Talk:Pann

Varadarajan's book

Regardless of one's view about Tamilnation, Mu. Varadarajan's book is a reliable source, having been published by the Sahitya Akademi which is not an organisation given to publishing "cruft". Having quickly glanced through the book, it supports much - though not all - of the article. I've accordingly re-added the reference, and removed the "unreferenced" tag. I'll leave the OR tag on for now, though it would be useful if folks could identify which bits of the article they suspect to be OR so we can either confirm the content or remove it. -- Arvind (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but wasnt Mu. Varadarajan a Tamil professor? Was he also an acknowledged musicologist and historian? Sarvagnya 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what his background is. I'm not sure that's relevant, though - the Sahitya Akademi is a fairly reputable publisher, so I'd say a book they've accepted for publication is a reliable source. -- Arvind (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

hmm.. not sure. Sahitya Akademi is a literary body and may have their reasons for publishing it. For that matter, they also published B G L Swamy's Hasiru honnu (and Tamilu talegala naduve(?)).. but it would be disingenuous to use that book on Botany articles notwithstanding the fact that BGL Swamy has published tonnes in peer reviewed journals. Does Mu Varadarajan have any publications on the subject in peer reviewed journals? Sarvagnya 16:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually have no problem with Hasiru honnu being cited in articles on South Indian botany, if there was a fact that needed citing. Tamilu talegala naduve was published by a publishing house in Bangalore, not the Sahitya Akademi. I have a copy upstairs, so I can check who the publishers were if you want me to. Incidentally, having finally read TTN from cover to cover, I disagree with your assessment of it as a scholarly work - some bits, especially in the first part, are written in a scholarly style, but the tone of much of it is more like a polemic memoir, but we can save that discussion for a later day - my personal opinion is utterly irrelevant as far as wikipedia goes, anyway.

But that apart, the article as it currently stands has two types of information. The first (which is actually the bulk of the article) simply sets out what Tamil literature says about music: i.e., the pans and musical instruments referred to in Tamil literature, and the thinai-pann symbolism one sees the literature and literary commentaries. You don't need to be a musicologist to discuss this - you need to be a scholar of literature. I'm quite comfortable relying on his book to support this bit of the article.

It's when it comes to reconstructing the Ancient Tamil musical system and describing the music itself (i.e., things such as the tuning of the notes, the manner in which they were arranged, the structure of pans, the scales and modes into which Ancient Tamil music was organised, and so on) that you need to be a musicologist. And, in point of fact, Mu. Varadarajan doesn't even attempt doing any of this in his book. The bits of the article which discuss the parent scales of the music, etc. aren't supported by Varadarajan's book. They are supported to some extent by Rowell's article, but they need a rewrite. I plan to do this once my copy of Ramanathan's book arrives, since he goes into a lot more detail than Rowell (and Rowell's article suggests that the two don't disagree). -- Arvind (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use Mu. Varadarajan to simply cite what Tamil literature has to say about music, I could have no problem with that. As long as Mu. Va isnt used to make untenable connections between Panns & Ragas and ATM & CM, I have no problem with citing him. But an expert of literature cannot be passed off as an expert in music and/or history. If that wasnt your intention, my apologies for my misunderstanding. as for TTN, the book imo is scholarly in that the author is an acknowledged scholar and the book is avowedly non-fiction. almost everything he claims as fact in the book has also been published by him in monographs and peer reviewed journals. the style of narration though, is uniquely BGLS and quite different from what you'd normally expect in a book dealing with such a subject. but then, thats BGLS for you. for me, any BGLS book is worth its weight in gold purely for his unique brand of satire that would do a wodehouse proud.Sarvagnya 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, I should have been clearer right from the outset about what I thought Mu. Vardarajan's book was an authority for. -- Arvind (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article says

The ancient pans over centuries evolved first into a pentatonic scale. But from the earliest times, Tamil Music is heptatonic and known as eḻisai.

If it was heptatonic "from the earliest times", how could Tamil music have evolved "first" into a pentatonic scale? Which really came first?