good books/docmrntaties on an absurdly specific topic
April 9, 2022 9:02 PM Subscribe
Can you help me research something?
I am an avid consumer of any media pertaining to the Beatles. I've seen the Anthology probably close to a hundred times since the initial release over 20 years ago. I've seen A Hard Day's Night many times. I've seen Help! I've been seen Magical Mystery Tour (god help me). I've seen a PBS documentary about John Lennon's life podt-Beatles whose name escapes me. I loved Scorsese's documentary about George Harrison (Living in the Material World). I binged McCartney 321 when it came out last year. And if course, I binged Peter Jackson's Get Back recut of the Let It Be documentary footage. I have the Beatles Anthology book. I have all of their records. I am about to buy the companion book to the Get Back doc. I have McCartney's recent memoir/songbook. I've seen Paul in concert many times. I've seen Ringo too. I have a book of photos of them compiled by Life Magazine. If there is Beatles media, I want it and prolly already have it.
Except in this one area: Tonight my boyfriend and I watched the film of the Concert for George commemorating his life one year after his death. The first half of the concert features an original composition by Ravi Shankar, who, as many know, is the guy who got George into putting sitar in Beatles songs and sparking his interest in Hinduism and Indian spirituality.
Ravi Shankar was a close friend of my mother's family. I met him once, when I was very small. I am a musician myself, and the fact that I am two degrees separated from the Beatles has always thrilled me.
But as an Indian American woman raised by a Marxist mother who was culturally Hindu, I have always held a lot of discomfort about George Harrison's embrace of the religion of my people as a white British man, though I appreciate his bringing awareness of the music of my mother's land to the west. I also know that his interest and belief in the tenents if Hinduism were sincere and grounded him in a way that being a Beatle didn't. And I know his friendship with Ravi was genuine and full of warmth and respect.
But it still feels... icky to me. But in a complicated way. This white musician I adore and respect, from a country that colonised my ancestors for 300+ years, declaring his allegiance to Hinduism and Indian culture and spirituality because he fellow in love with the sound of Ravi Shankar's sitar. Ravi Shankar, my grandmother's childhood friend. It makes me think of the white ladies who come to my stepmother's yoga class in Berkeley and start believing they can be Hindu too because they love to get their shivasana on and listen to my stepmother chant Sanskrit slokhas while they do their downward facing dog. Except those are rich white Berkeley ladies, and I'm comparing them to George Harrison, which is fucking absurd.
I want to figure out how to reconcile my understanding of George and Ravi's relationship and George's spiritual journey, especially as while I've done some interviews for press around my recent debut record release, the question of my connection to my ethnic identity has come up, especially when I mention the Beatles as a formative influence on me as a musician and then inevitably the Ravi Shankar question comes up and I reveal my family connection and ugh it all makes me feel icky. I mean, if I put Indian influenced modes and modalities in my own original music (which I categorically do NOT) I'd feel like I was being appropriative. I don't identify as Indian. I identify as Indian-American, and as a brown lady in 2022 America that feels more like a political identity to me than a personal one. Also, I'm an atheist (Marxist mom!). I know almost nothing about Hinduism except from what I've picked up from Bollywood films. I learned Hindi not from speaking it at home, but from Bollywood films.
The film of the Concert for George was moving, and the original composition by Ravi Shankar in his honor was beautiful. He speaks after the performance, saying that he considered George a son, and Dhani* his grandson. This was obviously a real relationship they had, and it opened George's mind and heart and creativity for the better. But I still struggle with it. I don't understand it. And I want to. I think I have to, otherwise this is just going to keep bugging me and I'd like to be able to speak intelligently about this topic when asked.
So after ALL THAT... does anyone know of any good books that delve into the George/Ravi relationship and George's spirituality? Or documentaries? Scorcese's Living in the Material World gets into it a bit but I want a deeper dive. Like, a really deep dive. Help this Indian-American atheist Marxist independent musician who wouldn't be a musician without the Beatles and whose family knew Ravi Shankar understand as much as possible how George came to be who he became after meeting Ravi. Help me understand as much as I can so I can feel less icky about it. Help me understand so maybe I can understand myself more?
Please, any and all suggestions welcome.
Yeah, George and Olivia giving their white-passing son an Indian name gives me pause too.
I am an avid consumer of any media pertaining to the Beatles. I've seen the Anthology probably close to a hundred times since the initial release over 20 years ago. I've seen A Hard Day's Night many times. I've seen Help! I've been seen Magical Mystery Tour (god help me). I've seen a PBS documentary about John Lennon's life podt-Beatles whose name escapes me. I loved Scorsese's documentary about George Harrison (Living in the Material World). I binged McCartney 321 when it came out last year. And if course, I binged Peter Jackson's Get Back recut of the Let It Be documentary footage. I have the Beatles Anthology book. I have all of their records. I am about to buy the companion book to the Get Back doc. I have McCartney's recent memoir/songbook. I've seen Paul in concert many times. I've seen Ringo too. I have a book of photos of them compiled by Life Magazine. If there is Beatles media, I want it and prolly already have it.
