sinivasa Prakashana, 2001.

Text removed from the main article

I have removed a long section titled "Why karnataka in Karnataka sangeetha(carnatic music)" from the main article added by User:Nrupatunga. The text was rambling and without context to the article and was written in poor style. It needs to be edited and condenced before it can be added back into the article. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this essay to Music of Karnataka. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I will try to get it condensed and written in better way.

nrupatunga

I think a lot of people keep ignoring this blue message at the top of the page, so it's just a reminder: "This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here."

I've gone through the present discussions and pulled out all the spots where there are obvious incivil remarks or personal attacks made, and changed them appropriately. Ncmvocalist 17:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

NB: Ideally, no such remarks are a good thing. If a user has felt you have stepped "way" out of line (in the case you did make such a remark and it was deleted), they may still use a diff in the history of this talk page at anytime. This is purely just to tidy up the talk page of this article. Ncmvocalist 10:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the good intentions of Ncmvocalist's actions and I support them. However we should suitably warn those who abuse WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF guidelines. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. That's where the "NB:" (above) comes into play. Ncmvocalist 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than one impatient user over an image he uploaded, everyone has finally stopped any other revert wars, arguments etc. So hopefully we can start polishing this article, and once we've done it, try for it to be rated as a good article.

I intend on making individual sections on this talk page for each of the 11 or 12 sections of the article - this should include what we need to add, or what needs to be changed (once things are added or changed or removed, then we can strikethrough these changes on the list). This is designed so people can discuss and/or agree/disagree with proposed changes. Once again, I ask everyone keep a cool head (and assume good faith) during this time, as it may be a while before we're finally happy with each section, individually, before being happy with the article as a whole.

Assuming no biassed/disruptive editors come (or come back) out of no where, we will have a "good article" real soon, or so I hope. Ncmvocalist 14:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Chennai music season is one of the most notable Carnatic music events. I believe that it is inappropriate to replace the image related to Chennai music season. --BostonMA ^talk 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have objections in using the phrase "Carnatic Music also known as" I prefer the phrase "Carnatic Music known in Indian languages as". The later is more close to reality while the phrase in use appears to push the word "Carnatic" as the standard form and Karnataka Sangeetha to be of lesser value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by raguks (talk • contribs)

I was looking for specific information on how the tampura is tuned in carnatic music ( how many strings there and which string is tuned to which note ). I was surprised to see that information is not here. Also, the tala section is completely non-understandable. It uses terms without defining them first. I am not qualifed to edit this article and so I will leave it to the expert editors. Looking at the edit history and the discussion, I am a bit dismayed at the edit wars and endless discussions on a relatively narrow section while the article itself can be improved by expert editors in so many ways. Please consider this as a feedback for the editors for improvement and not as slamming the good work that has already been put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.102.138 (talk • contribs)

Is G.S. Rajan a famous Carnatic Music flute player? Why is he mentioned in the same breath as Ramani and Sikkil Sisters. Even Thyagarajan and Mala Chandrasekaran have not reached the stage of being called Maestros.

Please remember this isn't a forum discussion boards - regarding the manner in which you compare two musicians, no matter what they're standard is. However, unless someone insists otherwise, you are welcome to remove G.S.Rajan from the article. I would recommend against Thyagarajan and Mala Chandrasekharan being removed in entirity...if you understand my hint. Ncmvocalist 13:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said anything about forum discussion boards? Mine was a straight question as to why he deserves a mention among the maestros. Anyway, I can not seem to edit it since the article has a partial block. If someone is going to edit, Thyagarajan and Mala Chandrasekaran can be mentioned as the up and coming flautists.

