Talk:Carnatic music

Archives

1 2 3 4

Article full protected for 48 hrs

Due to the ongoing edit warring, I have full protected the article as-is to prevent further back and forth reverting by any party.

I see apparently productive discussion here on the talk page. If this were being done in the absence of the edit war, to generate a new consensus, all would be well. As is, it appears that a article protection to put water on the edit war fire is called for.

Please continue discussion here. Remember some of our key policies include be civil to each other, assume good faith, provide verifyable sources for controversial information and ensure that those sources are reliable, keep articles neutral point of view and don't unduly promote fringe or minority opinions or beliefs - try to balance the article to the consensus of wider reliable source works.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Other actions have left the protection unnecessary, so I have reversed it now. Please try and work together and find consensus per the policies etc. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page guideline reminder:

• Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed. Headings may be about a user's edits but not specifically to a user.
• Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history.
• Material not relevant to improving the article has been deleted (per the subsection #How to use article talk pages and #Others' comments). Continued violations may result in further blocks for Naadapriya. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As it was warned by many editors deleting and moving sections on discussion page is a act of Vandalism. The section deleted is comments made by erachima regarding the vandalism of deleting a valid section and then initiating a RFC. An answer to the public comment is still needed here. The heading was an alert to editors, particularly new but not an attack on any editor.Naadapriya (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, please follow talk page guidelines - you have been blocked once, and no other editor or administrator has since agreed that any vandalism has occurred. [1] If you continue to be disruptive, even via violating talk page guidelines, you may be reblocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop giving false warnings. Read on Admn user page about my blocking. Still the clarification particularly about your misleading information that lead to decision without reading the comments on edit summary is pending. Also the coincidence of a blocking immediately following a valid edit is still to be explained. Also note that you were blocked in attempt to block others. To date to the best of my knowledge I have not recommended blocking of any editor. Wikipedia has better tools to resolve issues.

Still you owe a reply to comments of erachima on your user page regarding this article. To quote some:

See Talk:Carnatic music#Ugabhoga inclusion argument: if there is an NPOV dispute, then you need to provide reliable sources for your side of the argument. Until you have them, you need to desist from blanking article content. --erachima talk 07:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC).......Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism lists blanking of referenced content as a type of vandalism, so I will not retract the claim.

No one has endorsed your vandalism act of deleting a valid section without discussions. Currently your vandalism act as pointed-out by erachima has fallen in the cracks for now due to premature and misleading RFC initiated by you. Seriously consider the good advice of Admn Georgewilliamherbert.

Before making further comments please answer the comments of erachima with RS. Your's is a clear act of vandalism as per wikipedia until you reverse it. Naadapriya (talk) 05:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to start listening to the warning you received on your talk page from an administrator, that followed your block for poor conduct (see below)