Except in this one area: Tonight my boyfriend and I watched the film of the Concert for George commemorating his life one year after his death. The first half of the concert features an original composition by Ravi Shankar, who, as many know, is the guy who got George into putting sitar in Beatles songs and sparking his interest in Hinduism and Indian spirituality.
Ravi Shankar was a close friend of my mother's family. I met him once, when I was very small. I am a musician myself, and the fact that I am two degrees separated from the Beatles has always thrilled me.
But as an Indian American woman raised by a Marxist mother who was culturally Hindu, I have always held a lot of discomfort about George Harrison's embrace of the religion of my people as a white British man, though I appreciate his bringing awareness of the music of my mother's land to the west. I also know that his interest and belief in the tenents if Hinduism were sincere and grounded him in a way that being a Beatle didn't. And I know his friendship with Ravi was genuine and full of warmth and respect.
But it still feels... icky to me. But in a complicated way. This white musician I adore and respect, from a country that colonised my ancestors for 300+ years, declaring his allegiance to Hinduism and Indian culture and spirituality because he fellow in love with the sound of Ravi Shankar's sitar. Ravi Shankar, my grandmother's childhood friend. It makes me think of the white ladies who come to my stepmother's yoga class in Berkeley and start believing they can be Hindu too because they love to get their shivasana on and listen to my stepmother chant Sanskrit slokhas while they do their downward facing dog. Except those are rich white Berkeley ladies, and I'm comparing them to George Harrison, which is fucking absurd.
I want to figure out how to reconcile my understanding of George and Ravi's relationship and George's spiritual journey, especially as while I've done some interviews for press around my recent debut record release, the question of my connection to my ethnic identity has come up, especially when I mention the Beatles as a formative influence on me as a musician and then inevitably the Ravi Shankar question comes up and I reveal my family connection and ugh it all makes me feel icky. I mean, if I put Indian influenced modes and modalities in my own original music (which I categorically do NOT) I'd feel like I was being appropriative. I don't identify as Indian. I identify as Indian-American, and as a brown lady in 2022 America that feels more like a political identity to me than a personal one. Also, I'm an atheist (Marxist mom!). I know almost nothing about Hinduism except from what I've picked up from Bollywood films. I learned Hindi not from speaking it at home, but from Bollywood films.
The film of the Concert for George was moving, and the original composition by Ravi Shankar in his honor was beautiful. He speaks after the performance, saying that he considered George a son, and Dhani* his grandson. This was obviously a real relationship they had, and it opened George's mind and heart and creativity for the better. But I still struggle with it. I don't understand it. And I want to. I think I have to, otherwise this is just going to keep bugging me and I'd like to be able to speak intelligently about this topic when asked.
So after ALL THAT... does anyone know of any good books that delve into the George/Ravi relationship and George's spirituality? Or documentaries? Scorcese's Living in the Material World gets into it a bit but I want a deeper dive. Like, a really deep dive. Help this Indian-American atheist Marxist independent musician who wouldn't be a musician without the Beatles and whose family knew Ravi Shankar understand as much as possible how George came to be who he became after meeting Ravi. Help me understand as much as I can so I can feel less icky about it. Help me understand so maybe I can understand myself more?
Please, any and all suggestions welcome.
Yeah, George and Olivia giving their white-passing son an Indian name gives me pause too.
This post was deleted for the following reason: posters request -- frimble
Best answer: I'd suggest Google Scholar searches for terms like "george harrison" "shankar", which turns up stuff like this article on Harrison, Shankar, and Shambhu Das (which mentions Ravi Shankar's autobiography has a chapter on Harrison too).
posted by Wobbuffet at 9:29 PM on April 9, 2022
posted by Wobbuffet at 9:29 PM on April 9, 2022
Best answer: Incidentally, that same search at Google Books has results that are different and probably useful too, e.g. the comments / interviews in this book.
posted by Wobbuffet at 9:56 PM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Wobbuffet at 9:56 PM on April 9, 2022 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Sorry, it occurred to me a bit later to mention you could check out some of those books from the Internet Archive, e.g. this copy or this copy of Ravi Shankar's autobiography in which chapter 6 seems to have the most to do with George Harrison.
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:17 PM on April 9, 2022
posted by Wobbuffet at 10:17 PM on April 9, 2022
I mean, if I put Indian influenced modes and modalities in my own original music (which I categorically do NOT) I'd feel like I was being appropriative. I don't identify as Indian. I identify as Indian-American, and as a brown lady in 2022 America that feels more like a political identity to me than a personal one. Also, I'm an atheist (Marxist mom!). I know almost nothing about Hinduism except from what I've picked up from Bollywood films. I learned Hindi not from speaking it at home, but from Bollywood films.
