Is A.R.Rehman that great?

[evanoruvan]

Well, the ratings trends tell their own story. The interpretation of the trend is again subjective (on why older movies get better ratings).

Anyways, back to the main thread ..

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Jumping in after many posts, having just read the first few...

My answer is no.

Disclaimer: I am a classical music lover who hates most of the Indian film music he hears. So why would I even bother to look at, let alone answer, this thread?

Because... when I first heard AR's music, it was like a breath of fresh air among the film music. Roja, Sanagamam, 1947... great melodies, catchy tunes, good music. In a few years, though (I had a Bolly-/Tolly- wood-loving girlfriend at the time) I felt I was just hearing more of the same, and his music no longer stood out from the rest.

He is nicknamed "the mozart of madras". I have no idea why, as, as far as I know, he was not composing great classical pieces at a very young age. It can also be said of Mozart that his music has lasted centuries, and that he has written melodies that are familiar even to those who have no idea what they are.

I have been to an ARR performance where his compositions were played by a British symphony orchestra. In my humble opinion they did not stand the test. Such arrangements of Beatles' songs do stand that test: even though composed as pop trivia, they have a depth and richness that can survive an orchestra.

Maybe it is an unfair and even irrelevant comparison, but I think that Lennon and McCartney compositions will still be around in centuries to come, I don't think that ARR's will.

Having said that, I still hear snippets from those early films on peoples' radios; they have managed to maintain their appeal so far.

It is easy to be a music snob. Not every composition has to be great; it may be enough that it is enjoyed for one day.

 

[gobble]

He is nicknamed "the mozart of madras". I have no idea why, as, as far as I know, he was not composing great classical pieces at a very young age. It can also be said of Mozart that his music has lasted centuries, and that he has written melodies that are familiar even to those who have no idea what they are.

Thats purely due to the stupid Indian media. Thus Coorg is called the "Scotland of the east", and Pune is called the "City of bridges" (with allusions to a European city) while all it has is a long sewage canal with some rickety bridges criss-crossing it every few kilometers. It is also called the "Oxford of the east" but if you really step into the corridors and see the standards of teaching and facilities of 90% of the institutions ... you would be ashamed.

Now I wonder if Scotland is called the "Coorg of Europe" over there ...

cheers

 

[vishanv]

very interesting topic, thought I could throw in some words.

I have Munbe vaa from Sillinu oru kaadhal as my ring tone. my colleauge from canada who has never heard Indian music before, copied the song from me because he liked it so much. even took some cds which he listened and was greatly impressed by ARRs talent. he also mentioned many of his friends took that song as ring tones for their phones.

the point is, ARR has incredible talent and his achievements show that. If someone like Hans Zimmer is convinced that he qualifies for the award, then he is really something, IMO.

Ilaiyaraja vs ARR....well, I do like Ilaiyaraja, especially his themes (anyone remember Aan Paavam). but as someone else said before, I felt he never really was able to come out of his comfort zone. being a small time drummer myself, I never found variety in the percussion he adds to his songs. to my limited knowledge, I have never known any other composers in the present time who can bring in as much variety with such success as ARR. In fact, I belive MSV was much more talented in that aspect. Inspite of poor recording, some of his songs have amazed me in their rich mix of instruments and adding Kannadasan's lyrics made them unforgettable hits.

 

[longshanks]

@ Thad E Ginathom

Like you said it is not necessary for a composition to be great for people to like it or love it. The term Great Composition is again relative since it depends upon one's personal taste.

There have been many artists who's songs have been praised by majority of people for a very long time but, it does not mean that every single human being will like those great artists or composers.I myself even after listening to Beatles many times have never liked their song(not even one) and i cannot push myself to like it or make a fake liking impression that i like Beatles song so that i can tell others that i have great musical taste.

 

[longshanks]

In fact, I belive MSV was much more talented in that aspect. Inspite of poor recording, some of his songs have amazed me in their rich mix of instruments and adding Kannadasan's lyrics made them unforgettable hits.

MSV is just pure brilliance.

 

[psychotropic]

hey ashwin,

i am only responding because your post seems to contain a fair amount of bovine excrement. "I can't stand him/her/it" is not criticism, it's a preference. Stating a preference is not criticism. Saying "i can't stand" a movie is pure personal opinion. For your education the word criticism means "disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings." I did not point out any faults or shortcoming with MSV's music.

