About a hundred years ago, VN Bhatkhande published
compositions in 181 Raga-s, of which he described 45 as being “Prasiddha”. The
remaining were classified as “Aprasiddha”. This classification is often
mentioned in contemporary musicological discourse, along with an unstated
question: If a similar classification were to be attempted today, what kind of
numbers would it yield? This question inspires this enquiry.
Bhatkhande was a Sanskrit scholar. What precisely did
he mean? He did not use “Prakhyat” (प्रख्यात) = famous.
He did not use “Prachalit” (प्रचलित) = common/
popular. He did not use “Pratishthit” (प्रतिष्ठित)= respected/ elitist. He used “Prasiddha” (प्रसिद्ध), derived from the
Sanskrit “Siddha” (सिद्ध्) = established/ proven. “Prasiddha” carries all the connotations of the candidate words not used, but elevates the issue to a different
level. The “Siddha” quality here has two angles – of mastery by performers, and
of being proven to listeners. It denotes fame attained through proven
excellence/ mastery, and wide acceptance/ endorsement by public opinion. In the
present context, therefore, Bhatkhande’s notion of “Prasiddha Raga-s” may be
interpreted as Raga-s established in the musical culture on account of
accomplishments (of musicians, in performance), and their widespread acceptance
by listeners.
To arrive at his assessment, Bhatkhande interacted
extensively and intensively with musicians and other influentials, such as
scholars and patrons, across the country for several decades. His was the most
authoritative assessment that could have been made of his times. But, by
today’s standards, the music world he surveyed was small, and uncomplicated.
Today’s Hindustani music is a vibrant sub-culture -- larger, more complex, more
diverse, and connected by a more transparent web of self-interest amongst its
participants. It neither asks simple questions, nor accepts simplistic answers.
Today’s professional musician is a service-provider in
the market for Raga-based music. He has a well-developed notion of “career
strategy”. The strategy accounts for the repertoire in which he has a high
level of performing competence. But his “command repertoire” does not
necessarily ensure professional success.
His success also depends on the receptivity of the contemporary
Ragascape – the set of Raga-s within the “comfort zone” of contemporary
audiences.
The idea of a Ragascape connects with the notion that Raga-s
are archetypal entities residing in the racial memory as distinct banks of
musical ideas, each associated with a particular region of the community’s
emotional life. Musicians draw upon these banks to relate meaningfully to their
audiences and, while doing so, also contribute new ideas to these banks. Raga-s
drift in and out of circulation and public consciousness through community-wide
recalling and forgetting. Conceptually, then, the Ragascape of an era is
comprised of Raga-s whose ideational banks are being actively/ frequently/ constantly
tapped and replenished in the present.
Veteran observers of the music scene have noted that, from
a universe of possibly 1000+ documented Raga-s in Hindustani music, not more
than a 100 are “in circulation” at any given time – say, a generation understood
as 30 years. There is also considerable agreement that, of these 100, perhaps just
about 50 Raga-s account for the vast majority of performances across all media.
If informed-jury estimates are to be believed, 50 to 100 Raga-s may be
sufficient to paint the Ragascape of any era.
Whatever the truth, it has to connect with the reality
of the musician being an economic being. Throughout his career, he explores and
cultivates a “goodness of fit” between his artistic resources and public
receptivity through some awareness of contemporary trends. If he has the
makings of an epochal musician, say of an Ameer Khan, Alladiya Khan, or a Faiyyaz
Khan, he may actually alter the Ragascape. But, even these worthies had to
reckon with the Ragascape of the era, before they began to alter it. They obviously
did some good, even if informal, “market research”. Their kind of research can
now be a little more “formal”.
The Ragascape idea also impinges upon the grooming of
aspirants for careers in classical music. Individual Gurus and educational institutions
impart skills either without utilitarian considerations, or without organized
knowledge of the Ragascape in which their wards will seek a career. With even imprecise
information, educators can enhance the value of their training. It is, of
course, true that the worldview of the active Guru-s (and teaching institutions)
in each generation will collectively shape the Ragascape through what is taught
and how. But, this is a two-way process. For every musician, the Ragascape is a
“given” reality, which also permits him to enrich or alter it.
The dynamics of the Ragascape are surely of interest
to musicologists. Raga-s drift into, and out of, the Ragascape in response to
changes in aesthetic values, and the changing profiles of musicians and audiences.
Every Raga has its distinctive personality and performing stance. Every Raga entering
or exiting the Ragascape says something about society and its expectations from
classical music. Such clues are mostly encountered without being sought, and deserve
more than a glance from scholars.