I feel like you buried the lede here. It sounds like you feel some envy and resentment that this white British man felt free to appropriate and use and profit from Indian culture in a way you don't. It feels icky because it was, even though the relationship was real and both men benefited from it.
I wonder if instead of researching Harrison and giving him even more power in your own story, you could do a deep dive into your own heritage and family history. Learn more about your grandmother's relationship to Ravi Shankar, not Harrison's. Play with those sounds in your own music (even if no one ever hears that experimentation but you). Research your family's history in the U.S. and India. Learn more about music and religion and spirituality and languages in your ancestors. Try on the experiences they had and loved and see if they fit. Learn more about how colonialiam and racism and intercultural contact and immigration made you who you are. I feel like the answers you're looking for are deeper in your own story, not Harrison's, and when you know how you feel about your own story, you'll gain a better understanding of what you think of his.
posted by shadygrove at 1:57 AM on April 10, 2022 [13 favorites]
I feel like you buried the lede here. It sounds like you feel some envy and resentment that this white British man felt free to appropriate and use and profit from Indian culture in a way you don't. It feels icky because it was, even though the relationship was real and both men benefited from it.
I wonder if instead of researching Harrison and giving him even more power in your own story, you could do a deep dive into your own heritage and family history. Learn more about your grandmother's relationship to Ravi Shankar, not Harrison's. Play with those sounds in your own music (even if no one ever hears that experimentation but you). Research your family's history in the U.S. and India. Learn more about music and religion and spirituality and languages in your ancestors. Try on the experiences they had and loved and see if they fit. Learn more about how colonialiam and racism and intercultural contact and immigration made you who you are. I feel like the answers you're looking for are deeper in your own story, not Harrison's, and when you know how you feel about your own story, you'll gain a better understanding of what you think of his.
posted by shadygrove at 1:57 AM on April 10, 2022 [13 favorites]
Also, ask yourself why it feels appropriative to use Indian-influenced modes and modalities in your music, but not appropriative to use the Beatles' sound (or the Western musical tradition in general) in your music? Why are Indian sounds "not yours" to take, while British and American (and if you're influenced by American sounds, then also the African sounds embedded in them) and European sounds are "yours"?
posted by shadygrove at 2:18 AM on April 10, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by shadygrove at 2:18 AM on April 10, 2022 [8 favorites]
Best answer: Gerry Farrell *Indian Music and the West.*
Shankar is a complicated figure, quite as much a product of colonialism as Harrison. And he played a pretty major role in what many scholars (for example Regula Qureshi) have talked about as an appropriation of Hindustani music from Muslim musicians (who were primary bearers of the music in oral tradition) by Brahman Hindus to the project of the post-colonial Hindu nationalist state project. Which is also an oversimplification.
Don't idealize him as some sort of pure bearer of ancient tradition who was simply "appropriated." He did plenty of appropriating. He was European educated. He spent much of his life in the west. He very much sought out the Beatles connection. It was his modus operandi.
There is a large scholarly literature on this history of course. Farrell's book is now out of date. But it's a very graceful introduction to the issues you're raising.
Harrison funded a weird film about Ravi called (of course) RAGA. It's available still.
posted by spitbull at 3:05 AM on April 10, 2022 [18 favorites]
Shankar is a complicated figure, quite as much a product of colonialism as Harrison. And he played a pretty major role in what many scholars (for example Regula Qureshi) have talked about as an appropriation of Hindustani music from Muslim musicians (who were primary bearers of the music in oral tradition) by Brahman Hindus to the project of the post-colonial Hindu nationalist state project. Which is also an oversimplification.
Don't idealize him as some sort of pure bearer of ancient tradition who was simply "appropriated." He did plenty of appropriating. He was European educated. He spent much of his life in the west. He very much sought out the Beatles connection. It was his modus operandi.
There is a large scholarly literature on this history of course. Farrell's book is now out of date. But it's a very graceful introduction to the issues you're raising.
Harrison funded a weird film about Ravi called (of course) RAGA. It's available still.
posted by spitbull at 3:05 AM on April 10, 2022 [18 favorites]
Best answer: Also for yourself as a musician you may be interested in the work of (Univ of Texas) ethnomusicologist Stephen Slawek, a (white) sitar student of Ravi Shankar (and one of my teachers, long ago). He's delved deeply into the details of Ravi's improvisational techniques.
Also Ravi's own weird first autobiography "My Music, My Life," in case you think he didn't invent himself as what the world saw.
posted by spitbull at 3:12 AM on April 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
Also Ravi's own weird first autobiography "My Music, My Life," in case you think he didn't invent himself as what the world saw.
posted by spitbull at 3:12 AM on April 10, 2022 [6 favorites]
Best answer: People from British colonies were taught to revere all things British and groomed to bask in British attention, in a way that looks really gross now (because it is gross, or at least devastatingly sad) but was very normal then (my parents are from British colonies).