A straight question? Your first is, but your second seems to voice your opinion that G.S.Rajan is far inferior to Ramani and Sikkil Sisters. (no pov here please) Sorry if I am mistaken. Anyway, the information given is sufficient for a draft. Keep in mind, there are quite a few names that are still missing in the instrumentalists section, and when I finally come to this area, I will polish this area up too (hopefully without too much disruption). But thanks for your comments, I will consider them. Ncmvocalist 15:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish they remove the partial block, so I can make the few edits I want to make. In the mean time I will leave it to you and other editors. BTW, just in general terms, you seem to be taking the POV principle too literally. There is no harm or foul in expressing a POV in the discussion pages. If you do not have a POV, why even discuss anything. The article should have a NPOV in principle, which in practice is the majority POV of the editors anyway.. but I digress.

Until then, feel free to propose any other changes you wish to make in a separate + on this discussion page. You can just draft the material if you like, with the changes in bold and/or material you wish to delete in strikethrough. Ncmvocalist 14:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Origin and history section does not exclusively talk about Sama Veda and so the use of the Main template to link to the article is irrelevant. The intent of the section is to deal with the history of Carnatic music. If there is a History of Carnatic music article then it is relevant to use {{main|History of Carnatic musio}}. This was why I removed the Main article:Sama Veda from that section. Also the second word of the first sentence of this section links to Sama Veda making the use of the Main template irrelevant.

The mention of Cilappatikaram has been removed. If the mention of Ramayana and Mahabharata is relevant here, why not Cilappatikaram, which has extensive mentions of musical systems and instruments? Cilappatikaram is the oldest surviving literary epic in South India. Removal of this smack of bias.

The discussion regarding the influence of Ancient Tamil music is on-goging (see above) and I haven't seen any relevant answers to any of the questions/comments by myself, by User:BostonMA or User:InpuMozhi. Please answer these questions before attempting to revert information with ample citations. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 10:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you dare call anyone anti-Tamil pov, including myself, considering - I introduced it to begin with (as you pointed out on the 8th of December), and later reintroduced the relevant material. There is no ongoing discussion - it ceased well over a week ago, and barely lasted 2 days.

The main reason Cilappatikaram was removed was due to your linguistic tint - you failed to maintain a NPOV by referring to it as Tamil literature. As well as also not being the relevant place to put it, you did not mention it in perspective as agreed here [[2]]. User:Sarvagnya has consistently pointed this and many other edits out throughout these discussion, but you fail to notice them, and act surprised when you fail to receive any agreement in what you have said. Take some initiative. Ncmvocalist 14:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

my two questions above are to do with the link to Main article:Sama Veda and the mention of Cilappatikaram aling with Ramayana et al. Please answer these specific questions and not point to old irrelevant discussions. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion.

• If we are going to cite literature going back to that period, it seems just as valid to mention Cilappatikaram as to mention Ramayana. This is not an article about the popularity of various literature.
• The section is not merely about Sama Veda, even if Cilappatikaram is omitted. Sama Veda is mentioned in the first line of the section. It is thus unnecessary (and gives undue weight) to have a separate link.
• I don't see a problem with mentioning that Cilappatikaram is a Tamil epic unless it is contested that it is Tamil. This isn't unduly glorifying Tamils, but simply stating a fact which may help the reader to understand to what Cilappatikaram refers without having to click to a separate article.

--BostonMA ^talk 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, I initially introduced the material. The significance of these 'influences', or 'references' was being over-emphasised, and under the current 'desired' scheme, is having the same problem. Your argument of 'popularity of various literature' may contradict the mainstream views that should be included - one would expect most emphasis on these views in an article of this nature. (check archive either way). Why is the Mahabharatha not mentioned as Sanskrit? For the reason that we are staying neutral - no unnecessary tint on any language, even ones own mother tongue (unless of course the user is a POV pusher as I once pointed out).

Sama Veda was considered the main article as it laid the foundation for Indian music. However, I've relooked at the article and it's not very comprehensive, so it seems this may be removed with regards to the reasons above. But just as a hint, if an article about origins and history of Carnatic music was made on its own, then one could include much more...

