[Reader-list] 6th posting, Dripta Piplai

[Dripta Piplai]

Several little magazines, newspapers, journals have published articles on the debates regarding the changed tunes of Rabindrasangeet, Viswa Bharati’s role in the publication of notations, interviews with the veteran Rabindrasangeet teachers etc. In this posting, I shall try to review some of these articles –which can give some idea about the practice of Tagore songs and different aspects of it. 
   
  In ‘Viswabharati Sangeet Parsad O Gayoker Shadhinota’ (Viswa Bharati Music Board and the performer’s freedom) published in ‘Kolkata’ (1974, Vol. 12), Anuttam Biswas 
  has mentioned Music Board’s cancellation of two songs, which were sung by Debabrata Biswas-the legendary Rabindrasangeet artist. On 25th July, 1969, two songs sung by him ‘Puspa Diye Maro Jare’ and ‘Tomar Shesher Ganer’ were cancelled by the board for the reason of using ‘excessive Music accompaniment’ and as because the second song was ‘not sung according to notation’. As the most popular artist of Tagore songs were not allowed to record certain songs, investigation about the rules and regulation of the Music board were began at that time, which have been nicely discussed by Biswas in the article.
  The history of the Music Board has also been mentioned here, which is rarely available.
   
  Music Board was established in the year 1942. Initiatives were taken for it by Tagore himself and some other famous teachers like Indira Devi Chaudhurani, Santidev Ghosh, Shailajaranjan Majumdar, Anadi Dastidar etc. The main aim for establishing the board was to prevent the distortion, and the mastermind behind the establishment of the board was Indira Devi. A local advocate named Nripendrachandra Mitra was a member and a trustee later.
  Tagore songs were, at first, regarded as personal property and thus, after Rabindranath’s death, Rathindranath owned the copyright. After Tagore’s death, legal fights were started among Pratima Tagore and Mira Chattopadhyay. Viswa Bharati couldn’t declare the songs as their own property as these were private property.  Pratima Tagore won the legal fight finally. And after that, the Music Board started functioning.
  As Biswas has pointed out in the article, the history of Music Board is almost unknown-only some scattered data are available. Almost nothing can be known about the history of Music Board from 1942 to 1970. For example, who were in charge of the board after Tagore’s death? Why Santidev Ghosh had resigned in the year 1952? These answers were never found. Biswas has said about his own experience in the Music Board, where the Board members had clearly informed him that they don’t want that this secret information will be published. 
  Biswas has also mentioned about the newly designed board of 1970 where honorary teachers of Rabindrasangeet like Sailajaranjan Majumdar and Anadi Dastidar were not included in the board, which is, no doubt a big question. 
  Another important thing Biswas has pointed out is that, Music Board has never given any objection to the artists of Santiniketan even if the have not sung following the notation. (The rule of Music Board was, any song which is not sung according to the notation, cannot be allowed to record). The song ‘Aha Tomar Songe Praner Khela’ by Nilima Sen was approved by the board even if the song does not have any printed notation. But on the other hand, Ritu Guha’s song ‘Din Furalo He Songsari’, in which she followed the tune of Sahana Devi was rejected by the board. From 1973, Music Board had announced a rule that, the songs which do not have printed notation cannot be recorded. 
  Some more important things were mentioned in the article. For example, why notations of different varieties are not being collected and published in the notation-collections of Viswa Bharati? And why there is a silent fight between Santiniketani and non-Santiniketani artists?
  The article has pointed out many important issues, like the lack of proper documentation of the history of Music Board, prescription of notations, or Rabindrasangeet as a property which can help to understand the practice of the songs.
   
   
  The article ‘Rabindrasangeeter sur bodle jay kibhabe’ (how the tunes of Rabindrasangeet change) by Kiranshashi Dey which was published in the little magazine ‘Doroja’, Year-4, Vol. 1,1976, is also a very important article. The history of notation documentation by Viswa Bharati has been pointed out in the article. While Tagore was alive, the notations were available in different contemporary journals, e.g. swaralipis done by Jyotirindranath Tagore in “Swaralipi Gitimala’, by Kangali charan sen in ‘Bramhasangeet’, by Sarala Devi in Satagan etc. But the publication of some notations in ‘Swarabitan’ had started before Tagore’s death. But swaralipis were not published for some years after Tagore’s death. A new “Swaralipi Samiti’ was established in 1947.This samiti had changed many parts of the notations, only if they thought that it should be changed. Dey has mentioned that many teachers had argued that the changes are being done without any reason. For example- Shailajaranjan
 Majumdar hed mentioned the same. This unnecessary change of notation and the fights as a consequence has been discussed by Dey in the article, which is no doubt an important source of research.
   
   
  The article “Swattabihin Rabindranather gan’ ( Tagore’s song without copyright) by Subhash Chowdhury in ‘Surer Bhuban’, Year-1, Vol.-1, 1991 has mentioned that Viswa Bharati Music Board has systematically tried to formulate the rules and tried to give importance to the listener’s views. The notation-dependence of the board has been mentioned by him, too. And it has also been pointed out that, Rabindrasangeet is now a ‘commodity’, which is related to many people’s profession and there are chances of distortion after the copyright is not in use.
   
  In the article ‘Santiniketan Ebong Kolkatar Rabindrasangeet ki Alada Ghorana?’ (Are Santiniketan and Kolkata Tagore song schoolings different schoolings?) published in ‘Rabindranath Shudhu Rabindranath’, year-9, 1988, Calcutta based popular artist Dwijen Mukhopadhyay has said that Calcutta-based artists have accepted the dominance of Santineketan artists in a positive way. And he has said that, Dakhhinee, Gitabitan, Rabitirtha, Rabindrabharati, Viswa Bharati –all are same. 
   
  The articles have discussed a number of important issues. The dominance of Santiniketan over Calcutta-based artists, Copyright and the role of the Music Board, the history of notation documentation and the different varieties-all the issues are important for the proposed research.
   
   

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20060727/38b24beb/attachment.html