Maybe ingesting some things that are critical of colonization in general - the movie Black Panther and the novels Small Island by Andrea Levy and White Teeth by Zadie Smith might be a start.
Also, if you put Indian sounds into your music, it might feel weird to you, but actually it’s your birthright and it’s the fault of colonization that you lost closeness with them.
It’s not AT ALL the same as you adopting Euro or American sounds - your assimilation into a culture that dominates and belittles you is not at all the same as having your own culture stolen by domination!
I sure wish people would read a tiny bit of world history before trying to make one to one comparisons about cultural appropriation! It isn’t a level playing field and hasn’t been for hundreds of years, and that history is intensely relevant since the power dynamics it created are still alive and well.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 5:34 AM on April 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
Maybe ingesting some things that are critical of colonization in general - the movie Black Panther and the novels Small Island by Andrea Levy and White Teeth by Zadie Smith might be a start.
Also, if you put Indian sounds into your music, it might feel weird to you, but actually it’s your birthright and it’s the fault of colonization that you lost closeness with them.
It’s not AT ALL the same as you adopting Euro or American sounds - your assimilation into a culture that dominates and belittles you is not at all the same as having your own culture stolen by domination!
I sure wish people would read a tiny bit of world history before trying to make one to one comparisons about cultural appropriation! It isn’t a level playing field and hasn’t been for hundreds of years, and that history is intensely relevant since the power dynamics it created are still alive and well.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 5:34 AM on April 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
Response by poster: Thank you so much for the suggestions - especially from spitbull. I will be looking into those books and resources ASAP, it sounds exactly what I'm looking for.
As for this:
I wonder if instead of researching Harrison and giving him even more power in your own story, you could do a deep dive into your own heritage and family history. Learn more about your grandmother's relationship to Ravi Shankar, not Harrison's. Play with those sounds in your own music (even if no one ever hears that experimentation but you). Research your family's history in the U.S. and India. Learn more about music and religion and spirituality and languages in your ancestors. Try on the experiences they had and loved and see if they fit. Learn more about how colonialiam and racism and intercultural contact and immigration made you who you are. I feel like the answers you're looking for are deeper in your own story, not Harrison's, and when you know how you feel about your own story, you'll gain a better understanding of what you think of his.
I know that you meant this with kindness but I'm sorry, this is extremely patronizing. I'm a 37 year old Indian American woman with parents who immigrated to the States in 1978. I know all about my family's relationship with Shankar and I know all about our history in the US (I lived it and continue to live it) and I also know our history in India. I've spent my entire life learning how to reconcile the American part of me with my heritage. This is something that pretty much every child of immigrants, especially comparitively recent immigrants does. I don't need to research what I have lived and trust me, I don't need to research how colonialism, racism, intercultural conflict, and immigration made me who I am. Everything about this (well-meant, I'm sure) comment is baffling as fuck. Do you not realize that the experience of existing as a POC in the United States means understanding, reconciling, and grappling with all of these issues every single day in every single interaction (including this one)? Do you think I just walk around in some white washed bubble ignorant of where I came from? I can't. I can't and even if I wanted to, it wouldn't be possible, because of the way I look and the color of my skin. That's my reality. That's the reality of any child of immigrants. That's the reality of anyone who is brown who lives in this country. That's our life. And that's why the Harrison/Shankar relationship perplexes me and I want to learn more.
And no, I don't want to play with Indian sounds in my music. That's not because of self-hatred. That's because I've done a lot of work in forging an identity as someone who will always live between two cultures by virtue of the processes of colonialism and immigration and I know what kind of music I want to create. Being inspired by the likes of the Beatles and the Stones and Chuck Berry as the American child of Indian immigrants is in no way the same as a British man being inspired by Indian music, exactly because of the cultural legacy of colonialism and immigration.
Or, as nouvelle-personne put it:
[my] assimilation into a culture that dominates and belittles you is not at all the same as having your own culture stolen by domination... it isn’t a level playing field and hasn’t been for hundreds of years, and that history is intensely relevant since the power dynamics it created are still alive and well.
So thank you for saying that, nouvelle-personne.
posted by nayantara at 7:25 AM on April 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
As for this:
I wonder if instead of researching Harrison and giving him even more power in your own story, you could do a deep dive into your own heritage and family history. Learn more about your grandmother's relationship to Ravi Shankar, not Harrison's. Play with those sounds in your own music (even if no one ever hears that experimentation but you). Research your family's history in the U.S. and India. Learn more about music and religion and spirituality and languages in your ancestors. Try on the experiences they had and loved and see if they fit. Learn more about how colonialiam and racism and intercultural contact and immigration made you who you are. I feel like the answers you're looking for are deeper in your own story, not Harrison's, and when you know how you feel about your own story, you'll gain a better understanding of what you think of his.
