It is a truth that art evolves and changes with life. Music and dance as an expression of the human soul has a similar history. Thus the modern age, also, brings with it a new fusion of values.
How should we characterise the modern age: progress of science, breaking of conventions and evolution of new ideas. Naturally modern music and dance reflect a new kind of synthesis. But it would be incorrect to define this change as a new import. In creation nothing begins de novo (= as the first beginner); it owes to the past as much as it changes it.
The songs of Tagore are, perhaps, the harbingers (= first bringers on) of modern music. They deliberately violate the rigid and stereotyped musical patterns of the classical ragas and raginis; they successfully make the music subserve the meaning of his songs. He boldly imposed Karnataka or even Western music to bear out the rich significance of his song-poems. The great dancer Udaysha brought this art out of its confinement to evoke (= bring out) the great truth of life: in Kalpana – a film that he directed- he represents powerfully the dualism (= conflict between two things) of art and the machine age.
The above, however, are modest instances. Such blends are culturally sound. Even today great musician like Pandit Ravishankar is attempting new harmonies in conjugation (= union) of Eastern and Western times.
But another modern trend that affects these two arts ought to be our primary concern, as it affects our culture and taste more powerfully. I am speaking of the dance pattern enunciated (= defined) by Michael Jackson. Its choreography defies all Indian or oriental canons; it relies more on ‘shock’ and ‘effect’ than on an internal rhythm and it achieves its effect by conforming to a symphonic grandeur of sounds and musical rhythms. The ‘break- dance’ has become a haul mark (= mark of distinction) of recognition. The manner in which a figure like Hritik Roshan has impinged on (=made an impact on) our youngsters is a case in point.
The art of dancing, specially oriental style, was noted for its graceful style, expressive choreography. But its modern variety banks more on popular appeal. It is deft (= skillful) in its body- language – a modern coinage. But its chief appeal is in a claim that it is a complete departure from tradition.
Modern music, too, shows this sur-realistic (= over-realistic) trend. The Western rhythms like rock-n-roll, canter (= rhythm of a trotting horse) or the beats introduced by Bappi Lahiri, for instance, seem to have done away with the past. In songs predominance of melody, lilt or other qualities has given place to the cacophony (= deliberate unmusicality) and wild experiments with musical notes. There are good and memorable productions, no doubt, but a tendency to violate the older norms seems to be gaining ground in modern music.
Songs and their musical accompaniments are designed to produce an intended effect. In an orchestra the musical output depends on a sound disposition of its various instruments. A good music director sees to it that an unnecessary overplay of the one instrument, be it ever so popular, does not do any violence to the total output or effect of the performance. But when music has to play a second fiddle (= a subsidiary role) to a song, it has to maintain a low key. In modern musical performances, specially in the Philharmonic songs often seen in the television, even a good song and well sung is often overwhelmed by a flood of harmonic sounds. This, however, is a basic trend in modern music and even in songs. Their ‘functional’ (= proper place in the context) value is sacrificed. It will not be too far from propriety to remark, that such an isolationist (tendency to isolate) attitude corrupts human taste. It divorces them from art in the real sense. It becomes an art for art’s sake.
The above is a pointer to a growing tendency. It, however, does not rule out that some good directors have successfully evolved masterly music in films.