The discussions so far have been far from irrelevant, and Wikipedia expects me to assume that the editor(s) who believed otherwise is(/are) intelligent. Ncmvocalist 00:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Who 'initially introduced the material' is not pertinent to the discussion. How do you deem the discussions irrelevant when you haven't answered my questions. I see that you have removed the Sama Veda from the Main template. Now can you plese revert your deletion of the relevant mention of Cilappatikaram?

Who is the custodian of the the so-called 'Mainstream view'? That Ramayana/Mahabharata is Sanskrit or Cilappatikaram is Tamil is a given fact and facts supported by citations are not POV. Again the use of phrases such as 'POV pusher' does not lend to civil discussions.

When discussing the origins of Carnatic music, it is appropriate to mention all relevant influences without putting undue weight on one particular influence. The omission of Cilapatikaram et al, constitures putting undue weight on Sanskrit influences. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As a wise man once said; importance is placed not only on what is said, but how it is said. Rather than hiding behind technicalities, things are usually looked at in an overall context. As has been stated time and time again, even on your own self-editted talk page, the main reason your reference was first deleted was due to the extra linguistic tint you put in the material you add. You fail to follow NPOV, and still very obviously, fail to understand it. There is no need to mention trivial details like that. I am aware that Cilapattikaram is one of the most oldest surviving epics, as I grew up knowing the tale etc. but it's not appropriate here. Who introduced the content is pertinant to this discussion as he sees why it is not appropriate here anymore.

The reasons why it was deleted in whole is because this is an encyclopedia - please understand it is not a website to include anything and everything. The Mahabharatha and Ramayana, though Sanskrit, are known throughout India and abroad, which is why they have been cited as examples. (I'm not sure if I'm touching on notability)

Looking at this section (origins and history), the reference of Cilapattikaram does not seem to fit appropriately anywhere, PURELY because this is a summary article. Not EVERY influence has been discussed (one example is the Upanishads which encountered a similar problem). Not everything about the nature of Carnatic music has been included (only a snap of shruthi, a snap of raga, not much on tala etc.), not every modern artist has been included, not every composer has been included etc.

Cilapattikaram, Upanishads and everything else that hasn't and has already been mentioned, should be included with regards to Carnatic music, I agree, but not in this summary article - rather, in the article Origins and history of Carnatic music.

The most important/significant/known references/influences/origins have been discussed, and there is little or no debate about them. Ancient Tamil Music (as a whole) got its deserved mention in terms of its contribution to the two core elements of Carnatic music - raga and thala. I really wish you would try to see why it does not 'fit in', rather than insisting otherwise.Ncmvocalist 02:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the current text until we get more input from other neutral users. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 05:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The article desparately needs reliable citations. Many of the sections don't even have a single inline citation. The reference section is completely missing. Please don't delete {{no reference}} templates from the article. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 02:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the citations. Maybe the article should focus on Carnatic music itself and link to another article on Modern artists, etc. Just a suggestion. Sincerely, --Mattisse 02:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the lack of focus and I believe it also lacks quality. Several editors like Parthi and I did try to bring some balance to this article and improve its content. But the POV pushing by some and the severe anti-tamil bias exhibited by some editors is a serious impedeiment to improving this article. Unless there is a NPOV and a scientific/scholarly spirit in editing the articles, this article will not see improvement. I've poured literally hundreds of hours into this article and it doesn't seem wise for me to spend more my time fighting some editors who have such inveterate hatred of Tamil and evidences from Tamil sources or from Tamil Nadu. --Aadal 13:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mind spelling out who these 'some editors' are who harbor an 'inveterate' hatred of Tamil, so we can deal with them? Sarvagnya