I know that you meant this with kindness but I'm sorry, this is extremely patronizing. I'm a 37 year old Indian American woman with parents who immigrated to the States in 1978. I know all about my family's relationship with Shankar and I know all about our history in the US (I lived it and continue to live it) and I also know our history in India. I've spent my entire life learning how to reconcile the American part of me with my heritage. This is something that pretty much every child of immigrants, especially comparitively recent immigrants does. I don't need to research what I have lived and trust me, I don't need to research how colonialism, racism, intercultural conflict, and immigration made me who I am. Everything about this (well-meant, I'm sure) comment is baffling as fuck. Do you not realize that the experience of existing as a POC in the United States means understanding, reconciling, and grappling with all of these issues every single day in every single interaction (including this one)? Do you think I just walk around in some white washed bubble ignorant of where I came from? I can't. I can't and even if I wanted to, it wouldn't be possible, because of the way I look and the color of my skin. That's my reality. That's the reality of any child of immigrants. That's the reality of anyone who is brown who lives in this country. That's our life. And that's why the Harrison/Shankar relationship perplexes me and I want to learn more.
And no, I don't want to play with Indian sounds in my music. That's not because of self-hatred. That's because I've done a lot of work in forging an identity as someone who will always live between two cultures by virtue of the processes of colonialism and immigration and I know what kind of music I want to create. Being inspired by the likes of the Beatles and the Stones and Chuck Berry as the American child of Indian immigrants is in no way the same as a British man being inspired by Indian music, exactly because of the cultural legacy of colonialism and immigration.
Or, as nouvelle-personne put it:
[my] assimilation into a culture that dominates and belittles you is not at all the same as having your own culture stolen by domination... it isn’t a level playing field and hasn’t been for hundreds of years, and that history is intensely relevant since the power dynamics it created are still alive and well.
So thank you for saying that, nouvelle-personne.
posted by nayantara at 7:25 AM on April 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
Best answer: I've been pondering your question quite a bit, and am going to make a qualified recommendation or two. Despite the "American" in the title, part of the book deals with the Beatles and Ravi Shankar, so you might at least dip into the Beatles section of "American Veda: From Emerson And the Beatles To Yoga And Meditation How Indian Spirituality Changed the West" by Philip Goldberg.
The other book I'm going to mention but really include some big caveats on is Tune In by Mark Lewisohn. Mr. gudrun has been reading it (and reading it to me) because he is a Beatles fan. It is the first of a planned several volumes. I found it way too long, and full of too many details that are really unnecessary to my mind. In his efforts to really do a deep dive he reflects all the provincial, sexist and racist stuff going on at the time, including some things the Beatles themselves did, in the kind of detail I personally felt I did not need. If I had been just reading it myself I would have skipped or skimmed chunks, definitely, or possibly thrown the book across the room at times. We are almost done and what I finally have come away with though, after a bit of a long slog, is a deeper sense of where the Beatles came from, and just how far they went away from Liverpool, both in a musical and cultural sense.
Finally, as a U.S. kid of the 70's, with cousins who were actual true Hippies in the 60's, I do want to say that I'm sure you have heard this, but having lived it, I can attest that the interest in religions and traditions other than Christianity at that time was a definite reaction against the very rigid proscribed Christian religious and cultural world of the time, in the U.S. at least. It can read as naive and appropriative now, but many people were genuinely trying to move away from seeing the Christianity of their youth as the One True Way it was presented. (Obviously, a lot of it went too far ... sigh.)
posted by gudrun at 8:18 AM on April 10, 2022
The other book I'm going to mention but really include some big caveats on is Tune In by Mark Lewisohn. Mr. gudrun has been reading it (and reading it to me) because he is a Beatles fan. It is the first of a planned several volumes. I found it way too long, and full of too many details that are really unnecessary to my mind. In his efforts to really do a deep dive he reflects all the provincial, sexist and racist stuff going on at the time, including some things the Beatles themselves did, in the kind of detail I personally felt I did not need. If I had been just reading it myself I would have skipped or skimmed chunks, definitely, or possibly thrown the book across the room at times. We are almost done and what I finally have come away with though, after a bit of a long slog, is a deeper sense of where the Beatles came from, and just how far they went away from Liverpool, both in a musical and cultural sense.