You appear to be engaging in distraction fallacies. Before material can be included it has to pass at least two tests: first, is it verifiable from reliable independent secondary sources; second, would its inclusion give undue weight to a view which is not widely held. To say that the text is stated neutrally is to ignore these fundamental requirements. What you are arguing for looks increasingly like a novel synthesis, which is absolutely forbidden by policy. Much of your engagement on the talk page is simply restatement of the same arguments which others have already addressed - we call that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Your comments about your blocks are plain wikilawyering and also not helping your case at all. I suggest that you read your own user page, particularly the comment about fanaticism; if you carry on as you are then I foresee an unhappy future for you. Sorry to be blunt, but you are now giving all the appearances of being a tendentious editor and an agenda account. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is no false warning, and I (among others) won't be feeding your trolling anymore. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IT is unfortunate that user insists on discussing this under wrong heading with out answering the comment regarding his Vandalism act on Aug 31st, 2008. His following comments and RFC have mislead many other editors and Admn and has led to random comments such as one quoted above by Guy. Naadapriya (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, unfortunately you are showing all signs of being a tendentious editor. Labeling a content dispute as vandalism is a strong sign of that, as is the repetition of arguments when no one else seems to be buying into them. I strongly suggest you read this article, especially the section on How to pull back from the brink. Please note that I cannot comment on the veracity of your edits, they may well be justified, it is just that, when challenged, your sources do not stand up to scrutiny. You may need to do some more homework but, at this point, I think your attempts to argue for your edits do not augur well. In such situations, often the best thing to do is to move on and fight other battles. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am taking your comments in somewhat good faith. Please read the early comments by erachima regarding the Vandalism act occurred before RFC. That act has fallen between cracks due to misleading comments and RFC. As per guidelines the content dispute should start with discussions and suggestion not through out-right deletion. As I said the wording can be modified in Ugaboga in view of observation from new editors but deletion is obvious vandalism which should be undone and prevented in future. It is unfortunate that your comments did not include all those previous acts by other editors that led to present situation. Todate all my comments are to correct the wrong information to the best of my knowledge based on citations.. Please provide specifics about your observation astendentious editor BTW: Please note that already about 5 editors have participated on [[Ugabhoga] section that existed. Please read earlier discussions. Naadapriya (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I presume you refer to this comment of erachima? Note that the 'act of vandalism' described here is not vandalism, it is a deletion of material because of a content dispute. I don't think the action can be characterized as Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (see WP:Vandalism). I'm not going to belabor the tendentious editing point except to list some of the behaviors that typically exemplify that kind of editing, but IMHO, you need to step back a little and see where this is most likely going to end up. Forgive me in advance for this but, if your sole goal in wikipedia is to correct the Carnatic music page, then you're probably doing the right thing by persisting (you will get blocked in the end). If, however, your goals are more encyclopedic, and you feel that you can contribute to the encyclopedia in many different ways, you're doing the wrong thing because getting blocked will not help. If the latter, I suggest you step away from the article for a bit. Here are some WP:TE behavior patterns you may be exhibiting: You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it, Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw, You repeatedly undo the “vandalism” of others, You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them. I'm not saying you are a tendentious editor, just that you are giving the appearance of being one. Unfortunately, appearances are all we have to go by. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Update: Naadapriya has been topic-banned from Carnatic-music related pages. Should he edit on any of these pages (including talk pages), he will be prevented from doing so. That closes this matter too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What the reference does or does not say

I won't pretend to understand any of this but I can look up references and did take a look at the Singer reference. About sillapadikaram, it refers to the story as "The ancient Tamil epic of the second century AD, The lay of the anklet" and goes on to say, in a section entitled "Carnatic Music", There are other discussions on music and the system is based as it is today on melody and rhythm and a basic scale of seven notes. The lay of the anklet is, I think, the same story and the article explicitly ties the story to features of carnatic music. Rather than reverting each others text, I suggest you discuss on the talk page first. --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 02:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

::Above comment states "I won't pretend to" CM but still gives a biased opnion. They should restrain from poking into topics they do not know and let those who claim expertise handle it Wkicln (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Confirmed sock of banned Naadapriya (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the entire reference flows. Straight after that sentence, it continues so that it is unambiguously explicit. "Many features of this southern musical system are also described in Sanskrit treatises, in the Natya Sastra...." [emphasis added] The source is very accurate in its coverage and commentary on this subject, and the attempts to suppress significant viewpoints in it by certain users (who have a very long history of doing so) are now glaring. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding Recently Added References

Ncmvocalist and Naadapriya have made majority of changes, particularly Ncmvocalist. for past 2 months. None of them are discussed. Some are added with support of those who acknowledge lack of knowledge in CM. Please discuss all mods otherwise Admn will be requested to revert to the version that was well discussed. Until then tag is needed Wkicln (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1. After reviewing the past discussions, the word 'Carnatic' came to existence at end of Mogul rule and beginning of British rule around 17th CE. The use of reference that relates word 'Carnatic' to what happened in 2nd CE needs to be revisited for accuracy.
2. There is a sentence added recently regarding 'Madras' using a recording company's reference. Recording companies are not specfic to CM. Therefore that sentence is not justified and needs to be removed. After Mysore dynasty the responsibilities of promoting Carnatic music was taken-over by all Govt/Private funded Universities and private organizations in all Southern states.
3. In general all references added single handedly for the past 2 months need to be reviewed and discussed for accuracy with actual quotes.

Until then a tag is needed for the article to convey that discussions are in progrees for the contents. Please do not remove the tag.Wkicln (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Confirmed sock of banned Naadapriya (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

devaranama is a correct word

see search results in google

1.devaranama [2] - 2030
2.devarnama [3] - 276

and

sanskrit-sloka
tamil-viruttum
telugu-padyamu
kannada-padhya

whats wrong here??? some person reverted my edits..see [4]....this is correct,i dont know why he removed???

