Re: [arr] Re: Please Help(Survey)

[neena kochhar]

Hi Sahil,  Really enjoyed your analysis what makes  ARR music different from others.  Almost my sentiments.  
 
However, I would like to add a frequently forgotten point about his degree in (English Classical) music from Trinity College, Oxford, England, UK.  This degree may (in part) have given him greater insight into music outside India. It appears to me (and I could be totally incorrect) that ARR then using his greater knowledge merged the two, i.e. western and Indian music in his compositions.  We have seen a lot of western classical fused with indian classical in many of his compositions, especially the recent ones, including Water (which he composed a while back)
 
Neena.
 
ST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) What makes A R Rahman's Music different from> others. It would be better if you could tell me in> terms of the instruments he uses etc.> I don't think his choice of instruments is what "really" sets himapart – although it is crucial, instrumentation is only one componentof a good soundtrack. We all know he is a technophile when it comes tomusical production, and probably adds more synthesized sounds in histracks than any other composer in India. Rahman and his troupe havemastered this technology superbly. Yet I don't think his success canbe attributed to his sound engineering skills. He would have been justas successful in the time of - now revered - musical masterminds,Mozart, Beethoven, etc. - in a pre-technological age where choice ofmusical instruments was also quite narrow.What does make his
 music different, to me, is the nature and style ofhis melodies.Conventional music composers had mastered a set of techniques toconvey a small set of emotional boundaries with little variance. Thinkof it as mapping a continuous space, the universe of emotionalconveyance U, into discreet valued subsets S, where S << U. Clearlythere was much room to expand, and no doubt other people were tryingto do so – this is what the society considers true artists; those thatbring novelty into their productions.The only problem is (by some measure) human beings are not verycreative thinkers – we feed off ideas of others, and we make progressone stepping stone at a time. One of the clearest indications of thispremise is the way research community works – each person'scontributes a fairly small set of - typically subtle - ideas that inretrospect are a simple and obvious extension to previous work, butmay have gone through a long
 ride to get there. We can extend the samegeneral argument to the field of music. Genres have formed becausepeople repeatedly conceived similar style of musical compositions. Wekeep complaining about lifted tunes by copy-cat musical "wannabes".And how often have we listened to a catchy pop-style tune that fadesaway swiftly.The point of this little digression is that Rahman has demonstrated aclearly superior creative ability in music and through this he hasbeen able to step outside the narrow discretized range of ideas of inhis field, and prove that indeed the established set of emotionalproperties were not discreet subsets, but a wide spectrum ofexperiences. He can create an ambience that runs across portions ofthis spectrum. His every track (almost) is as unique and creative asthe first – we know he has the ability to roam farther in the universeof all possible emotions that can be conveyed than just about anyoneelse in
 the business. And because the explored states are much smallerthan its universe (S << U), there is plenty of room for furtherexploration. Put simply, he has the unique ability to convey "unexplored" and ofcourse divine emotions through his melodies – that is what sets him apart.As for a more complete argument, we'll have wait for neurologicalstudies that identify how we react to different properties of sound.(It's not going to happen in our lifetime) > 2) (This is like the more impotant one).Why do you> think It is only A R Rahman tha has been so succesful> internationaly while his indian counterparts have been> trying to capture Indian Markets.> Much of the previous answer can easily be substituted here. I'll justadd few more comments. Music is a purely emotional experience – regardless of thedemographics of the audience, the genre, or the language. While peoplefrom
 a given culture may have been attuned to particular styles ofmusic, what the melodies and rhythm try to convey can be experiencedregardless of the cultural boundary, and certainly appreciated when aninconceivably unique tune falls upon the ears. It's true! Even weIndian fans hear portions time to time, despite listening to him allthese years, which we simply could not have imagined had it not beenfor ARR's genius.Now, since ARR has far greater musical creativity and an ability tochurn out complex, unheard of, and yet emotion-arousing notes, it isno surprise that he has maintained a strong hold on the Indian market(we'll among his original fans at least) while venturing outinternationally. Put bluntly, his India