Let me illustrate this for you so that you don't come back with some ridiculous response:

If you say "This movie has no plot and the camerawork is dodgy" then that is criticism. If you say "I don't like this movie because I don't like period dramas" or you simply say "i don't like this movie" that's a personal opinion and not a criticism. My statement that I don't like MSV's music because it appears to have roots in Indian classical music is similarly, purely a personal opinon and not a criticism, because i am not pointing out any shortcomings or faults (unless of course you consider having a base in Indian classical music a shortcoming).

And to clarify I never said "people familiar with classical will like MSV and who are deep into western will like ARR." That's a pretty insulting oversimplification. What I said was that I do not like MSV's music because it has roots in Indian classical music. And i said that the antithesis to this could be someone who is into indian classical and not so much into western music and this person may prefer ARR to MSV. These were just illustrations of different types of preferences and not a criticism or a categorical statement that classical = MSV and western = ARR.

I would urge you to actually read what is written before shooting your mouth off. Thanks in advance.

Hi tropic,
I think the words 'can't stand' is not criticism i don't know what is. You should also realize that you have also chosen a 'method' of a composer(basing his composition on classical music)to not to like MSV.And your reasoning that people familiar with classical will like MSV and who are deep into western will like ARR is not correct IMHO. (Again you will come back and say u have the right to say so).So this can go on.

And every one has the right like you and has freedom of expression to state why they find the songs of some composers inferior to others.

Regards

 

[Hiten]

guys, remember "Music unites people"
cheers

 

[square_wave]

@ Thad E Ginathom

Like you said it is not necessary for a composition to be great for people to like it or love it. The term Great Composition is again relative since it depends upon one's personal taste.

I choose to disagree. A great composition is not a relative term.
A great composition is a great one. It has to stand the test of time. It needs to have depth.

It does not need to be liked by everyone though. There are cultural cultural/geographical influences to liking a certain kind of music. It has nothing to do with greatness.

 

[longshanks]

I choose to disagree. A great composition is not a relative term.
A great composition is a great one. It has to stand the test of time. It needs to have depth.

It does not need to be liked by everyone though. There are cultural cultural/geographical influences to liking a certain kind of music. It has nothing to do with greatness.

I said that because there is no specific rule to define a great composition so a great composition according to one may not be that great for another.


A composition becomes great only when many people like it and state that it is a great composition.people liking a particular music is absolutely related to it becoming great.

And there is no specific way to measure a great composition but, if you say all compositions are great in their own way cause it might inspire certain people who really like them and adore them, then i would agree with you completely.

standing the test of time again depends upon many factors.

 

[square_wave]

I said that because there is no specific rule to define a great composition so a great composition according to one may not be that great for another.


A composition becomes great only when many people like it and state that it is a great composition.people liking a particular music is absolutely related to it becoming great.

And there is no specific way to measure a great composition but, if you say all compositions are great in their own way cause it might inspire certain people who really like them and adore them, then i would agree with you completely.

standing the test of time again depends upon many factors.

So going by this logic, can we surmise that chiku bukku raile and the Beethovens fifth are of similar greatness ?

Isnt there something that elevates great works of art above the mediocre ?

 

[psychotropic]

But even that gets subjective no? A composition might have spectacular intrinsic value, depth and all the ingredients that you would think essential, but due to a combination of extraneous factors it may not 'stand the test of time'. Would that consequence then make that composition less great? And at the same time, a composition with less depth and the other factors may, due to overwhelming external factors (say a chance association with a monumental event) become timeless. Which would you say is greater?

I choose to disagree. A great composition is not a relative term.
A great composition is a great one. It has to stand the test of time. It needs to have depth.

It does not need to be liked by everyone though. There are cultural cultural/geographical influences to liking a certain kind of music. It has nothing to do with greatness.

 

[square_wave]

But even that gets subjective no? A composition might have spectacular intrinsic value, depth and all the ingredients that you would think essential, but due to a combination of extraneous factors it may not 'stand the test of time'. Would that consequence then make that composition less great? And at the same time, a composition with less depth and the other factors may, due to overwhelming external factors (say a chance association with a monumental event) become timeless. Which would you say is greater?

Now that is a lawyer talking. No offense meant

Going on this line of thought, we can compare any mediocre art to anything great. There is no end to the discussion.

I am an artist by profession. Hence this line of thought. I keep hearing this way of logic in my line always. But sadly to say it does not work at all in my field. Mediocre art always gets discarded when it is seen by the eyes that matters.