:: I agree. It is wrong to revert it with out discussions. Wkireader (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Confirmed sock of banned Naadapriya (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please ensure you provide reliably sourced content in the future - padhya is not included in the source that is attributed to that sentence, so your bold edit has been reverted again. Please discuss this before reinserting it because it is not verifiable. Spelling of devaranama is okay, so there's no problem with that edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::You agree with Telegu Padyamulu without RS and object to use of Kannada Padhygalu. Very starange. Not all the words in artcle are supported by RS. Some are obvious and even common sence for the article. Please do not revert valid edits with out justification. Vadyar (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Confirmed sock of banned Naadapriya (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent sources. The sentence in question has been reliably sourced, and in the absence of providing a reliable source to verify that content, this is not something that can be changed as it makes the sentence unverifiable, and misrepresents the source. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very hard to find the source available on the net,but may present in some books.

sanskrit->sloka
telugu->padya(padyamu) same follows in kannada->padhya (padhyagalu-plural word of padhya)
telugu & kannada word sounds similar,since both languages have many common words.
in karnataka sanskrit sloka(s) are usually called as padhya(padhyagalu).
i think you are a carnatic music vocalist,as your username suggest.if you know any singers from karnataka ask them.
if you think the info is true, please add.if you think i am wrong,sorry for that
thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.177.110 (talk) 08:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

When I did the search, I could not find a connection between the two I'm afraid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Padhyagalu is a Kannada word and there is no need to provide source for a word that is so obvious. One could use a dictionary, I suppose. I think it is not only a overkill to ask for a reference, but also smacks some bias against edits. If the person arguing against it does not know the language, they may let those know confirm it, or consult a dictionary rather than expecting others to help their ignorance. It takes a real bias to stickle with such a trifle.

~rAGU (talk)

Consensus on exclusion of musicians

I believe there was a consensus to not include any photos of Carnatic musicians, as per discussions in the archive, including the sections READ before making further changes please and Some edits in Archive 3. The photograph of D K Pattammal is being added against this consensus (including once on my part, when I reverted an edit pair). Moreover, the photo does not seem to be directly related to the section Improvisation. Hence I propose it should be removed as per the earlier discussions/ consensus. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 17:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 request was made made due to concerns over complete lack of relevance of images in various sections. A certain editor who has been disruptive on so many levels this month, after being blocked in 2006, has returned to this article to cause more trouble for the editors who are actually doing worthwhile work on it. At the time, he was pushing for including a couple of other images that completely lacked relevance in the sections in which they were posted.

When I included this image of D K Pattammal, it was done under the sense that this would no longer be a problem - it is of relevance and notability that she was the first of the females to sing the composite form of improvisation in public. That said, I've removed it so that this issue is resolved. VasuVR, I'd like to express my appreciation for you being bold in opening this discussion, despite the various behavioral problems of the editor I was referring to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious who has behavioural problems (perhaps from childhood). I had to indicate the consensus that was reached a long time back to not include images of current musicians because of POV concerns raised by the same editor then who makes these POV inclusions of images now. Talk of adamancy, hypocrisy and pure stupidity. Kindly dont edit unless you really understand what's written at WP:NPOV. Just because DKP is your favourite artiste or her grandmother doesnt merit an exception for wikipedia. ­ Kris (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert explained

This explanation is to record the reasons for this revert

1. IAST word for sangeetham should be saṃgītaṃ which is a combination of the words saṃ gītaṃ (ṃ representing the anuswara)

2. If we say the oldest common origin for Indian Classical music is the Sama Veda, and that there are treatises like Sangeeta Ratnakara of Sarngadeva considered very authoritative in CM, then we should say the origin was in Ancient India but CM was localized to the south with the split of HM in middle ages.

3. No need to specify (that too in the lead section) what South India comprises of, that's what the South India article is for. This is an article on CM, and anything more about South India is irrelevant. CM's vitality in the south is not bound strictly by political boundaries of the states, it is more of a general identification, so it better be south india.

4. Divine origin is merely a superstitious belief, it can be a passing mention in history section, not in the lead. This is an encyclopedia

5. Sruti and laya should be mentioned separate from the improvisation of raga and tala. No need to club everything, and swara is merely a subcomponent of raga, so no need to confuse the reader.