Carnatic Music is not Dravidian music just because it is prominent in South India. It was not indigenous to Dravidians since its most authoritative treatise (Sangeeta Ratnakara) was written by a person from Kashmir; nor is any worthwhile Carnatic Music treatise written in any Dravidian language except Telugu (that too only in modern times i.e last 100 years or so). So adding Dravidian template does not augur good for this article. 59.92.47.201 20:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I am pushing for more educational information on the Dravidian civilizations of South Asia. Secondly, please provide referenced material to back your unsourced claims. Regards. Wiki Raja 07:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sarvagnya for not removing the WikiProject Dravidian Civilizations template. I hope you understand that this is just a contribution to Wikipedia for educational purposes and in no way disrespectful to anyone's ideology, nationalism, religion, way of life, or POV. Much regards. Wiki Raja 07:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

:: Please observe some decency and stop repeatedly inserting Dravidian template in articles related to classical music and dance, ask your friend Venu to observe some decency too by not simply reverting pages willy nilly until Template_talk:Dravidian_topics#What_the_word_Dravidian_refers_to_.3F is addressed to everyone's satisfaction. Dont expect civility if you yourself are not prepared to reciprocate by stopping your repeated acts of reverting and including the template. Your intention and others perception of it may not always agree, and it is necessary to make it clear that you are not pushing for ethno-racial exclusivity in wikipedia articles by using terms like Dravidian culture and Aryan culture etc. 59.92.46.189 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot provide referenced materials, then you should not post nonsensical things on Wikipedia articles. I am sorry I do not succumb to fairy tales and make believe stories. Nationalistic advocates in California have managed to revise the history books on India in the schools. Putting fairy tales in there to suit their liking. One should not revise or modify history at the cost of other civilizations. Pol Pot and Hitler did that at one time. Wiki Raja 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I edited my prev post, and you posted too soon. I just asked you to provide references that show that Carnatic Music was exclusively or mainly Dravidian. Its pure nonsense.59.92.46.189 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a valid reference which states that Carnatic music does not belong to any Dravidian civilization. If you guys can provide me with a valid reason (not made up assumptions), not to put the Dravidian Civilizations template on this page, then at least we will not be in conflict with each other. Truce? Wiki Raja 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_cited and WP:NOR. Unless you provide references for your claims, it is considered as original research. - KNM ^Talk 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read it, and I am still waiting on you to provide me with adequate sources proving that Carnatic music is not of Dravidian culture. Wiki Raja 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, here it is:

From the official policy, Wikipedia:Attribution

“

Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.

”

So, the burden of evidence is on you, if you want to retain the content that is challenged now. Hope this clarifies. - KNM ^Talk 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you have read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Anyways, I have more important things to worry about other than engaging in bull fights on Karnataka related pages, or pages claimed to be of Kannadiga origins just because it sounds the same as the name of the state. Wiki Raja 01:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody look into these, before I remove them or suitably modify them. --Aadal 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This user's edits (encompassing Telugu POV and anti-transliterationism) need to be reverted. --Śiva 18:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is an important article and it should be thoughtfully developed to make it as one of the FAs. At present it is in such a bad shape- only because there is undue importance given to certain views. I would appeal to Tamil, Telugu, Kannada enthusiasts to collaborate constructively and improve the article. It is important to understand that merely listing those Sanskrit works and giving a lot of prominence to Sanskrit-centric or Tamil-centric or Kannada-centric ideas are not going to be useful for a general reader. If Tamils believe CM owes a great deal to Tevaram and it is an evolution of Tamil music and Kannadigas feel it is the Haridasa movement which is foundational, or if the Telugus think it is primarily due to Tyagaraja and prior to him Annamacharya et al. I belive it should be possible to write all these in a balanced and accomodative narrative with proper referencing. There is no point in simply listing a huge number of composers without in some way, though briefly, explaining what their contributions or fame is based on, so that a general reader can gain some insight. The role of Veena, flute, Nadasuram etc. in the evolution of CM and its styles should be mentioned. The historically important musical inscriptions (even starting from 4th century CE are available) should be mentioned. Some pictures from temples, depicting musical instruments should be added. This article has so much potential and scope and it is a pity that it is languishing due to parochial edit wars.--Aadal 06:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)--Aadal 06:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. I find that certain user keeps deleting even valid edits which did not delete existing statements.

