Seerkazhi Sivachidambaram at IITM Music Club

Seekazhi Sivachidambaram - vocal
Thiruvarur Balam - violin
Thiruvarur Saikrishnan - mridangam
Madras Ramdas - ghatam
Madheswaran - morsing

Music Club IIT Madras, 26/10/05

evvari bodhana - AbhOgi - Adi (R)
sri gaNapatini - saurAshTram - Adi - T (R S)
maravAdiru - AndhOLikA - Adi
lEmi telpa - suvarNAngi - Adi - T
srI mAtrubUtham - kannaDa - misra cApu - MD (R)
amba paradEvatE - rudrapriyA - kaNDa cApu - karUr krishNaswamy Iyer (R S)
tani
viruttam - 'tEnOzhugu senthamizh kaniyai' - tODi, mOhanam, kAmbhOji, shanmukhapriyA, bindumAlini
gurunatha murugA - bindumAlini - Adi
rati suka sArE - yamunakalyANi - Adi - JayadEvA
karuNAcalatE dAsaratE - nAdanAmakriyA - Adi - T
tillAnA - pUrvI - tisra Ekam (R)
viruttam - 'Ariru tananthOl vAzhga' - madhyamAvati (R)
nI nama rUpamulaku - saurAshtram

The deep heavy voice of the main artist, made a striking impact right from the first sancaram of the AbhOgi AlApanai, which was short and sweet. The varNam was rendered beautifully in trikAlam, including tisram.

The rare and carefully woven saurAshTram AlApanai was impressive. The kriti which followed was rendered well with svarams at 'panasa nArikElAdi'. The AndhOLikA piece in Tamil, was arresting and classical. lEmi telpa was rendered in suvarNAngi, not in pAvani, as generally heard. The rendition highlighted the sAdhAraNa gAndhara sancarams. The kannaDA AlApanai was restricted to more of the madhyama sthAyi sancarams. The kriti was well rendered. The main rudrapriyA AlApanai was started unambigously. The artist showed his class by preserving the identity of the rAgA even in the regions common with kharaharapriyA. It was indicative of being the main piece of the evening and was explored well. The kriti was rendered with a lot of bhavam with the hallmark ciTTai svarams. The viruttam was very well rendered with proper placing of the words according to the rAga svarupam. Classically weighty rAgAs were chosen.

The rare bindumalini kriti was refreshingly different from the cinematically light version of the RagA that we generally get to hear. The ashtapati and the utsava sampradAya kriti rendered in madhyama sruthi were quite moving and had a lot of bhavam. The AlApanai and the tillana in pUrvi were good also. Though towards the end, the madhyamAvati AlApanai was no less enjoyable, the viruttam was well rendered also to wrap up with the saurAshTram mangalam.

Sri Sivachidambaram has a good voice, though it did not co-operate well on the day of the concert. His alignment to sruthi was amazing. His sAhitya suddham and clear pronounciation are other striking facts about his music. Also, his manOdharmam is very good. Clearly, he is a musician who deserves to be heard by a wider section of CM audience. Smt Balam was good thro' the concert. She supported the main artist well, though she appeared to have run out of ideas for her rudrapriyA AlApanai. Sri Saikrishnan on the mrudangam provided good percussion support all through the concert and played a good tani in kaNDA cApu. While the morsing artist comfortably played his part in the kaNDa cApu tani, the poor ghatam artist was all at sea with the five-beat cycle.

This was a concert which showed that artists such as Sri Sivachidambaram do have tremendous potential to appeal to even the conservative Mylapore audiences, provided there exist unbiased listeners and sabhas.