 

[thevortex]

Hai Suri,

To sum it up :

Ilaiyaraaja = Vinyl record

AR Rehman = Compact Disc

The CD is only superior till one hears the Vinyl , once you hear the Vinyl, the opinion about CD is altered.

Nice alliteration, Murali_n!

But I am not sure I agree. Anyway preference for different sounds as far as music is concerned is purely personal. I dont think the objective here is to absolutely compare Ilayaraja and Rahman and grade them. They have different, well defined strengths and weaknesses. I would just say, lets enjoy them both for what they give us. Unparalleled musical enjoyment.

 

[thevortex]

I keep doing a simple test to check if i really like a song.

I visualise a song without its music and play it back in my mind. The ones that i can really relate to are the ones which haunt you even without the instruments.

In that test Kannalane, Maula, Khwaja, Pudhiya Mugam all stand out with immeasurable appeal. Rang de basanti is a class act too, especially the way Rehman oscillates between the irrevent energy of Paatshala, the spirutual energy of Ik onkar and the rustic energy of range de.

I cant say the same about Chikku Bukku or similiar ones. He seems to be so capable of captivating you as well as disappointing you. He really seems to come to his own if the movie has a different theme. For the formula movies he seems to have formula music too.

Another related question, which i think is more pertinent.

Once an icon like Rehman sets a style, isnt it natural that the next generation takes that as a benchmark and replicates it. I will be surprised to see another MSV or RDB popping up. Is it more likely to see another Rehman or a clone of the MTV reality pop bands.

Well, Yuvan Shankar Raja is a shameless Rahman rip off. He goes to the extent of copying even Rahman's singing style. And botches it up, needless to mention.

Harris Jayaraj - its a close thing as to whether one can see Rahman's influence in his work or not.

I have great respect for Vidyasagar as he has been able to maintain his style of music right through Ilayaraja's days as well as Rahman's.

 

[thevortex]

Hi,
I find myself reluctantly agreeing with SRR's bro.I don't say ARR has not given songs with soul. But Ilayaraja in the same time frame as ARR has taken now,has given many soulful songs.

as far as timeless songs,as bala says we have to wait a little more.When Ilayaraja started out i thought he can't give timeless songs like MSV did.But i was proved wrong. So i don't want to jump the gun.

micjack here has mentioned that raja has not pushed the boundaries.I hope he is only mentioning the boundaries of tamil nadu stateThat may be true.But wrt music he certainly did.


Well this is a personal opinion.For me MSV and Ilayaraja are the greatest MDs of TFM.

PS: I am delighted an young man like praveen is appreciating CSJ. My son is refusing to go back further than Ilayaraja.

cheers,
sri

Probably mcjack is referring to geographical boundaries. But that is a very important boundary in my opinion.

I too like MSV and have great respect for artistes of the yesteryear in Tamil and Hindi film music. Thyagaraja Bhagavathar, CS Jeyaraman, TMS, AM Raja, PB Srinivos, Sirkazhi Govindaraj etc. are geniuses. And yes, I will agree that music like it was made, is not available today.

I would say that music of those days could be amply and completely enjoyed over a transistor radio. Not like today's music which requires listening and then listening again in expensive systems to really appreciate it. But I guess times change. And it is purely personal as to whether we want to change. I find that I have changed in a few things and am reluctant to in a few others. And I am not that old anyway.

 

[longshanks]

So going by this logic, can we surmise that chiku bukku raile and the Beethovens fifth are of similar greatness ?

Isnt there something that elevates great works of art above the mediocre ?

Yes,Even an old song sung in my village or a tribal song in Africa, Mongolia can be of similar or of better greatness.

I guess you are not getting my point, Mediocre or great music for a person again depends upon personal taste. When i say personal taste it includes many factors and depends upon many things.

If i play bethoven to my Mom or Dad they might not like it one bit, but if i play a bad Tamil song(according to them) they might still prefer it over bethoven so, bethoven might be great to many but not for all.

I am a person who strongly believes that music or singing does not require formal training but it is rather a talent one is born with. I cant agree that simply because something is carnatic or Hindustani or western classical then i have to like it or it necessarily has to be great to me.

 

[psychotropic]

haan no, my gut agrees with your way of thinking, but my concern is that even then such an evaluation of intrinsic greatness is such a fraught exercise, more and more so in the present world where you're constantly bombarded by sensory information. I am yet to find a personally satisfying answer to this conundrum.