I had made the following edit to state that there is not single one trinity and have preserved the earlier statement about calling the Muthuswami-Thyagaraja-Shyama triad as trinity also.

I have cited also a whole book by U.V.Saminatha Iyer as evidence from nearly a century ago. So why this user Gnanapti keep reverting it calling it "false history"?

"There are various sets of composers recognized as "Trinity". Some consider Muthu Thandavar (1525-1625), Marimuththa Pillai (1717-1787) and Arunachala Kavi (1712-1779) as a trinity. The famous U.V. Saminatha Iyer has written a book called "Sangeetha Mummanikal" where in Kanam Krishnaiyer, Gopalakrsihna Bharathiyar and another composer are biographed in great details and accuracy typical of U.V.Samintha Iyer's writings.

Still further the contemporaries Tyagaraja (1759? - 1847), Muthuswami Dikshitar, (1776 - 1827) and Syama Sastri, (1762 - 1827) are regarded as aTrinity of Carnatic music, due to the quality of Syama Sastri's compositions, the varieties of compositions of Muthuswami Dikshitar and Tyagaraja's prolific output in composing kritis.[11]."

I hope Mr. Gnanapti understands this. As I said above, I have not deleted what was there earlier.

perichandra1

Please go through talk page archives. Gnanapiti 21:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I searched for the word "trinit" and am unable to find any discussion on what the matter of dispute here is. Anyway it does not matter. We have to judge this on what the edit is trying to state. What is your problem with stating that there are other trinities as well recognized traditionally? First of all the article does not even cite who and when designated the Muthiswami-Thyagaraja-shyama triad as "The Trinity" of Carantic Music. That statement itself is subject to delete or what going by your policy? Please desist from this edit-delete cycle.

perichandra1 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

When a citation from Yajnavalkya Smriti can be quoted why citation of or quotations from Silapathikaram or Sangam literature should not be quoted. The extreme bias against citations of tamil sources from some editors like Sarvagnya and KNM and his 2-3 other friends need to stop. Both Skt and Tamil sources can be cited. Pushing for citations only from Skt sources is POV. I would like experienced editors to point a source where I can raise complaints against these editors who are simply using group reverts to push their POV. There is a long history of denigrating tamils and tamil culture by some of these ediors in the various wiki articles and I would be willing to lodge a complaint.--Aadal 14:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Pick a section you feel strongly about, you seem to have done it already, ask for comment(RFC) from a neutral editor or take it to mediation (RFM). 17:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with you Aadal. Like you said, Sarvagnya and Co.'s crusade does not stop with just this tamil article as well. Just have at look at the recent edits by Sarvagnya on Tamil People wiki page. I can almost officially call him a noop! The Real Wiki Mania

Would the reverters care to explain why the following lines - relevant and cited - are being deleted from the article?:

According to some scholars, Carnatic music shares certain classical music concepts with ancient Tamil music. The concept of Pann is related to Ragas used in Carnatic music. The rhythmic meters found in several musical forms (such as the Tiruppugazh) and other ancient literature, resemble the talas that are in use today.Lotlil 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Blind bias could be a possible reason. Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that we aren't removing cited content let's leave it where it belongs, in the Origin section. The following statement quoted verbatim from the citation should clarify things a bit:

... ancient Tamil music is an important source from which Carnatic music is derived