[arr] Re: Please Help(Survey)

[ST]

> 1) What makes A R Rahman's Music different from
> others. It would be better if you could tell me in
> terms of the instruments he uses etc.
> 

I don't think his choice of instruments is what "really" sets him
apart – although it is crucial, instrumentation is only one component
of a good soundtrack. We all know he is a technophile when it comes to
musical production, and probably adds more synthesized sounds in his
tracks than any other composer in India. Rahman and his troupe have
mastered this technology superbly. Yet I don't think his success can
be attributed to his sound engineering skills. He would have been just
as successful in the time of - now revered - musical masterminds,
Mozart, Beethoven, etc. - in a pre-technological age where choice of
musical instruments was also quite narrow.

What does make his music different, to me, is the nature and style of
his melodies.
Conventional music composers had mastered a set of techniques to
convey a small set of emotional boundaries with little variance. Think
of it as mapping a continuous space, the universe of emotional
conveyance U, into discreet valued subsets S, where S << U. Clearly
there was much room to expand, and no doubt other people were trying
to do so – this is what the society considers true artists; those that
bring novelty into their productions.

The only problem is (by some measure) human beings are not very
creative thinkers – we feed off ideas of others, and we make progress
one stepping stone at a time. One of the clearest indications of this
premise is the way research community works – each person's
contributes a fairly small set of - typically subtle - ideas that in
retrospect are a simple and obvious extension to previous work, but
may have gone through a long ride to get there. We can extend the same
general argument to the field of music. Genres have formed because
people repeatedly conceived similar style of musical compositions. We
keep complaining about lifted tunes by copy-cat musical "wannabes".
And how often have we listened to a catchy pop-style tune that fades
away swiftly.

The point of this little digression is that Rahman has demonstrated a
clearly superior creative ability in music and through this he has
been able to step outside the narrow discretized range of ideas of in
his field, and prove that indeed the established set of emotional
properties were not discreet subsets, but a wide spectrum of
experiences. He can create an ambience that runs across portions of
this spectrum. His every track (almost) is as unique and creative as
the first – we know he has the ability to roam farther in the universe
of all possible emotions that can be conveyed than just about anyone
else in the business. And because the explored states are much smaller
than its universe (S << U), there is plenty of room for further
exploration. 

Put simply, he has the unique ability to convey "unexplored" and of
course divine emotions through his melodies – that is what sets him apart.

As for a more complete argument, we'll have wait for neurological
studies that identify how we react to different properties of sound.
(It's not going to happen in our lifetime) 



> 2) (This is like the more impotant one).Why do you
> think It is only A R Rahman tha has been so succesful
> internationaly while his indian counterparts have been
> trying to capture Indian Markets.
> 

Much of the previous answer can easily be substituted here. I'll just
add few more comments. 

Music is a purely emotional experience – regardless of the
demographics of the audience, the genre, or the language. While people
from a given culture may have been attuned to particular styles of
music, what the melodies and rhythm try to convey can be experienced
regardless of the cultural boundary, and certainly appreciated when an
inconceivably unique tune falls upon the ears. It's true! Even we
Indian fans hear portions time to time, despite listening to him all
these years, which we simply could not have imagined had it not been
for ARR's genius.

Now, since ARR has far greater musical creativity and an ability to
churn out complex, unheard of, and yet emotion-arousing notes, it is
no surprise that he has maintained a strong hold on the Indian market
(we'll among his original fans at least) while venturing out
internationally. Put bluntly, his Indian counterparts don't have as
much inherent musical talent. His (super) success internationally will
not come because there is any shortage of musical composers in the
international arena, but because there is a clear void in the market
for a talent as fluent and expressive through the language of music as
of Rahman. 

I don't think personality factor plays as much role here because his
work is behind the curtains showbiz. Though, from what we hear, his
humble and warm nature, and a pure heart, must have inevitable played
a role in him being accepted into the international circle of
prominent musical artistes.




> 3) What is the Profi