Carnatic music is a form of Indian classical music that’s existed for thousands of years. In the mid-twentieth century Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar came up with a new format for concerts called Ragam-Tanam-Pallavi. In this section musicians would elaborate on a chosen raga (which is kind of like a Western classical scale of notes) and set the foundation of what would follow. What comes next is a rhythmic improvisation (tanam), and a complex rhythmic composition similar to a refrain in Western music. I bring this up because Carnatic music isn’t that well-known outside of South India and certain cirlces in the U.S. (SF, Cleveland, NJ), yet it’s continued to innovate despite having 2000 years to cover virtually every mathematical combination of notes.
Most musicians would agree that it’s not mutually exclusive to acknowledge there is limited distinctness in art, while also acknowledging that we are no where near approaching that state yet, and even if we did it wouldn’t be significant. Most stories follow the heroes journey. Most pop hits use the same chord progression. I’ve studied Indian and Western classical and one thing I find fascinating is how both systems arrived at 7 fundamental notes, with sharper and flatter variations. Ultimately distinctiveness doesn’t contribute to (or at the very least determine) artistic value. I think this becomes apparent when you look at literature. Most writers would agree with the Infinite monkey theorem and there is a limit on how divergent a new story can be from previous literature. However, people still watch Star Wars and people still read Harry Potter. (Both involve a chosen one, raised by relatives, amongst other similarities).
Also, I think it’s worth noting that there have been people who have been quite divergent in classical and jazz music in recent years. You have John Cage who angered a lot of folks with “4′33” and Kamasi Washington with “The Epic” or John Mayer with reviving SRV-like blues popularity amongst young folks.
I think the reason we appear to be reaching a limit in terms of mainstream music and film is because we’re undergoing a shift in how we consume these forms of media: streaming platforms and shortform content that can make or break emerging artists. This has probably forced studios to focus on creating movies that gets people back in theaters regardless of artistic depth, and forced producers to make music that’ll create viral 15-second soundbites. At the same time however, the internet has democratized that ability to share art and I think the younger generation can leverage these technologies to share authentic art and find common ground others. The next generations of art will involve syncretizing techniques to create new forms of art.
I think a great example of what this looks like is Ravi Shankar and the Beatles or John McLaughlin and Shakthi.
P.S. my first comment on here, so apologies if the formatting is wrong!
Carnatic music is a form of Indian classical music that’s existed for thousands of years. In the mid-twentieth century Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar came up with a new format for concerts called Ragam-Tanam-Pallavi. In this section musicians would elaborate on a chosen raga (which is kind of like a Western classical scale of notes) and set the foundation of what would follow. What comes next is a rhythmic improvisation (tanam), and a complex rhythmic composition similar to a refrain in Western music. I bring this up because Carnatic music isn’t that well-known outside of South India and certain cirlces in the U.S. (SF, Cleveland, NJ), yet it’s continued to innovate despite having 2000 years to cover virtually every mathematical combination of notes.
Most musicians would agree that it’s not mutually exclusive to acknowledge there is limited distinctness in art, while also acknowledging that we are no where near approaching that state yet, and even if we did it wouldn’t be significant. Most stories follow the heroes journey. Most pop hits use the same chord progression. I’ve studied Indian and Western classical and one thing I find fascinating is how both systems arrived at 7 fundamental notes, with sharper and flatter variations. Ultimately distinctiveness doesn’t contribute to (or at the very least determine) artistic value. I think this becomes apparent when you look at literature. Most writers would agree with the Infinite monkey theorem and there is a limit on how divergent a new story can be from previous literature. However, people still watch Star Wars and people still read Harry Potter. (Both involve a chosen one, raised by relatives, amongst other similarities).
Also, I think it’s worth noting that there have been people who have been quite divergent in classical and jazz music in recent years. You have John Cage who angered a lot of folks with “4′33” and Kamasi Washington with “The Epic” or John Mayer with reviving SRV-like blues popularity amongst young folks.
I think the reason we appear to be reaching a limit in terms of mainstream music and film is because we’re undergoing a shift in how we consume these forms of media: streaming platforms and shortform content that can make or break emerging artists. This has probably forced studios to focus on creating movies that gets people back in theaters regardless of artistic depth, and forced producers to make music that’ll create viral 15-second soundbites. At the same time however, the internet has democratized that ability to share art and I think the younger generation can leverage these technologies to share authentic art and find common ground others. The next generations of art will involve syncretizing techniques to create new forms of art.
I think a great example of what this looks like is Ravi Shankar and the Beatles or John McLaughlin and Shakthi.
P.S. my first comment on here, so apologies if the formatting is wrong!