Significance of the 5-fold shruti classification

Hi Yahya, please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to
your message.

You wrote:
>>>> Based on your experience, what is your interpretation of "the
significance of this classification"? >>>>

My response to this may eject me out of the Tuning Group orbit for
irrelevance. But here goes .......

There are three concepts involved: concept of shruti, of "rasa", and
of experiencing.

1. SHRUTI: The number of shruti-s is infinite, but is 22
mathematically. So, we are attempting to reduce the timeless to the
time-bound. Indian musicians -- and other "ethnic" musicians --
intuitionally use shruti-s constantly without intelectual recognition.
Knowing this, we still can take the shruti concept to the lab. for
objective study -- to an extent.

2. RASA: Rasa is the key concept of Classical Indian Aesthetics. It is
variously translated as taste, flavor, pleasure, savor, relish,
emotive aesthetics, "contemplative enjoyment of `universalized'
emotion", emotional flavor, sentiment, etc.

Rasa is not the psychological result that a musical performance
induces in the listener, but it is, at once, rather, the inner source
as well as the meaning of the aesthetic creation. It is not simply a
'subjective' psychological response on the part of the experiencer of
rasa, to the 'objective' expression of a raga. Rasa is fundamental,
universalized, aesthetically rapturous experience. Rasa can be
experienced only when the experiencer is absent.

Even when referring to emotions (which are not "rasa-s"), music does
not cover as wide a range of emotions as, say, the theater. For
example, no musical features of a raga would invoke laughter (hasya),
disgust (jugupsa) or fear (bhayanaka). On the other hand, every raga
evokes its own aesthetically expressive experience. [These are the
three of the nine emotions mentioned in dramaturgy.]

The classification of shruti-s into five classes needs to be examined
in the light of all this. As far as I know, the Indian
musicians/musicologists have yet to do that.

3. The EXPERIENCING: The rasa, the ecstacy, which literally means "to
be outside oneself", is universalized, though its interpretation is
personalized. Also, it is often difficult to tell if and when the
experience is purely musical or purely spiritual. Some of us may not
even recognize that a musical experience can have anything to do with
spirituality.

You also wrote:
>>>> For example, could you confidently assign different inflections
of Re, such as Re ati komal or Re tivra, to one or the other of these
classes? Or perhaps I have misunderstood how to apply the
classification ... >>>>

My answer is Yes and No. Yes, assigning different inflections is
possible. No, the notes csannot be classified in terms of the five
categories mentioned earlier.

I am sorry for the confusion my response may cause, but I cannot do
better than this.

Regards,
Haresh.

Hi Haresh,

Thank you for your answer. It was worth waiting for.
Sorry I've been offline for a few days, but can now reply.

You wrote of shruti, of rasa and of experience. I believe
I followed your exposition without difficulty, up to near
the very end, when you wrote:

You also wrote:
>>>> For example, could you confidently assign different inflections
of Re, such as Re ati komal or Re tivra, to one or the other of these
classes? Or perhaps I have misunderstood how to apply the
classification ... >>>>

> My answer is Yes and No. Yes, assigning different inflections is
possible. No, the notes csannot be classified in terms of the five
categories mentioned earlier.

> I am sorry for the confusion my response may cause, but I cannot do
better than this.

Regards,
Haresh.

[Yahya again] Well, yes, your Yes and No answer is confusing! :-)
I find two ways of interpreting it:

1. The logical one: that it is possible to assign SOME inflections to
the five classes, but not ALL of them.

2. I asked the wrong question!!! and should instead have asked
this sort of question:

a) Does any particular inflected nominal eg Re tivra always belong
to the same one of the five classes? or conversely,

b) Can any particular inflected nominal eg Re tivra belong to more
than one of the five classes? and then

c) If so, depending on what?

d) More generally: Is each one of the five different classes evoked
by (or represented by) individual sruti, or by some particular
combination of sruti as in a raag, or by some more complex
combination, such as raag + taal?

As you may see, I'm struggling to see your meaning.

Now, it is possible that my list of alternative questions
above may give you a specific phrase that is useful in doing
"better than this". Equally, those questions may just add
to the difficulty. I leave it to you to decide which of the
two applies ...

--------

But I personally found your three-fold answer to the first
question quite satisfactory - especially as it applies to my
own experience of Indian classical music (if rather less so
to western classical music). The ecstasy you speak of is,
it seems to me, a key ingredient in the Indian musical
experience; I know of nothing so transcending daily life.

So if anyone wants to kick you off-list for talking about
ethos, ecstasy and the like, I'll be leaving too ... :-)

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 29/4/05

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:

Hello Yahya,

>>>>
[Yahya again] Well, yes, your Yes and No answer is confusing! :-)
I find two ways of interpreting it:

1. The logical one: that it is possible to assign SOME inflections to
the five classes, but not ALL of them. >>>>

All notes have assignable inflections. But it is not possible to
assign any of the inflections to the five-class system at our present
state of understanding the shruti-class system. This is mainly because
the five-class system has not been studied and understood well.