Lotlil 01:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not satisfied that this is relevant to the section under which you posted it - composers! Please explain why it belongs there. Further, it needs to be worked on as it can be fixed up, so I suggest you work on it here in discussion. Once it's fixed, we can discuss a more appropriate 'spot' or 'section' to put it in the article. I've pasted what you've done so far below so you can keep going with your editing. Cheers Ncmvocalist 09:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A unique development in the art of instrumental carnatic music took shape under the patronage of the kings of the Kingdom of Mysore in the 18th through 20th centuries. The instruments the composers used to play their compositions were veena, rudra veena, violin, tambura, ghata, flute, mridangam, nagaswara, swarabhat. Some instruments such as harmonium, sitar and jaltarang, though uncommon to the southern region came into use and the English influence popularised the saxophone and piano. Even royalty of this dynasty were noted composers and proficient in playing musical instruments, solo or in concert with others.^[1] Some famous instrumentalists were Veena Venkata Subbiah (1750)^[2], Veena Shamanna (1832-1908)^[3], Veena Padmanabiah (1842-1900)^[4], Veena Sheshanna(1852-1926)^[5], Veena Subbanna (1861-1939)^[6] and others.

Reply: These well know composers, musicians who composed in carnatic style and played it with instruments, while singing these compostions vocally. Why do you say it does not belong where I had put it?Dineshkannambadi 15:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Also, please take a look at the "list of carnatic composers" article where I have added a list of some 40 carnatic composers from the Mysore kingdom.Dineshkannambadi 15:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to have them in the composer list. However, this is a summary article only cover the general main points - this paragraph isn't one of them. Further, none of the compositions of the listed composers are rendered (if at all) frequently enough by prominent artists to qualify being mentioned in this article, as it is a summary article by nature. And by the way, they are NOT well known composers in the same way Thyagaraja, Papanasam Sivan, Swathi Thirunal and so on are well known.Ncmvocalist 19:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, the whole article is in a mess and a properly cited and well written portion should be the least of our concerns. We are still not a stage where WP:SS compulsions would force us to remove content. Dinesh's additions are pertinent and well sourced. So we should just leave it alone for now. The "Modern artists" section is a joke. Also talking of non notable composers, the likes of muttu tandavar and marimutha pillay and n s ramachandran etc., wouldnt stand a chance of making it to a properly written SS article. So there's plenty to fix and cleanup in the article.. so lets leave well sourced content alone for now and not lose so much sleep over it. Sarvagnya 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Including this material doesn't improve the article in any way. You can't keep changing your mind. Muthuthandavar, Marimuthu Pillai were all agreed to be included just last year. They still are prominent composers whose compositions are rendered frequently by prominent artists. The modern artists section is relevant/accurate as of today, even if it reads more as a list. It overall needs more citations, but it certainily does not need that much more fixing up. None of the actual content has been disputed, unlike this paragraph. So how about leaving it as it is and contributing to progress the quality of the article as a summary one in the future, rather than making excuses. Ncmvocalist 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Including this content does improve the article. And Veene Sheshanna, Veene Subbanna et al are/were legendary composers and Vainikas. You probably need to read more about them and make enquiries before you start blanking them. As for Muthutandavar, m pillai etc., there is nothing about changing my mind. When we had agreed to add them, we also had agreed about certain other things.. all of which are not being followed. And there's plenty wrong with this article, for one, sourcing is from amateurish sources and needs heaps and heaps of cleanup and copyediting. We definitely are not in a position to blank valid, sourced content. Sarvagnya 20:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but you aren't in a position to blank out the m's on all the words, such as Virutham. *rolls eyes* Fixed it anyway.