Now that is a lawyer talking. No offense meant

Going on this line of thought, we can compare any mediocre art to anything great. There is no end to the discussion.

I am an artist by profession. Hence this line of thought. I keep hearing this way of logic in my line always. But sadly to say it does not work at all in my field. Mediocre art always gets discarded when it is seen by the eyes that matters.

 

[thevortex]

hey ashwin,

i am only responding because your post seems to contain a fair amount of bovine excrement. "I can't stand him/her/it" is not criticism, it's a preference. Stating a preference is not criticism. Saying "i can't stand" a movie is pure personal opinion. For your education the word criticism means "disapproval expressed by pointing out faults or shortcomings." I did not point out any faults or shortcoming with MSV's music.

Let me illustrate this for you so that you don't come back with some ridiculous response:

If you say "This movie has no plot and the camerawork is dodgy" then that is criticism. If you say "I don't like this movie because I don't like period dramas" or you simply say "i don't like this movie" that's a personal opinion and not a criticism. My statement that I don't like MSV's music because it appears to have roots in Indian classical music is similarly, purely a personal opinon and not a criticism, because i am not pointing out any shortcomings or faults (unless of course you consider having a base in Indian classical music a shortcoming).

And to clarify I never said "people familiar with classical will like MSV and who are deep into western will like ARR." That's a pretty insulting oversimplification. What I said was that I do not like MSV's music because it has roots in Indian classical music. And i said that the antithesis to this could be someone who is into indian classical and not so much into western music and this person may prefer ARR to MSV. These were just illustrations of different types of preferences and not a criticism or a categorical statement that classical = MSV and western = ARR.

I would urge you to actually read what is written before shooting your mouth off. Thanks in advance.

My, my, psychotropic! Lets cool down.

I can certainly understand that there are many, many people who absolutely abhor Rahman's compositions. One of the major reasons I have heard from people who hold such opinions is that his background music/instrumentals hugely overshadows the vocals.

This is where a liking for classical music comes into the picture I guess. Instruments almost always play second fiddle to the vocal artist. And since old film music was largely based on classical music, it tended to follow this style.

These are just different styles. Personally I can listen to all kinds of music. Heavy metal is the only exception. I cannot find any music in it. No offense meant to the many aficionados of metallica in here.

 

[thevortex]

Jumping in after many posts, having just read the first few...

My answer is no.

Disclaimer: I am a classical music lover who hates most of the Indian film music he hears. So why would I even bother to look at, let alone answer, this thread?

Because... when I first heard AR's music, it was like a breath of fresh air among the film music. Roja, Sanagamam, 1947... great melodies, catchy tunes, good music. In a few years, though (I had a Bolly-/Tolly- wood-loving girlfriend at the time) I felt I was just hearing more of the same, and his music no longer stood out from the rest.

He is nicknamed "the mozart of madras". I have no idea why, as, as far as I know, he was not composing great classical pieces at a very young age. It can also be said of Mozart that his music has lasted centuries, and that he has written melodies that are familiar even to those who have no idea what they are.

I have been to an ARR performance where his compositions were played by a British symphony orchestra. In my humble opinion they did not stand the test. Such arrangements of Beatles' songs do stand that test: even though composed as pop trivia, they have a depth and richness that can survive an orchestra.

Maybe it is an unfair and even irrelevant comparison, but I think that Lennon and McCartney compositions will still be around in centuries to come, I don't think that ARR's will.

Having said that, I still hear snippets from those early films on peoples' radios; they have managed to maintain their appeal so far.

It is easy to be a music snob. Not every composition has to be great; it may be enough that it is enjoyed for one day.

Allowing for subjectivity, I have no problems with anybody categorizing Rahman as less than great. After the term itself is not metrically defined. Even the metrics may differ for different people.

But what I do not get from you post is : why should Rahman's music sound good when played by a British orchestra. Even allowing that they made themselves absolutely familiar with the kind of music that Tamil/Hindi/Telugu films have, one must always make allowances for the cultural difference. If you attend a concert where you come across SP Balasubramaniam singing, you would note the huge number of variations that he can bring across in his repertoire. All of that adds taste to the music.

Not arguing with your judgment. Just expressing surprise and doubt about the grading methodology you mentioned.

Lastly I think there are great compositions. And then there are universally great compositions. It is difficult to achieve the latter. May in fact be impossible. It is not inconceivable that a lot of people will not like Mozart's compositions for example. It is all a matter of taste, all said and done. Music is nothing if not personal.