6. Mentioning that carnatic music compositions "encode intricate details" is weasel words. They dont convery anything of value and further the way that it is taught to learners is one of gradual rise in complexity, not "everything at one go"

7. This statement is of no value - "Sitting on an elevated stage, they will usually present various types of improvisation and compositions for their audience", what if they sit on the floor (as in chamber concerts) and sing only a single type of compositions (say kritis of swati thirunal) without raga or swara or thani? Would that qualify as CM or not?

8. Carnatic is a proper name, music is a common name. First letter of proper names should be capitalized and common names should not be. Simple english grammar.

9. South India represents the name of a region as opposed to southern-India, and therefore merits capitalization. India should anyhow be capitalized.

10. The contribution of the carnatic trinity deserve atleast a passing mention in the lead since carnatic music is largely what it is because of their compositions.

11. Divine origin superstition is enough, no need to mention devas and devis, ravana the asura with veena, nandi the bull with a drum etc because it is pointless.

12. Man's sense of observation is implied, it is not the birds and animals that are singing CM today.

13. Swara, raga and tala are not explained in the silappathikaram, it merely gives the tamil names for the saptaswaras. So it cant be clubbed together with Natyasastra. Moreover, where does natyasastra mention tala?

14. Pita is father and Pitamaha is grandfather, prapitamaha is great-grandfather - all in sanskrit language.

15. There is no "system" for teaching carnatic music, Purandaradasa composed the varisais (verses used in instructing a beginner) and did not formulate any elaborate system.

16. One ref is enough for Purandaradasa being CM pitamaha, no one seeks to overthrow him from that position.

17. Venkatamakhin made the classification, he has not left formulae in Chaturdandi prakasika.

18. Why is the vijayanagara empire and tanjore marathas being removed? The tanjore marathas were very prominent in their patronization of the tanjore quartet, of CM in general.

19. The 19th century was still the old era. Madras rose to prominence only around the time the Music Academy was established in pursuance of the Madras session of the Indian National Congress in 1927.­ Kris (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sticking to enforcing an important part of the relevant guideline: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. A number of your points simply do not reflect what is to come or even remain consistent with much of the reliably sourced content.

I'll be going through each of these points; a few of them I can appreciate and agree with. Others not so much. I've numbered these points for clarity.

1. Fine.

2. and 3. Carnatic music, as it is known today, is most commonly associated as the music of the south and that's why that level of weight/detail is given in specifying which states, as it was in the source that it was taken from. I don't disagree that it originated as part of Ancient India for the reasons you've noted, but that would be something you'd use in the first sentence of the Indian classical music article as opposed to this one which is distinguishing one from another form.

4. Indeed, this is an encyclopedia governed by a clear NPOV policy. Your POV does not dictate how an encyclopedia represents significant viewpoints, however much you or I may disagree with it.

5. Again, I disagree. These points are not mutually exclusive and all form a substantial basis on how this article is constructed. If you want to get into a debate about how sources represent these elements separately, you're more than welcome to do so, however much time you're going to insist wasting on it.

6. I'll check if this was something that was imported from the previous atrocious version that existed when you were editing in 2006, or whether this was my own insertion - if it's the latter, I'll find the source for it, otherwise, it'll be removed soon. Verifiability over truth.

7. Sure, that can qualify - it doesn't mean that's how it's typically presented today. Again, whether this was imported from a previous version or from a reliable source is something I will have to check.

8. I agree; so why did you continually refer to it "Carnatic Music" as opposed to "Carnatic music" in your bold edits?

9. Not sure specifically which part you are referring to here.

10. I considered this, but the lead section need not become a venue for further lame edit wars when newbies debate why some composers names are mentioned over others - frankly, quite a legitimate concern.When composers like Purandaradasar, Annamacharya, among others, have significantly shaped Carnatic music into what it is today in their own way, and there have been blocked users who are arguing for placing undue weight on this as it is, it is something that is avoidable. This is a lead section and as it is/was in either version, it was too long. The prominent composers section has one part completely devoted to the Trinity, as with Purandaradasar, and that should be enough. There is no question whatsoever that there are many composers in Carnatic music, whether prominent or not prominent, so that's why I've kept that sentence to acknowledge that section of the article.