Finally, as a U.S. kid of the 70's, with cousins who were actual true Hippies in the 60's, I do want to say that I'm sure you have heard this, but having lived it, I can attest that the interest in religions and traditions other than Christianity at that time was a definite reaction against the very rigid proscribed Christian religious and cultural world of the time, in the U.S. at least. It can read as naive and appropriative now, but many people were genuinely trying to move away from seeing the Christianity of their youth as the One True Way it was presented. (Obviously, a lot of it went too far ... sigh.)
posted by gudrun at 8:18 AM on April 10, 2022
Best answer: You sound like you'd be game for more sophisticated scholarship, based on your update, than the Farrell book I suggested. If you are interested in deeper history of how a mostly Muslim-borne oral musical tradition (Hindustani musicians were largely Muslim servants throughout the history of both Mughal and British Raj India) became enshrined as "belonging" primarily to Hindu cultural traditions through literate "appropriation" by Brahman nationalist scholars, the state of the art book is Janaki Bahkle's (UC Berkeley) "Two Men and Music," which examines the influence of Indian nationalist musicologists Bhatkhande and Paluskar on the generation represented by Ravi Shankar, who somewhat scandalized Brahman norms by studying with his brilliant Muslim Ustad, Allaudin Khan (importantly the father also of Ali Akbar Khan, in my view one of the greatest musicians of the 20th century in any genre, whose parallel history alongside Ravi Shankar's career is illuminating).
The post-war west consumed a 20th century and carefully constructed historical revision of "Hindustani music," for which Ravi Shankar was the unquestioned global ambassador, that mapped the sounds of raga and tala based music onto orientalist conceptions of Hindu spirituality that happened to tickle the romantic bones of a rising countercultural generation. (In the film Raga, Ravi expresses dismay at the way his art was taken up by hippie drug culture as hallucinogenic!) That western essentialism was also a huge global audience for a Hindu nationalist anti-colonial political movement and later nation state (the terrible consequences of which are unfolding in the present). The music Ravi played and his role in it requires understanding both deeper currents of Indian history (esp the impact of Persian culture via the Mughal empire) and the 20th century cultural politics of religious and caste identity and especially the impact of "partition" on that politics.
There are other important scholars of this. Another classic I recommend is Daniel Neuman's pioneering book from the early 80s, *The Life of Music in North India.* it was the first "postcolonial" academic study of Hindustani music and the first to center Muslim hereditary professional musician as essential to understanding North Indian "classical" music as such, fascinatingly focused on the professional musicians who staffed All India Radio in the 1970s.
I am obviously passionate about this topic, and a huge devotee of the music, which I approach as a white man and a professional musician, but also an ethnomusicologist (albeit this is not my research area, just an area I know because of my love for the music, I was once a tabla player....) and I would be most happy to point you to other things (including young Indian American scholars, one of whose dissertations I am reading in final draft right now) whose sensibilities you remind me of in your comment above. Reach out any time by memail.
posted by spitbull at 9:46 AM on April 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
The post-war west consumed a 20th century and carefully constructed historical revision of "Hindustani music," for which Ravi Shankar was the unquestioned global ambassador, that mapped the sounds of raga and tala based music onto orientalist conceptions of Hindu spirituality that happened to tickle the romantic bones of a rising countercultural generation. (In the film Raga, Ravi expresses dismay at the way his art was taken up by hippie drug culture as hallucinogenic!) That western essentialism was also a huge global audience for a Hindu nationalist anti-colonial political movement and later nation state (the terrible consequences of which are unfolding in the present). The music Ravi played and his role in it requires understanding both deeper currents of Indian history (esp the impact of Persian culture via the Mughal empire) and the 20th century cultural politics of religious and caste identity and especially the impact of "partition" on that politics.
There are other important scholars of this. Another classic I recommend is Daniel Neuman's pioneering book from the early 80s, *The Life of Music in North India.* it was the first "postcolonial" academic study of Hindustani music and the first to center Muslim hereditary professional musician as essential to understanding North Indian "classical" music as such, fascinatingly focused on the professional musicians who staffed All India Radio in the 1970s.
I am obviously passionate about this topic, and a huge devotee of the music, which I approach as a white man and a professional musician, but also an ethnomusicologist (albeit this is not my research area, just an area I know because of my love for the music, I was once a tabla player....) and I would be most happy to point you to other things (including young Indian American scholars, one of whose dissertations I am reading in final draft right now) whose sensibilities you remind me of in your comment above. Reach out any time by memail.
posted by spitbull at 9:46 AM on April 10, 2022 [3 favorites]
Best answer: Just in case it sounds like I'm being critical, I want to add that I have the utmost respect for Pandit Ravi Shankar as a musician and a historical figure. His vision of Indian nationalism was so confident and ecumenical and open. His embrace of the Muslim heritage he studied was passionate. I think he'd be very sad to see the state of things at the moment. He was one of the most charismatic musicians of the 20th century and the one time I heard him play live is seared in my memory. I also trace my own musical lineage to his gharana in a tiny little way.
posted by spitbull at 9:52 AM on April 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by spitbull at 9:52 AM on April 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'd read your biography. The search for George could outline and illuminate your own path. you seem fascinating, cultured, intelligent, and, well, a terrific human.
posted by j_curiouser at 10:24 AM on April 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by j_curiouser at 10:24 AM on April 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: spitbull, you are awesome, and I will definitely be hitting you up for more info as I look into this more. Thanks so much for your input here.