>>>> 2. I asked the wrong question!!! and should instead have asked
this sort of question:

a) Does any particular inflected nominal eg Re tivra always belong
to the same one of the five classes? or conversely, >>>>

As mentioned in the standard Sanskrit texts on music, there are five
classes of shruti-s: (1) dipta [pronounced deeptaa], meaning blazing,
brilliant; (2) ayata [pronounced aayataa], meaning spread over, extended;
(3) karuna [pronounced karuNaa], meaning compassion, pathos; (4)
mrudu, meaning tender; and (5) madhyaa, meaning moderate, medium.

Classification of notes in terms of the five shruti classes:

Sa has 4 shruti-s. Out of these the first shruti is assigned to the
'dipta' class of shruti-s; the second shruti of Sa is assigned to the
'ayata' class; the third to the 'mrudu '; the fourth to the 'madhya'
class.

Re: has 3 shruti-s. Out of these the first shruti is assigned to the
'karuna' class of shruti-s; the second shruti of Re is assigned to the
'mrudu' class; the third to the 'madhya'.

Ga: has 2 shruti-s. They are respectively assigned to 'dipta' and 'ayata'.

Ma: has 4 shruti-s. They are assigned the same way as in Sa.

Pa: has 4 shruti-s, assigned to 'mrudu', 'madhya', 'ayata' and
'karuna' respectively.

Dha: has 3 shruti-s, assigned respectively to 'karuna', 'ayata' and
'madhya'

Ni: has 2 shruti-s, assigned respectively to 'dipta' and 'madhya'

This classification does not mention komal (flat) and teevra (sharp)
notes separately. But the number and nature of various shruti
assignments include those accidentals.

>>>> b) Can any particular inflected nominal eg Re tivra belong to
more than one of the five classes? and then c) If so, depending on
what? >>>>

The shruti-s comprising a note always belong to different classes of
shruti, as seen above.

>>>> d) More generally: Is each one of the five different classes
evoked by (or represented by) individual sruti, or by some particular
combination of sruti as in a raag, or by some more complex
combination, such as raag + taal? >>>>

Each shruti-class can be evoked by shruti-s belonging to different notes.

For further clarification, let me raise and answer some questions:

(i) Are all shruti-s equal? As intervals, they are not equal.
(ii) Can shruti-s be notes? Yes, any shruti can be a note, depending
upon which of the 22 shruti-s is the reference (Sa, the tonic, the key).

The concept of `taal' has no relevance here.

The Problem:

(1) We have been examining the context of shruti-s ONLY in terms of
octave-doubling.

(2)I have often taken this up with Paul on as well as off the List. In
the earlier period of Indian music, the Indian gamut consisted of two
or three 'notes'. Other notes were added only later. But AT NO STAGE
of development of theory has the word "octave" been used. It has
always been saptaka (septet) -- seven notes in the gamut. While 2:1
implies maximum consonance and is found in Harmonic Series,
"octave-doubling" has not been even remotely implied in the texts. The
implications of this could certainly change our understanding of shruti-s.

Regards,
Haresh.

Haresh,

Thanks for your detailed reply.

You wrote:
________________________________________________________________________
The Problem:

(1) We have been examining the context of shruti-s ONLY in terms of
octave-doubling.

(2)I have often taken this up with Paul on as well as off the List. In
the earlier period of Indian music, the Indian gamut consisted of two
or three 'notes'. Other notes were added only later. But AT NO STAGE
of development of theory has the word "octave" been used. It has
always been saptaka (septet) -- seven notes in the gamut. While 2:1
implies maximum consonance and is found in Harmonic Series,
"octave-doubling" has not been even remotely implied in the texts. The
implications of this could certainly change our understanding of shruti-s.
________________________________________________________________________

I vaguely recall reading, during the late sixties, in Ravi Shankar's book,
about the effects of using the lower and upper octaves, and how the
amopunt of time spent in each octave was one of those things largely
governed by the raga. For example, raga X might never use the second
octave, while raga Y would use the second octave, but only near the
climax of the performance and this should not exceed one-quarter of
the total performance length. If it wasn't Shankar, it may have been
another author available then.

At any rate, there was no recognition that the melodic relation between,
say Sa and Ga in the lower octave differed _in kind_ from that between
the same two sruti in the upper octave. This I found rather puzzling, since
what is objectively twice the frequency difference is always perceived by
human ears as a somewhat _smaller_ frequency difference - despite the
greater difficulty for human voices in achieving the higher leap. I had
thought that classical Indian practice and theory would be more sensitive
to those differences than were classical Western practice and theory;
but was disappointed.

At the same time, different "colours" were attributed to the sruti of
the same name in the different octaves eg Sa and Sa'. How this could be
so without affecting the quality of the melodic leap was (and is) beyond
my understanding.