11. Simply too vague on its own which is why the longstanding version was reincluded.

12. Again, this is about verifiability from a peer-reviewed journal article as opposed to your opinion.

13. Again, no more POV pushing.

14. Again, verifiability - will check from the sources used to try accomodate it.

15. Purandaradasar is traditionally known for teaching a girl "Sri Gananatha" (a geetham) as the basic song that students are to learn after alankaras, which were followed on from varisas. This is a clear system as opposed to merely going on with varisais and leaving it at that.

16. I don't see why you want to remove sources just because you failed to foresee disagreement in the future.

17. No original research please.

18. Verifiability - this is not what is expressed in the source; if you have another source that includes all of these points, please show it.

19. Again, no original research. Verifiability.

I've addressed all your concerns in accordance with our policies and guidelines, except #9 because I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

2 & 3. If you agree Carnatic Music is evolved out of the common pre-12th century Indian classical tradition, it is the common origin that should be mentioned. The divergence of HM vs CM is a case of localisation and not of origin. South India is a region, while the states are political entities. It is not possible to state that CM is prevalent uniformly across all the four states' political boundaries. For example, southern parts of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have a better CM presence than their northern parts, which have negligible to no CM activity. So the mention of states is irrelevant and misleading, this is anyway not the South India article to expand on the term.

4. You cannot state in the lead that CM had a divine origin as a fact, because it is not a fact. It is merely a belief and should be stated as a belief.

5. Sruti and laya are bases of the music form and not elements of improvisation. They should be mentioned separate from raga and tala. Swaras occur in ragas and they are not independent of raga improvisation.

6. Check for factuality before you include a sentence as if it is a fact, and not after you include them in the article. What are the so called "intricate details" encoded in all carnatic songs? This is clearly weasel - not informing anything meaningful.

7. "Sitting on an elevated stage" and "presenting various types of improvisation" is irrelevant to carnatic music lead section. You can mention it in "concerts" section. It is not necessary to sit on a stage or to make 'n' types of improvisation to call it carnatic music.

8. Is this a tit for tat disruption game or are we working together towards making this a good article? You are welcome to make corrections if I mention music as Music, not make deja-vu accusations.

9. You had changed South India to south india, that's what I was referring to.

10. There is a reason why they are recognized as carnatic music trinity by consensus in the CM world. They are the most notable composers in carnatic music and they deserve at least a passing mention over the other composers. No one claims that they are not the trinity or that someone else should be included to enlarge the definition.

11. Again the mention that divine origin as a fact is POV enough, no need to say how the divine origin became divine, it doesnt contribute anything of value to a music article such as this.

12. There is no question of any opinion because whether man observed the birds and animals when formulating the music is unverifiable, so it is enough merely to state it as a belief. Wikipedia is not a quotation page to literally cut and paste various statements from other sources, many of which may qualify as POV here.

13. Silappathikaram does not explain anything about swara, raga and tala but merely lists the tamil names of the seven swaras. If you think that's POV, you are welcome to quote and cite from it before you include such cruft.

14. Until you check, be content to not make bad-faith reverts. Pita is father and Pitamaha is grandfather, which I have already mentioned above.

15. Unreferenced statement about PD teaching Sri Gananatha. Anyways, I am going to allow this one to pass for now.

16. Allowing this too to pass for now.

17. Allowing this too to pass for now.

18 & 19. Who said the source must express every word that is written here? If you think it may be false, add a "citation needed" tag.­ Kris (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

2. & 3. Again, this is not how it's treated in more reliable sources; peer reviewed journal articles. It's distinguished as a form commonly associated as music of South India, and these four states are specifically named in the source. I will add the reference for transparency.

4. It's quite clearly stated as a belief - it is not stated to indicate that Carnatic music is from God as if it's a fact. Like with the above point, if you'd like reliable sources to this effect, I have no problem providing them. They're not self-published or questionable - they're peer reviewed journal articles.

5. Per what I said earlier, if you have a reliable source that keeps them distinct, please provide them for review. Otherwise this is a moot point; these elements need not be separated when the article covers the important elements in that manner.