j_curiouser - aww shucks. Thanks for saying that, it's really kind. You made my day. :)
posted by nayantara at 1:40 PM on April 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
j_curiouser - aww shucks. Thanks for saying that, it's really kind. You made my day. :)
posted by nayantara at 1:40 PM on April 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: I got a MeMail that wanted me to clarify my mentioning that I had learned most of what I know about Hinduism, as well as learning to speak Hindi, from Bollywood movies. Since this is something that caused shadygrove to think I had buried the lede and then responded accordingly in a way that I had a negative reaction to, I thought I would clarify here, with apologies if this is considered threadsitting and a complete understanding if a mod wants to delete it:
My mother came from a very prominent family in New Delhi. Her father worked in Nehru's first government after independence, and after law school she interned at the Attorney General's office and eventually ended up as an advocate in the Supreme Court. My father has said that had they stayed in India, he's pretty sure she would have ended up as a judge or even a member of Parliament. But we will never know.
My parents came of age in India immediately post-Independence, amidst what many came to call the time when Political India was born. Nehru was very interested in socialism being an appropriate model of government, and eventually his method of governing could be described as Democratic Socialism. This included a heavy belief that India was a secular country (which it still is, technically) and should not oppress their population that were religious minorities (Muslims, Zoroastrians, Christians - both Catholic and Syrian Orthodox, and even a small population of Jewish Indians).
My mother's brother was a somewhat famous history professor at the top ranking college in India, and taught some famous Indian politicians and public figures along the way (among them Shashi Tharoor). Because of their father's place in the government, both my uncle and my mother were fierce believers in Marxism, with the accompanying atheism inherent in that political ideology.
This resulted, when I was born, in my mother's refusal to raise me in ANY religious tradition, despite her family and my father's being culturally Hindu. Both of my parents were educated in English medium Catholic schools that had been established by the British during colonial rule. This education, along with her Marxism and her identity as the daughter of a father who worked in Nehru's Democratic Socialist government, ended up making her belief in atheism very strong, as an extension of the philosophy of India as a secular nation. (Of course, the Hindi nationalist movement has radicalized India's politics in recent years, which leads us to having a psycho like Modi as the PM.)
For me: no temple, no Hindu celebrations, no formal education in our regional language (Bengali, which I understand fluently from hearingy parents speak it at home to each other), or the closest thing to a national language India has, Hindi. In fact, given the length of India's colonial past, one could argue that English is actually India's national language.
There were other factors in my not learning these languages though, due to her becoming ill when I was very young and my parents not having time to send me to any Indian language school in the states (very common in Indian communities here). I don't think my lack of education in Indian languages was politically motivated, in other words, but the absence of religion in our home was. (Santa and Xmas presents were deemed secular enough to be okay.)
My cousins got me into Bollywood movies and as a child I enjoyed them for their fun plotlines and for the chance to see people who looked like me on screen - I came of age when Apu on the Simpsons was the only Indian on TV. Bollywood films tend to be very steeped in Hindu culture, and the language spoken is Hindi. With my comprehension of Bengali, it was not hard for me to pick up Hindi, as they are both languages derived largely from Sanskrit. I found learning about Hinduism interesting from these films.
The bottom line is: no, I do not feel left out or shortchanged in my understanding of my Indian heritage. In fact, my mother's family history of Marxism is very much a part of Political India's beginnings, and as such my upbringing makes me just as Indian as a person my age who grew up going to temple and participating in pujas and other such celebrations. India has a complicated history due to colonialism, imperialism, racism, and the Anglophile culture of upper class Indians. I am the product of that. I am also a product of my parents' immigration to the States. I am also American. I was born in Washington DC.
So no, I don't feel bitter that Harrison profited from using aspects of "my culture" in his music, because his version of "my culture" was very different from my version of "my culture". And to that end, that is why I feel that including elements of Indian music drawn, as spitbull points out, from Hindu Brahman appropriation of Muslim modes of music, would be appropriative on my part. It's not a part of the version of Indian culture I was raised in.
All that to say - I have a complicated history with the land of my parents, but not a fraught one, just perhaps different from the stereotypical notion of what an immigrant family from India looks like. Because my mother introduced me to the Beatles at a young age, I became interested in music. And that's why I'm a musician today. But I am inextricably linked to Ravi Shankar because of my grandmother. And so I want to unpack the Harrison/Shankar relationship more because I think it will make me a better musician.
Apologies for the book length comment, and mods, delete if you feel it's a derail, I won't be offended at all.
posted by nayantara at 9:21 AM on April 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
My mother came from a very prominent family in New Delhi. Her father worked in Nehru's first government after independence, and after law school she interned at the Attorney General's office and eventually ended up as an advocate in the Supreme Court. My father has said that had they stayed in India, he's pretty sure she would have ended up as a judge or even a member of Parliament. But we will never know.
