The classical and the folk

Classifying the arts as classical and folk has been an idea that’s long been embedded our mainstream thinking. Classical has always been the art forms such as Carnatic, Hindustani,etc. Forms that have been viewed as higher art, as catering to a higher sense of aesthetics. These are enjoyed by specific castes and communities in India, who've been traditionally powerful. Whereas folk music is seen as the contra. This classification is intriguing.

I used to disagree with the mainstream definitions of classical. I thought they were too narrow and ridden with casteist and hierarchical mindsets. I formulated my own definition of classical as being music with feeling. For instance, mainstream pop music I wouldn't have considered classical. As I see no bhaavam in it. It is not music that lingers, makes you think, titillates your hearts. It doesn't go deep. Our enjoyment of it is mostly aesthetical. However, even metal music when performed with Bhaavam, in its music, lyrics, tone, raagam, etc would be considered classical in my definition. Some rock and metal connoisseurs would approve of the feeling that’s evoked by specific songs when performed by specific performers. I truly believe music with bhaavam of any kind is a higher art. The experience of that art will always be emotional. It is this bhaavam component that makes for certain music a truly enriching experience. Such music always is spiritual…regardless of what our spirituality is.

But does that mean Folk doesn't have the Bhaavam??

This last question proved my definition as wrong. Ultimately, I've now settled for a more social based definition.

All arts are pursuits of people in their spare time, whatever little they have of it. It is when we are pure - free from the clutches of materialistic concerns. The Bhaavam is embedded in the passion of the performer, and the passion of the receiver.

'Classical' arts had passionite performers. But it also had enormous patronage - from courts, rich merchants, temples, etc. There was a market for it, an ecosystem of livelihood. People could become full time performers. Hence, their continued patronage depended on how well they're able to perform.  If lyrics and Bhaavam and the Mehfil is what patrons wanted… that’s what the performers focussed on… they lyrics, their intonations, their deviations, all carefully practiced and crafted to evoke certain feelings, and provide an experience for the patron. It was a committed effort. This effort manifested itself into the disciplined, a set of rules… all of which evolved over years of practice, innovation and adaptation. The art evolved through such a process.

Folk arts have been performed by certain people in different communities - agrarian, forest, coastal, etc when they had free time. Performers were hardly full time. They were always part-time.  This kind of patronage ecosystem never existed. Even if it did, it would've been part time patronage of a very localised, village level. Those incentives for the practitioners to keep refining and developing their art weren't there. The kind of focussed effort to cultivate their art were never necessary from a market angle. One dare says, folk arts have existed only due to the pure passion of its performers, as there was a lack of market patronage ecosystem.

The bhaavam of folk music… I'm yet to discover, but when I do… I feel that it shall be a slightly different one. One that’s travelled a different path.

I also look forward to discovering folk music histories. If any reader has any interesting links or stories on folk histories, I would be thankful if they could paste it in the comments. Just so that I can discover their trajectories of how they’ve evolved over the years. So that once again, I can change my thinking of the arts :)