6. Per above. Will come back to this.

7. Same as 6.

8. Given the sort of unwarranted and disgusting commentary you made in the section above this one, you're one of the last people on this project that has any authority whatsoever on what I can or cannot do, especially when your claims lack merit. To be more precise, I'm taking this opportunity to remind you that I have no reason to AGF when it comes to you or your edits in total. The mere fact that I did not respond to such trolling should indicate what we're here to do - to improve this project. So to summarise, you've failed to disclose why you made this #8 point to begin with when you'd been the one to make the grammatical error to begin with. Perhaps focussing on that would be more worthwhile.

9. Thanks; will fix that if it's not done already.

10. Another moot point that is a matter of POV. The Trinity have a section devoted to them in the composers section, as does Purandaradasar who has a title of his own and that's adequate. I've already addressed why it is futile to include specific composers in the lead section.

11. This appears to be more POV pushing. We're here to disclose significant viewpoints and this is one such. Merely calling it a divine origin is insufficient - it is undisputedly believed to have originated from Hindu Gods and Goddesses in that significant viewpoint - i.e. not any other religion, and this is therefore specified.

12. Already addressed this - per 2 3 and 4, would you like reliable sources?

13. This is directly verifiable from the peer-reviewed journal article that it is sourced to - it's included well within all of our content policies; I'm sorry that you don't consider it the truth, but that does not entitle you to label it as cruft when it is not.

14. Same as 6.

18. & 19. It's called attributing your sources without misrepresenting its content. A cn tag is not sufficient in the circumstances so the bold edits were reverted and not reinstated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

2 & 3. The political entities that exist as the southern states are hardly 50 years old, Carnatic Music as an independent genre is about 400-500 years old. There is no link that CM has with these modern states, it belongs to the whole of south India and not to the states separately. Probably then we need to add the older kingdoms that formed part of southern India as well as the lands that dont form part of the 4 states, such as Pondicherry, Sri Lanka etc.

4. What is this BS statement then?? --> "both sub-genres of music are believed to have had originated from Ancient India, sharing a common divine origin, as well as one that is found in the Sama Veda." You are mentioning the historical origin and mythological origin in the same breath as if both are equally factual, not to speak of the tortuous english. I am afraid with statements like this, we are going nowhere near a good article.

5. FFS what is the reliable resource you are looking for? That swaras are part of ragas, that sruti and laya are the basis for classical music, and that it was man who observed the sounds of the birds and animals? How much more disruptive can you get?

6. You are trying to find the fact after making a statement, and you wont let me word it better? Disruption again. Why should I wait for you to find a source for your crap? It is clear you are not able to even spell out what are the "intricate details encoded" in the music that is taught to learners. Clearly a person who doesnt know what he is contributing.

7. What are you going to come back about on this? That carnatic music is not possible to be presented otherwise than on stage?

8. Your tortuous english doesnt look like a grammar is the only thing it needs. Mind looking at the immediately prior remark of yours to that of mine you allude?

9. Else I will do it soon.

10. To mention the most important composers called "the trinity" in the lead is not POV, FFS.

11. OMG how stupid! Divine origins is good enough. No, people wont assume it came from Allah or Jesus or from the gods of the Mayan civilization.

12. See #5

13. FFS no the link does not state any such thing that the Silappathikaram contains details on ragas and talas and swaras except what I stated. Stop fooling around.

14. You need not come back on anything, just stop your disruption until you know something about what you are speaking!

18 & 19. Obvious crap, but it shouldnt be hard to find references for this, so its OK.­ Kris (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

2 & 3 - Carnatic music as it is known today is associated specifically with South India - it is not associated as one that generally falls under the umbrella of Ancient Indian wonders. Please stop sprouting original research and/or cruft.

4. Now, look again.

5. You clearly have no sources.

6. See 8.

7. Most concerts involve a stage, and presenting both improvisation and compositions - makes sense given that numerous commentators found improvisation to be essential in Carnatic music, while compositions being integral in their own way.

8. Given the manner in which you've replied, it seems this is going to result in the same outcome as a little over 24 hours ago. If a short block isn't going to persuade you to change your manner of contributing, then you're approaching a long one.

10. It is utter POV-pushing to claim a composer is more important than another based on your own personal tastes, particularly when giving such undue weight.

11. Again, no one agrees with you or your blatantly unhelpful POV-pushing that thinks everyone assumes you're talking about Hindu Gods and Goddesses when you fail to say anything helpful at all.