Being a legendary composer doesn't qualify to fall under this section being a summary article - their compositions will be rendered frequently by prominent artists if they belong in this article! Certain other things like? This material needs to be moved if not blanked - not because of it's valid references, but because of the nature of this article. Ncmvocalist 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the paragraph talks mainly about development of Carnatic music, I think it would be appropriate to break the paragraph and add content in appropriate sections. First few sentences can very well fit into "History" section of the article. The well cited paragraph does add value to the article. Names of the composers can go into the next section which solely talks about composers. Gnanapiti 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In which case, each line would needs to be referenced. Names of the composers again are the problem as their compositions are not frequently rendered by prominent artists. Muthuthandavar compositions have been rendered by all "vocalists of today", except perhaps, Sreevalson J Menon. On the other hand, how many times have a significant quantity of the modern artists rendered compositions of these composers? Another suggestion is that they could be included under learning Carnatic music rather than under the composers section. Ncmvocalist 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And all that has to do with cpediting.. not blanking. Blanking content is very easy and it can get lost forever. If you think that the content needs to be split up and restructured, do it. If you think that certain parts of the prose need sourcing, use the {{Fact}} tag. Dont blank. Especially when it is sourced. Sarvagnya 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think each and every line of that paragraph is sourced. The reference for all four sentences are at the end of fourth sentence citing different page numbers. Gnanapiti 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist , each and every line in that para is sourced. I have been long enough in wiki to know that I dont have to provide a citation for every sentence. If you need more information, ask me for it. Dont use your opinion to decide who among the composers are well known and who arent. Discuss it. As such user:Ncmvocalist, you seem to be unaware that Mysore was famous in instrumental carnatic, during a time when Tanjore was well known for vocal.Dineshkannambadi 23:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Did you know that the carnatic composition called Javali is an invention of King Krishnaraja Wodeyar? The earliest mention of Javali or Javadi is known to be in his musical treatise. He is also credited with the first ever treatise on music which includes iconography.Dineshkannambadi 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Even Jayachamarajendra Wodeyar is a composer who is counted in the top league. Sarvagnya 00:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, infact these kings were such great patrons and innovators of music that they encouraged their musicians to compose carnatic music with the Piano and Saxophone, a tradition that continues with musicians like Kadri Gopalnath. I think the article needs a real make over to ensure it is not centric to any particular region of India, but is more inclusive from all points of view.Dineshkannambadi 02:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is still in a bad shape, highly distorted, purely because of systematic anti-tamil bias of some editors. Go back to the archives and see how much quoted information is deleted! The earliest musical epigraphical information is from Tamil Nadu in Tamil (~400 CE), later the famous Kudumiyan malai inscriptions of 700 AD again in Tamil Nadu, formal musical compositions with thousands of songs are from Tamil (Thevaram), Adi Trinity are Muthu Thandavar et. al. Many of the Sangam poems were set to music etc. etc. All these are systematically removed by gang-reverts by a group of editors. In fact it is in Tamil Nadu and Tamil culture you find continuous record of south-indian music for more than 2000 years. The lack of mention of early Telugu composers and contribution of telugu musical culture is another short-coming of this article. --Aadal 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Final warning Aadal: no more name calling. I've been very sympathetic to your sensitivities about "anti-tamil bias", but please discuss it more appropriately. Muthuthandavar is not going anywhere. This isn't an article that is meant to be lop-sided to any one language. It's a summary article, covering only the general points. If it doesn't qualify under this, then please place it in a separate article - you may put a link to it in this article. Sarvagnya and you both need to learn to respect other editors and their contributions, without resorting to being disrespectful. We're fed up of this habit you have. Ncmvocalist 05:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The composers are not based on different regions of India. The only part where this is done is in the mudra section where the language of the most prominent composers have been identified. Mysore Vasudevachar and Muthiah Bhagavathar are from that region according to the current composers list, so they have been included in the prominent composers section. Please be respectful other editors contributions thus far. If you want to insert something, insert it in the appropriate sections rather than messing what they have done so far up. You do need to cite each line as each one will have to be put in a different section. Ncmvocalist 05:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok...I've moved it to origins and history.Ncmvocalist 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have given one citation #17 (p54-55, p92, p162-163, p225-226) for an entire para is because of the nature of the statement which has been gleaned from many pages across the book. One would have to read the entire book like I have to provide the info I have provided. The sentence as such does not show up a one sentence in the book refernced, rather all over the book.Dineshkannambadi 14:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Pranesh (2003), p54-55, p92, p162-163, p225-226
2. ^ Pranesh (2003), p77
3. ^ Pranesh (2003), p93
4. ^ Pranesh (2003), p99
5. ^ Pranesh (2003), p108
6. ^ Pranesh (2003), p128