The Corruption Of Music

In an earlier blog (http://vbala99.blogspot.com/2010/12/old-indian-movies-songs-and-actors.html?showComment=1314263701640#c5213736150309489461) I had mentioned that the quality of music in Indian cinema has been steadily going down.

I wanted to go into more detail on that aspect in this post.

Today I heard the song "Rote Rote Hasnaa Seekho" sung by Kishore in the 1983 movie Andha Kaanoon. The music is set by Laxmikant Pyarelal (LP). The music made me shudder in horror. I thought I will choose a few other songs by the same music directors that I liked.

Na Tu Zameen Ke Liye from Daastan (Rafi, 1972), Mere Dil Mein Aaj Kya Hai from Daag (Kishore, 1973), Tum Bin Jeevan Kaisa Beeta from Anita (Mukesh, 1967), Tere Pyaar Ne Mujhe Gum from Chhaila Babu (Rafi, 1967), Chaahoonga Mein Tujhe from Dosti (Rafi, 1964), Dhal Gaya Din Ho Gayi from Humjoli (Rafi and Asha, 1971).

I liked these songs of LP much more than Rote Rote Hasna Seekho which seemed so pedestrian. The song sounds as though Kishore was talking, rather than singing a melodious song.

I guess the same thing has happened with other directors. The taste of the common man also changed at the same time. Now, did the listener's taste cause the music directors to change course or did the music directors drive the change? 

My guess is that the music directors drove the change, they tried out different things. And focused more on what "sold" more. We the audience wanted to change with the times and move towards was "hip". And this tango never ended. Good music seems to have come to an end by late 1960's and early 1970's. It's rare that I hear a recent song from Hindi or Tamil that I tend to like or remember later and hum.

And a (very young) friend of mine feels old people are quite inflexible in their likes unlike youngsters who are open to good stuff no matter where (and which era) they are from.

Are we supposed to have exacting standards in life or be more accepting?

Gulp.

On Sex

A friend sent me an article on sex (the link doesn't work now).

Apparently there are those (people in their 30's and 40's) who have sex 2 or 3 times a week. While I have heard that the libido of a man decreases as he ages and that of a woman seems to increase, some couples in their late 30's and 40's have sex some have 10 times a week. The latter don't seem to get enough of each other. Being everything for and not getting enough of each other makes a relationship great. 

The same friend said that such a (nice) relationship can hardly exist anywhere except in fiction. Is that so? 

Obviously I don't imply that the frequency of sex is the only determinant of a good relationship. If that was the case, perhaps rabbits will be teachers of relationships.

The Art Of Saying No

Men get to know a woman for a long time (3 minutes) before they ask for sex (or propose marriage). Women reject the proposal for sex / marriage immediately.

Men wonder why. What did they do wrong? Now women dislike jumping into sex/sex chat after 3 mins. For women, sex is a culmination of feelings towards a man. While for men, sex may be the initiator of feelings towards women. 

If only men waited patiently, they would be more likely to get exactly what they wanted... but by speaking out too soon, they blow it.

Same way by being too direct and saying NO soon and lacking diplomacy, some people blow it. While there are people who say NO or "fuck you" in a more effective way. Without the other person even realizing that he was said NO/Fuck You to...

If effectiveness/efficiency is about getting what one wants soonest and with the least effort, then does asking for sex directly or saying NO bluntly qualify as being that? Human beings seek things that are packaged well. Most people accept poorer content as long as the packaging is fine. I heard of a study where patients were much more likely to file a malpractice suit on an irascible doctor than on an amiable one. One just doesn't have the heart to harm a "nice guy". 

How much do these blunt guys lose out in life? Very few people can tolerate them and they are considered an a**hole by people around them. I am reminded of a Thirukkural poem. 

"Iniya ulavaadu innadu kooral 

kaniyiruupa Kaaikavarn dhattru."

Translation: Saying harsh things when there are nice things to say is like eating a raw fruit when there is a ripe one. (Pardon me if there is a mistake in the rendition of the original or in the translation).

So why are some people blunt/harsh? Why don't they couch a NO in a more acceptable form? Perhaps such people see truth and content as much more important than the form in which it is presented. They have not learnt the importance of form or packaging. 

Poor idiots. Sad that they keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Maths Puzzle - 17

I came across this one a few days back.

A number of children are standing in a circle. They are evenly spaced and the 7th child is directly opposite the 17th child. How many children are there altogether?

No Markers

Some people create a mark with their existence. The mark could be negative (as in the case of Osama Bin Laden or Hitler) or positive. Small or big.

There are others who don't leave any marks anywhere they go. There are few signs of their having existed. They also seem to make efforts to obliterate any signs that might have been inadvertently made by them. They live life trying to be inconspicuous as though they were a KGB agent who has come to USA.

What do these people live for? What is their aim in life? They obviously don't exist to make any changes to people around them or to society in general. They exist only for themselves. And if they happen to do something nice, it is because they derive extreme personal satisfaction from that act. Anonymity is something they hold on to as though it were their dear life. They seek few things from society and contribute little. Society is as important as a vending machine. Something that is needed but one doesn't socialize with a vending machine, right?

These people are very happy to have a low balance sheet in life. Low assets, low liabilities. They live life as though they are constantly ready to depart - everything packed in a suitcase and ready. They shun use of assets in any form, especially intangible assets like friendships, goodwill, contacts.

Just as any object seeks a low potential energy, such people constantly seek low interaction levels. To use a cliche, they find solace in solitude. 

Like a thermostat that maintains the temperature within a range, they maintain everything within limits. When their interactions with their outside world reaches a certain level, the internal thermostat kicks in. They forcibly bring the outside interaction back to an agreeable level.

Such people are best left alone. One shouldn't get too close to such people.