Remainder. Clearly, you could not find any reliable sources. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC) slightly modified Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverts

User:Ncmvocalist is reverting academically cited referenced content for his own version that is wholly unreferenced and non-NPOV. ­ Kris (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it based on the above discussions to date. 211.27.234.71 (talk)

Do not remove my comment thankyou, and do not hide active discussions to date. Ncmvocalist point to lead section as summary of article. Your edit gives undue weight to part of article and does not summarise. If you are always like this, you should not be allowed to edit. 203.134.130.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC).

Ncmvocalist, please stop your sockpuppetry. It wont give credence to your disruptive edits.­ Kris (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris, if you make a sockpuppetry allegation, please provide evidence. The anon has contacted me regarding your disruptive edits - please refrain from editing in this manner when others dispute your edits. Additionally, if you cannot comply with talk page guidelines, this is not going to go down well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

475,000 compositions

Can someone confirm that there are WP:RS quoting these many compositions by Purandara Dasa? This question is out of curiosity and should not be misconstrued as disrespect for any composer or individual. Practically, this works out to about 16 compositions every day of his 84 years life. If we take out some of the young days, it may work out to about 20 compositions every day.

The website mentions that Purandara Dasa himself wanted to compose 5,00,000 but did only 4,75,000 and this is mentioned in one of his compositions. Can someone throw some light on that? If there is reference, is the interpretation correct? Is it possible that an extra digit has been inserted by mistake? - - VasuVR (talk, contribs) 14:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Having a look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Any luck in finding other sources. The source pointed out for this seems to be a website which may not qualify as RS. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 11:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I took notes otherwise I would've had to go digging again. :) Unfortunately, my luck has been limited. Sharma (1961) says that he is "credited with the authorship of 475000 songs, according to one estimate and 425000 according to another." Raghavan (1966) and Raghavan & Jackson (1994) assert that he composed 475,000 padas. A 1994 publication titled "Great composers" asserts that he composed 475000 pieces "according to the evidence contained in a piece by his disciple." Finally, Gupta (2006) and Nadkarni (2006) asserts that "He is believed to have composed around 475,000 songs, although only a thousand or so of them are known today." These are predominantly self-published sources that were dedicated to discussing Purandara Dasa alone. However, among the many other sources available, including highly reputable peer-reviewed journal articles, they all mentioned things like him being called the father of Carnatic music, but they did not touch on the number of his compositions. Therefore, I too have reservations as to whether this really warrants a place in this article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

: Given the existing evidence of thousands of compositions it is a reasonable assumption than current unsupported/unscientific statements such as 'Carnatic music is believed to have a divine origin. It originated from the Devas and Devis'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.15.162 (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Confirmed sock of banned Naadapriya (talk · contribs). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Additionally, there is no evidence that Jagannatha Dasa is considered a prominent composer of Carnatic music within mainstream literature - I see no evidence to suggest that its inclusion is in compliance with NPOV, nor his compositions are frequently rendered in modern concerts across India and the world. Similarly, if there is a citation that conflicts with the purported fact that the krithi was developed between the 16th and 20th century, I ask that it be specified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

Hi, I wanted to know how this word Carnatic Music originated. Because one may think that this music tradition belongs to Karnataka.రవిచంద్ర (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not worry too much about the name Carnatic or that it may connote relation to Karnataka. In Tamil it is still called as Karnaataka sangeetham. It is a fact that Carnatic music or Karnaataka sangeetham is how our music is referred. Should we worry about the terms Red-Indians, American Indians or West Indies connoting India, when they are not related to India? These are just the names being used for a long time and we have to use them as it is in the encyclopedia. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 00:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably need to do some research to find out. The latter assumption doesn't seem to make sense - music traditions don't "belong" in any one specific state. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Aren't there any historical books on Carnatic music that can clear the air? Mspraveen (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I recall having a discussion here about etymology a while back but we didn't really get anywhere (should be in the archives) - unfortunately, I don't think there was even one commentator or author that's discussed it in sufficient detail, in a reliable source. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this point had been discussed many times in the past. See the archives, the earliest one is perhaps the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carnatic_music/Archive_1#Carnatic_music_and_Karnataka
Quote from archive:
Carnatic music is named after the Southern region of the Indian subcontinent named by western colonists as Carnatic. This name was used to refer to the region between the Eastern Ghats and the Coromandel Coast encompassing much of what is called today as South India. Thus the term carnatic music was used to denote South Indian music. See: Carnatic (region) Robin klein 17:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
End Quote
--Aadal (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Karnataka. This has nothing to do with the state of Karnataka, and such assertions are quite contrived. Prof. P. Sambamurthy, in his "South Indian Music" Vol. 1 page 21 says the following,"In Tamil, Karnataka means tradition, purity, sampradayam and suddham. People who are wedded to ancient ways of living are even now referred to Karnataka manusyas.
Prof. S says on the same page elsewhere, "The first work to mention the word 'Karnataka' is the Brhadesi I pointed out this on July 28, 2006 in this talk page (see archive).--Aadal (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Concept of Carnatic Music