The challenge, then, is to devise a methodology for
mapping the Ragascape to provide useful insights to the various participants in
the Hindustani music ecosystem.
The contemporary Ragascape is the cumulative product
of Raga-s performed with distinction by several generations of musicians
working with a multiplicity of Raga-based, (and even Raga-neutral) genres, and
delivered to audiences through a variety of personal and impersonal media. Mapping
such an activity involves musicians and audiences scattered all over the world.
This is a formidable task for which neither the methodology, nor the funding, can
be envisaged. One may, therefore, consider existing data sources that can yield
workable, though not authoritative, insights.
This study draws on public-domain information on YouTube
viewership to extract some insights that may be helpful to the classical music
community. YouTube data is increasingly being used for musicological research, while
its value remains a subject of academic debate. There are good reasons to
utilize the data prudently, and with an awareness of its limitations. Appropriately,
then, the numerical outputs are to be interpreted as “Orders of magnitude” rather
than categorical measures of what is being specifically measured. The
limitations of using YouTube data have been discussed in detail at the end of
this study.
The data used here for computing the Audience
Engagement index of Raga-s was capable of yielding a few additional insights.
Such leads have been pursued to the extent the data would permit.
YouTube as data source
YouTube is, by now, the largest open-access repository
of Hindustani music, hosting recordings going back to the earliest years of
sound recording. It appears to have replaced every other access to Hindustani
music – other than, possibly, a live concert. But, increasingly, any significant
(or even insignificant) contemporary concert or recording taking place in any
part of the Hindustani music world, finds its way to YouTube before long. YouTube
may now be considered more than merely “representative” of contemporary
Hindustani music – it could possibly qualify as the primary platform. The
long-term/ cultural implications of this phenomenon need not concern us here.
It suffices to acknowledge that YouTube audience measurement numbers can be
treated with respect.
Could the flood of live Hindustani concerts on
Facebook during the global pandemic shut-downs (April-May-June 2020) have diluted
YouTube’s status as the dominant music platform? There is enough reason to
believe that, fundamentally, nothing has either changed or is likely to change.
However, it is safest to state that we do not know; or that it is too early to
judge. In any event, this present study is insulated against even a temporary
disturbance on this account. The research database was compiled between March
25 and April 5, 2020, before Facebook became an online auditorium.
YouTube remains a viable business by selling advertising
exposure. In order to maximize advertising value, it operates a sophisticated
system of managing viewer behavior. The system uses internally generated
information and navigation prompts to guide users into spending the maximum
possible time on YouTube. The same system provides advertisers with reach and
impact data on the content to establish its advertising value. Except perhaps under
special arrangements, the analytics generated by YouTube are not available to
researchers outside its circle of commercially valuable users.
The data available publicly on screen is all we have. We
have (i) the date of upload, and we have (ii) the total viewership from the
upload date till the day we are looking at the numbers. This study draws on
these fragments of information for pursuing its query.
The Audience Engagement Indicator
The Raga-s considered for rating for audience
engagement were selected by merging the under-graduate and post-graduate
syllabi of the major universities and examining institutions involved in
Hindustani music. This framework was valuable as an indicator of organized
activity aimed at preserving their character, and keeping them “in
circulation”.
The computation of the Audience Engagement Indicator is
based on the belief that Hindustani music is a highly individualistic art, and
hence audience loyalties/ preferences are centered upon individual musicians rather
than around Raga-s. Isolating Raga-specific engagement from viewership measures
needs mountains of data and some arithmetic. The objective is substantially
achieved by aggregating the metrics of videos of the same Raga performed by a
large number of musicians across various genres of music, performing in various
contexts, across diverse geographies. A total isolation of the Raga effect from
the musician effect is neither possible, nor necessary. Musicians shape Raga-s,
as much as Raga-s shape music.
The arithmetic is simple. The videos covered for this
study were uploaded at different time distances from the date on which we are
logging their total viewership. Each video has thus had a different time-span
over which to accumulate viewers – or be forgotten. So, the aggregate
viewership of all included videos has to be adjusted for these differences in
order to obtain a standardized measure of audience engagement. The resultant
number is computed as “Views per Month”. However, it is safest to regard it as
an unrefined “Audience Engagement Indicator”.
It is fair to ask whether what we are measuring is, in
fact, what we wish to measure. The truth is that we neither know, nor can
alter, the manner in which YouTube measures and reports viewership on the
screen. We are only incidental
beneficiaries of the information available, and of whatever meaning we can
extract out of it. The limitations of the data source are discussed in some
detail at the end of this study.
... Continued in Part II