Re: [tuning] A Tale of Twenty Two Shruti-s

Haresh BAKSHI schrieb:
>

> The shruti summary is as under:
>
> 1. There are 22 shruti-s. They are classified into 5 groups for
> reasons of aesthetics. [This grouping especially needs further study].
>
> 2. 9 shruti-s give rise to Sa-Ma interval, and 13 shruti-s, Sa-Pa
> interval.
> 3. Out of those 22 shruti-s, 12 have been selected, to be called
> swara-s. The swara-s are, first of all and most of all, shruti-s
> only, though they do assume additional significance.
>
> 4. Shruti-s have a dual aspect: As the measurable, reproducible
> frequencies; and, secondly, as dynamic intonations. In the first
> case, the shruti-s are stand-alone; in the second, they can be, and
> are ONLY to be, percieved during a performance. The performer does
> not start with a scale of 22 shruti-s; rather, he uses them with the
> only consideration of aesthetics in mind. The performer can be
> completely ignorant, as far as using shruti-s is concerned. However,
> he needs to be learned to study them in isolation, that is, as apart
> from performance. The first is a technical measurement, the second
> is an aesthetic judgement; they go hand in hand. The performer can
> use a shruti lower or higher, depending upon the requirements and
> extent of flexibility of the raga or his aesthetic mood. However,
> there are raga-s, which require use of only specific shruti-s: for
> example Todi, for its komal Re, komal Ga, and komal Dha. The
> performer shall not compromise in such cases. Even the specificity
> of such shruti-s is a matter, eventually, of aesthetics.

Dear Haresh,

admittedly I am a) far away from the pertinent culture, b)
interested in and fascinated by the idea of shruti as a measuring
tool primarily. Initially I knew nothing about them except that
there is no agreed upon explanation and that only a selection do
occur in actual music. What I learned since then (like you, I
started digging for texts and testing ideas last fall) is often at
odds with your findings. I would like to add my doubts and
convictions for discussion and refutation.

1. I have never seen a reference to twelve svaras, they were always
seven. However, Sarngadeva speaks of twelve modifications to the
seven svara, making 19 in all (44c-46b). (The original sources I
have lying around are the Sangitaratnakara and the Natya Sastra. I
rarely read much of it sequentially, since I seem to grasp only the
very basics in terminology. So my reading may be distorted!)
I think that in the 19th century somebody collocated all the
diatonic modes or went directly to the "scientific" European model
of wholestep = 2 halfsteps, and then calculated all possible "seven
out of twelve" scales with the single restriction that Sa-Pa or
Sa-Ma or both must be samvadi. These are the ragas of Karnatic
music, but they, too, have seven svaras (or six or five).

2. The srutis as classified for asthetic effect add up to 22! This
contradicts the idea behind my sruti-for-measurement thesis that
some of them are never used. They also are grouped with certain
svaras, implying they are pitch variations. This, however,
contradicts the two vina experiment which, taken cum grano salis,
makes it clear for me that they _appear_ to have equal distances
(according to some undefined measuring method). Moot point?

3. I think that there have been some number of historical
redefinitions of the term "sruti". In the beginning, they seem to
have been used to outline different scale types. Whether Sarngadevas
practice of altering some pitches (making it 19 used srutis, while
classifying 22 - another contradiction?) is already a distortion, I
am not sure. Very likely the whole system was adapted to
Arabic-pythagorean theory in the mogul dynasty (Al Farabi mentions
an older Arabian system of tuning the lute by subdividing a minor
third six times - does anybody know more about this one?), then
adjustments to the 12 tone keyboards of English use may have been
made in theory and practice.
Since authority is always gained by the elders, each new use of the
term probably had to make the sruti 22, whether it made sense in the
new context or not. So I would advocate a strict division of the
different meanings.

Klaus

--- klaus schmirler wrote:

> 1. I have never seen a reference to twelve svaras, they were always
> seven.

According the the Levy book, "Pundarika Vitthala" gives 7 suddha and 7
vikrta svaras, but antara Ga and kakali Ni are omitted because they
are too close to higher frets. That would give 12. I forgot to note
down a date for this, but I think it came soon after Sarngadeva where
"soon" could denote hundreds of years. Sounds like meantone thinking
to me.

> However, Sarngadeva speaks of twelve modifications to the
> seven svara, making 19 in all (44c-46b).

It's tempting to think of these as meantone, but the detailed
description doesn't make sense that way. The 19 svara don't even
correspond to 19 notes in a direct way.

> (The original sources I
> have lying around are the Sangitaratnakara and the Natya Sastra. I
> rarely read much of it sequentially, since I seem to grasp only the
> very basics in terminology. So my reading may be distorted!)

Are either of these in print in English? If only the latter, do you
have details I could get the library to search on (they like ISBNs)?

> I think that in the 19th century somebody collocated all the
> diatonic modes or went directly to the "scientific" European model
> of wholestep = 2 halfsteps, and then calculated all possible "seven
> out of twelve" scales with the single restriction that Sa-Pa or
> Sa-Ma or both must be samvadi. These are the ragas of Karnatic
> music, but they, too, have seven svaras (or six or five).

I don't have this somebody's name, but I do have a list of melas.
It's all combinations of tetrachords that can occur with 12 notes
joined disjunctly, plus the lower tetrachord is allowed to have a
sharpened fourth. So the basic tetrachords are:

2 2 1
2 1 2
1 2 2
1 1 3
1 3 1
3 1 1

and the altered lower ones:

2 2 2
2 1 3
1 2 3
1 1 4
1 3 2
3 1 2

6*2*6 gives 72 in total.

> 3. I think that there have been some number of historical
> redefinitions of the term "sruti".

That's certainly how it looks.

> In the beginning, they seem to
> have been used to outline different scale types. Whether Sarngadevas
> practice of altering some pitches (making it 19 used srutis, while
> classifying 22 - another contradiction?) is already a distortion, I
> am not sure.

According to Widdes (I think) the nature of the music had utterly
changed between Bharata and Sarngadeva's times. However, I heard more
recently that it was even after Sarngadeva's day that the drone came
to be used, which should have had a big impact on tuning.

> Since authority is always gained by the elders, each new use of the
> term probably had to make the sruti 22, whether it made sense in the
> new context or not.

That's how I understand it.

Graham

Graham Breed schrieb (quoting me):

> > (The original sources I
> > have lying around are the Sangitaratnakara and the Natya Sastra. I
> > rarely read much of it sequentially, since I seem to grasp only the
> > very basics in terminology. So my reading may be distorted!)
>
> Are either of these in print in English? If only the latter, do you
> have details I could get the library to search on (they like ISBNs)?

Gosh! I sound as if I read it all in Sanskrit, where in reality I
have trouble keeping all them furrin names apart. Of course I read
them in English:

The Natya Sastra Of Bharatamuni. Translated into English By A Board
of Scholars. (Raga Nrtya Series no.2) Sri Satguru Publications,
Delhi, no date. ISBN 81-7030-134-3

Sangitaratnakara of Sarngadeva. Sanskrit Text and English
Translation with Comments and Notes. English translation by Dr. R.K.
Shringy under the supervision of Dr. Prem Lata Sharma. Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers, 1991. ISBN 81-215-0508-7. Actually, as I saw
today, this is the first of three projected volumes and only
Sarngadevas first chapter.

I found references for Mark Levy, but who, please, is Widdes?

Klaus

I'd recommend this book as a complement to Chakraborty's for those
trying to understand the early texts:

Rowell, Lewis. 1992. _Music and Musical Thought in Early India_.
University of Chicago Press.