Still, I'm not sure what your problem is. Certainly Indian practice uses
the different octaves expressively and in fairly predictable ways. Could
the absence of a word for the octave interval in the classical texts merely
have been a way of reinforcing the essential unity perceived for, say, Sa
and Sa' ? That is, another way of saying that there were only seven
really distinct scale degrees, the gamut or saptaka? (Seven notes in
sampurna ragam, of course; otherwise fewer.)

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 4/5/05

Hello Yahya, thanks for your response. In the folowing lines I have
attempted to make my confusion a little clear.

The Problem:
A peculiar uneasiness exists in my thinking regarding the fact that
there were only very few notes in the Indian gamut in ancient times.
Since this is known as a fact, there existed no need

for octave doubling
for cents
for 5-limit JI per se.

Also, ancient texts express distances of 9 sruti-s and 13 shruti-s as
as consonant, but they cannot be spoken of as ratio 4/3 and ratio
3/2,respectively, unless octave doubling is explicitly accepted and
expressed as 2:1 for 22-shruti distance in those texts.

Therefore, the only way to express the relationship among those three
(or four or at the most five) notes was through shadja-pancham-bhaava
(Sa-Pa or the fifth relationship.)

If octave doubling was not accepted then -- and so if we do not accept
it now --, C4 does not need to have 1:2 relationship with C5 (for
example.)

Another fact of great import is that Bharata (in his work in 2 A.D.)
describes a demonstration on two vina-s, each equipped with seven
strings, and tuned exactly alike. He requires the experimenter to
incrementally lower the strings of the second vina, in relation to
those of the first vina, very exactly, but by using his acute sense of
correct pitch. It cannot be emphasized enough that this is an exercise
in acuteness of judging the pitch.-- it is not an exercise to fix the
length of the vibrating string for a particular shruti. This is a fact
of great import, seldom mentioned.

Further, if the tuning involved only Sa-Pa (the fifth) relationship,
then C5 would overshoot 2:1 with C4 by 23.5 ¢ (not that we could have
used cents then!). But this would not matter, because the septave
stopped at Ni (B). Thus, C4 to B4 formed the septave and C5 never
entered the scene.

In the early history, consonance was additive: 9 shruti-s + 13
shruti-s = 22 shruti-s. No ratios, no frequencies, no cents, no
explicit recognition of octave doubling as 2:1. How can the current
picture about shruti-s -- their nature, number, and distances -- be
derived authentically?

If I sound confused, I am! But I have done some loud thinking with the
hope of gleaning some clarification.

Regards,
Haresh.

Haresh,

You wrote:
> The Problem:
> A peculiar uneasiness exists in my thinking regarding the fact that
> there were only very few notes in the Indian gamut in ancient times.
> Since this is known as a fact, there existed no need ... for octave
> doubling
...
> In the early history, consonance was additive: 9 shruti-s + 13
> shruti-s = 22 shruti-s. No ratios, no frequencies, no cents, no
> explicit recognition of octave doubling as 2:1. How can the current
> picture about shruti-s -- their nature, number, and distances -- be
> derived authentically?

The writings are very ancient indeed! When Bharata wrote, 2000
years ago, the system of 22 srutis was already established in practice.
It is my view that Bharata prescribed nothing new, but recorded the
actual practice of musicians. That is, that he was a historian, and
not, primarily, a theoretician.

The period in which there were fewer (mostly five) notes in the gamut
would seem to be 500 or 600 years earlier than Bharata. The ragas
are now classified, very broadly, by how "complete" - sampurna - the
gamut is. Only newer ragas are complete, that is, heptatonic; older
ones have either five or six notes only. Interestingly, this development
from a pentatonic to a heptatonic gamut was paralleled elsewhere,
notably in China. In all cases, it seems to have taken a long time.
Many cultures have established pentatonic scales, but few have gone
on to use a heptatonic gamut.

You ask:
> .... How can the current picture about shruti-s -- their
> nature, number, and distances -- be derived authentically?

I'm not sure that it can, that is, by incontrovertible scientific
methods, unless we discover appropriate physical proofs. The best
such evidence we have for ancient tunings is the remarkably ancient
(11,000+ years BCE) bone flutes found in China.

Still, I place a lot more faith in the accuracy of oral tradition than
do scientists. Modern man is unfairly prejudiced against knowledge
that is not written down. Just because we can't remember what we
said yesterday, unless we write it down, is no proof that others
could not! And in the past, and even in preliterate societies today,
the r�le of memory as a store and transmitter of knowledge was,
and is, paramount.

In the absence of suitably ancient instruments from India, the best
guide we have to ancient practice is surely the living traditions of
Indian music?

That people spoke of 9 + 13 srutis creating a gamut of 22, rather
than of 4/3 x 3/2 being equivalent to 2/1, was not a failure of
scientific method. Rather, it was the result of creating a careful
record of actual practice, as distinct from an attempt to explain
that practice. It wasn't wrong; it was an answer to a different
question.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 6/5/05