Carnatic Music literally is an anglicization of "Karu" + "Nataka" + "Isai" i.e., Karu Nataka Isai Which means "Yolk" + "Drama" + Music" which can be further explained as "Presentation of a concept in the form of Dramatic(includes dance) music".
Excessive "academization" of this Karu Nataka Isai led to division of Music, Dance, and mode of presentation.

Karu Nataka Isai will reach its complete form when the Lost instruments, Lost dance forms, and Lost modes of presentations all are re-integrated.
Present squabble for glory on telugu/tamil/sanskrit/kannada/malayalam/tulu etc will only lead to further division.

Pick your best of Concepts,
Pick your best of Music,
Pick your best of Dance form,
Present it dramatically fusing all the three about. You will see carnatic music in your front! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.10.181 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with Hindustani

The article consists of two rather debatable aspects of carnatic music and states them as facts. These two are as follows.

1. In contrast to Hindustani music of the northern part of India, Carnatic music is taught and learned through compositions, which encode many intricate musical details, also providing scope for free improvisation.

The statement can easily be taken to imply then Hindustani music is not taught through compositions, and does not encode intricate musical details. Such a statement understates the efforts of great Hindustani composers like Sadarang.

2. Unlike Hindustani music concerts, where an accompanying tabla player can keep beats without following the musical phrases at times, in Carnatic music, the accompanists have to follow the intricacies of the composition since there are percussion elements such as eduppu in several compositions.

While the first part of the statement may be true, this brings a suggestion that, hindustani singers do not follow intricacies of the composition. This is an opinion and not a fact, and thus should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asrivathsan (talk • contribs) 03:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I was cleaning out the Copyedit backlog, and I came across Origins and history of Carnatic music. Most of its contents exist in the "origins and history" section of this article. This is not normally advised, therefore, I propose a merge.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is advisable as there is some material which isn't really worthy for inclusion in this article (as far as previous disputes on this article were in some agreement on). I think there is potential for a separate article there (not so much in a content fork sense), but given that hasn't been worked on, the question is a matter of whether it should be deleted or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to merge, but I also think that deletion as suggested by User:Ncmvocalist would be an acceptable alternative. The separated article appears to be pretty much a copy of the section from the main article, with the insertion of a single paragraph. The article has existed for three years now without it developing away from being a content fork, and has had a {{copyedit}} tag on it for 17 months now. The observation on its talk page about potential controversy is alarming, as are the history of the page and Ncmvocalist's observation above about material being unsuitable to transfer here because of previous disputes. This discourages other editors from working on the whole subject (I also picked it up during the Copyedit Drive, and I was scared away by these things). It's time to resolve this properly. --Stfg (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and redirected it. If there is enough content in the history section here to need a split again, I'm all for that. But I don't think we're there yet.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Entharo Mahaanubhaavulu

Wonder what this unproductive edit war is about... Have we understood the meaning of Entharo Mahanubhavulu Anthariki Vandanamu, before we comment about Carnatic music? Have we understood Geethaarthamu? Or the hundreds and thousands of compositions filled with artha, bhava, bhakthi and everything? Are we more knowledgeable to write an Encyclopedia on Carnatic music better than those great souls? VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. 'Entharo Mahaanubhaavulu' (Many great musicians) have come from Andrapradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and even other states. 'Anthariki Vandanamu' ( we respect all). No reason for unproductive edit war.Naayar (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)