Flow of musical knowledge

The third death anniversary of Mehdi Hassan again offers an opportunity to ponder on the set of assumptions in the making of an exceptional vocalist or an instrumentalist in our tradition.

The most closely held value among the musicians and those more intimately associated with the art form is the sanctity with which the oral tradition in the transmission of music knowledge, from one generation to the next, is held. Called seena ba seena in the lexicon of musicians, it means the musical knowledge or skill or craft can only be transmitted in a very personalised manner from an ustad to the shagird. Held in equal veneration by musicians belonging to any creed or religion, this flow of musical knowledge or wisdom has a consensual agreement.

Over centuries, as the Muslims became a significant presence in the culture and as the courts and the shrines started to patronise music and musicians, various narratives were constructed proving the superiority of the one set of musicians following religious denomination over the other. But there was and is much that is shared and not questioned, almost like an article of faith by both. One such belief is the critical value of the oral sources in the understanding, education and appeal of music.

For the Muslims the "ustad shagird" nexus was actually only a translation of guru shisya parampara, held in great esteem by the pandits. The relationship was not only a source of something which could be quantified like musical knowledge but much more and else, like something which was beyond description in words. It was a quality deeply spiritual, contained in mystical terms -- almost like the transference of baatini ilm from one living soul to another.

In the pedagogical tradition too, the living relation of the ustad and the shagird or the pir and the murid too was and is held in the same inscrutable framework. It went beyond the formal relationship to being something much more qalbi. The bonding could not be analysed in any ordinary rational manner for it involved something more than could be offered on a rational plate. Its effect was conceived to be greater than the sum total of its parts.

In traditional cultures, oral sources have been held in high esteem than the written sources and it is said the purity of oral sources can be gauged by the uninterrupted and unmediated flow of knowledge or better still wisdom. The ancient Greeks also held the oral version as the purest form, inspired by the muses while the poets or the artistes being only mediums, albeit in a possessed state, from where it was passed on to the people. The individual only became a conduit for this divine madness to be passed on as piece of music, poetry or a message.

Our religion too has placed highest premium on oral sources as the divine book was the consequence of disclosure based on revelation in an oral form and then passed on to people. Divine knowledge was revealed and it was much later that these were recorded and documented and put in an order. The pristine source was oral and that actually placed it on the highest pedestal.

Where music is concerned, there is another basic reason why the oral sources are placed on a higher pedestal: because the art form has sound for its medium. It can only be transmitted or conveyed orally and there was just no way what was said or sung to be conveyed in any other form. Though written language developed much later and notation even later, these have been only reference points to what is conveyed orally.

Since music is conveyed exclusively through sound, its only source of transference in all its subtlety could only be retained and expressed through sound. There was no other way or manner than its oral transmission. There was no recording and hence musical knowledge and that of the spoken word could only be conveyed through orally. Even now despite all the aids and devices, the only way to learn to speak a language is by hearing it being spoken. It is also true for music, for its occupation being wholly with sound.

There was no system evolved for the education of music for it was seen like the transference of mother tongue to the children. As there is no method for the teaching of a mother tongue, it happens in the process of growing up; similarly it was assumed that the gayan and vidya of the sur too lay in the same process of growing up. The musical knowledge was monopolised by the families, as indeed all knowledge and codes of conduct in a caste ridden order. The children of musicians started to sing spontaneously in the same manner as other children started to speak the language of their mothers.

As the mother tongue is pristine, unalloyed and not acquired, musical knowledge too should have the same organic quality about it. This state, level or intensity could never be achieved by acquiring it no matter how hard one tried.

Formal schools, academies and mahavidyalas that were established by the end of the nineteenth century across the subcontinent for the teaching of music in an impersonalised manner have not been able to achieve the same level of excellence that the musicians coming from the traditional gharanas or backgrounds have.

Music or musical sound has also been explained in terms that we do not totally understand or comprehend. It is more a kind of metaphoric unfolding like it being navai e saroosh, music of the spheres or nad brahma. If explained in terms of frequencies and decibels, it is the same reductionist exercise that explains the heart as only a pumping organ rather than being the seat of passion.