My parents came of age in India immediately post-Independence, amidst what many came to call the time when Political India was born. Nehru was very interested in socialism being an appropriate model of government, and eventually his method of governing could be described as Democratic Socialism. This included a heavy belief that India was a secular country (which it still is, technically) and should not oppress their population that were religious minorities (Muslims, Zoroastrians, Christians - both Catholic and Syrian Orthodox, and even a small population of Jewish Indians).
My mother's brother was a somewhat famous history professor at the top ranking college in India, and taught some famous Indian politicians and public figures along the way (among them Shashi Tharoor). Because of their father's place in the government, both my uncle and my mother were fierce believers in Marxism, with the accompanying atheism inherent in that political ideology.
This resulted, when I was born, in my mother's refusal to raise me in ANY religious tradition, despite her family and my father's being culturally Hindu. Both of my parents were educated in English medium Catholic schools that had been established by the British during colonial rule. This education, along with her Marxism and her identity as the daughter of a father who worked in Nehru's Democratic Socialist government, ended up making her belief in atheism very strong, as an extension of the philosophy of India as a secular nation. (Of course, the Hindi nationalist movement has radicalized India's politics in recent years, which leads us to having a psycho like Modi as the PM.)
For me: no temple, no Hindu celebrations, no formal education in our regional language (Bengali, which I understand fluently from hearingy parents speak it at home to each other), or the closest thing to a national language India has, Hindi. In fact, given the length of India's colonial past, one could argue that English is actually India's national language.
There were other factors in my not learning these languages though, due to her becoming ill when I was very young and my parents not having time to send me to any Indian language school in the states (very common in Indian communities here). I don't think my lack of education in Indian languages was politically motivated, in other words, but the absence of religion in our home was. (Santa and Xmas presents were deemed secular enough to be okay.)
My cousins got me into Bollywood movies and as a child I enjoyed them for their fun plotlines and for the chance to see people who looked like me on screen - I came of age when Apu on the Simpsons was the only Indian on TV. Bollywood films tend to be very steeped in Hindu culture, and the language spoken is Hindi. With my comprehension of Bengali, it was not hard for me to pick up Hindi, as they are both languages derived largely from Sanskrit. I found learning about Hinduism interesting from these films.
The bottom line is: no, I do not feel left out or shortchanged in my understanding of my Indian heritage. In fact, my mother's family history of Marxism is very much a part of Political India's beginnings, and as such my upbringing makes me just as Indian as a person my age who grew up going to temple and participating in pujas and other such celebrations. India has a complicated history due to colonialism, imperialism, racism, and the Anglophile culture of upper class Indians. I am the product of that. I am also a product of my parents' immigration to the States. I am also American. I was born in Washington DC.
So no, I don't feel bitter that Harrison profited from using aspects of "my culture" in his music, because his version of "my culture" was very different from my version of "my culture". And to that end, that is why I feel that including elements of Indian music drawn, as spitbull points out, from Hindu Brahman appropriation of Muslim modes of music, would be appropriative on my part. It's not a part of the version of Indian culture I was raised in.
All that to say - I have a complicated history with the land of my parents, but not a fraught one, just perhaps different from the stereotypical notion of what an immigrant family from India looks like. Because my mother introduced me to the Beatles at a young age, I became interested in music. And that's why I'm a musician today. But I am inextricably linked to Ravi Shankar because of my grandmother. And so I want to unpack the Harrison/Shankar relationship more because I think it will make me a better musician.
Apologies for the book length comment, and mods, delete if you feel it's a derail, I won't be offended at all.
posted by nayantara at 9:21 AM on April 11, 2022 [4 favorites]
^^^ biography outline
posted by j_curiouser at 11:25 AM on April 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by j_curiouser at 11:25 AM on April 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
Best answer: HIGHLY recommend you read Kirin Narayan's gorgeous memoir My Family and Other Saints. Narayan is an anthropologist, so she has a keen sense of the kinds of colonialism and appropriation that concern you. She grew up in India in the 60s during the heyday of the Beatles-inspired, Western hippie tourism to India craze, and writes about it all in an incredibly nuanced way. It's also just a wonderful book.
posted by nantucket at 9:15 AM on April 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by nantucket at 9:15 AM on April 12, 2022 [1 favorite]
« Older Storing Pots and Pans- in an NYC Studio | You recently had a great eggplant dish in Chicago Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
if I put Indian influenced modes and modalities in my own original music (which I categorically do NOT) I'd feel like I was being appropriative
i dunno man, it's the age of mashups and nobody owns the modes. but you do you.
If anyone knows Beatles resources, it's Scott Frieman, who wrote and directed the 'deconstructing the beatles' films. my daughter and i were fortunate to hang with him during intermission for his live show on abbey road. he was remarkably friendly and generous with his time.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:24 PM on April 9, 2022 [2 favorites]