Striking a Chord or Hitting a Nerve?
Ramya Kannan’s analysis “The Dissident Vocalist” speaks volume with deep insight into the controversy that arose on awarding of Sangita Kalanidhi to Carnatic vocalist TM Krishna, who was in controversy for his unorthodox method in music and outspoken nature for social issues. Though it lays out well the cultural, historical, and personal dynamics at play, where the critique of the same focuses on its conclusion and tries to put into context the opposition Krishna faces, more particularly from the vocal duo Ranjani and Gayathri (RaGa).
1. Juxtaposition and Context: This closing paragraph of the article tries to find some kind of parallel between T.M. Krishna and the protagonist of “Mephisto,” a film character who sells his soul for career advancement. It seems to be doing two things: one is being very complimentary to the integrity of Krishna, and the other is making a comment, in a very understated way, upon people who may be selling their souls for accolades. That comparison might be a little off-kilter or hyperbolic, since Krishna has, after all, always been outspoken in the public eye on issues of caste and inclusivity in Carnatic music. It can hardly jive with the spirit of moral compromise but perhaps of another kind of moral courage.
2. Apparent Contradiction: The critique raises a valid point about the seeming contradiction in the narrative. However, if such were the idea to depict Krishna as one who has transcended into the sphere of ‘just a singer,’ one would rather question why it was necessary to justify such through comparing the character that got an award to the one from “Mephisto.” This could mean, by implication, taking somewhat away from the contribution and conviction of Krishna, for it sends defensive rather than celebratory signals over his bold departures from tradition.
3. Narrative Coherence: The critique sheds light on potential dissonance in the narrative of the article. Whereas Krishna is celebrated for breaking free from tradition and being an activist, the conclusion gives an impression of seeking some form of validation or appeasement from the very people it was in opposition to. This can actually be confusing for the readers, considering how the article’s approach to Krishna’s work and its importance to Carnatic music can still be within this domain.
4. Understanding the Opposition: While the article tries to keep an even view, taking into account the opposition by RaGa and their concerns, this comparison, made in the last paragraph, may be giving an unintended depth to the real debates on tradition, reform, and the place of art in society. This kind of criticism does certainly need to go much deeper into why there is so much resistance, far more than it does default to a simplistic dichotomy between moral integrity and compromise.
5. The Role of Awards in Artistic Evolution: The article, even more its concluding critique, has cracked a wider debate on the meaning that prestigious awards take place inside the narrative of recognition and validation of artistic evolution made under the flames of social commentary. Finally, the question of why Krishna got awarded when there were stiff oppositions is an apparently evident case of the nexus of artistic excellence, societal impact, and traditional expectations being brought forth. A more nuanced discussion of this topic will deepen a reader’s sense of the tightrope walked by artists like Krishna, negotiating the thin line that divides innovation and tradition.
Summing up, the article shares commentary on the insightful journey of T.M. Krishna and the fiasco surrounding his award, but the review itself points to the subtleties of opposition, recognition, and shifting sands of Carnatic music much clearer and deeper.
