Talk:Shruti (music)

Maybe This Article Should Be Renamed to Dr. Oke

No offense to Dr. Oke. I actually know him. So not casting any shade at him, nor this theory. But sadly this article sounds like an infomercial for his system.

It would be like if an article about creation myths only mentions ideas from the book of Genesis, and to state it as fact as opposed to a particular culture's story.

So while I agree that his theory should be included in this article, it needs to be done much better where its clear that the "Intervals of Shruti" chart is according to HIS theory.... where it is currently being presented a a standard fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brak (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

No Citations?

Ok.... this article is riddled with tons of claims with no citations. Many sources/people are mentioned, but no citations? The article mentions Bharata Muni's theories, but the person couldn't be bothered to give the citations of the 28th chapter of the Natya Sastra that they are in? This article is riddled with so many ex cathedra statements with no citations to back almost any of it!

And when dealing with the frequency ratios...... people need to cite where they are getting those values from - especially since there is no consensus of that they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brak (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Smallest

Concerning sruti:

as a student of hindustani classical music, to be more specific: of Dagarvani Dhrupad, I would like to comment on the remarks made under the entry 'sruti':

Many differing vieuws are put forward by dissenting scholars, however, the interpretation that makes a lot of sense to me is to read sruti as: "smallest audible difference in intonation" I make a point about me studying Dhrupad as it is one of the most subtle and demanding schools within Hindustani musical culture in which ragas and svaras are most carefully discerned. martin spaink

At first glance subject appears thouroughly, well described and understandable. Some figures appear less consistent to each other (Fig. 1/(Fig. 2, Tab. 1); Shadja Grama on a stretched string/Madhyama Grama on a stretched string). Thanks for this article. Robert Eriksens (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Errors on sruti page?

It doesn't seem to me the information on this page can be correct, or in some cases even make sense. Theoreticians are still dividing the octave into srutis, though there is a broad latitude on how these should be defined. However, there seem to be some consistent features; the scale 9/8-5/4-4/3-3/2-27/16-15/8-2 generally is said to be a part of the system, with 9/8 being given 4 srutis, 10/9 3, and 16/15 2.

Another claim is that a sruti represents the smallest audible difference. This is factually incorrect; our hearing resolution easily detects smaller differences.

Gene Ward Smith 22:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gene, the srutis have been around at least 2500 years, probably 3000 or more. sru is the Sanskrit root 'to hear'. It really DOES mean smallest difference that can be heard, and has meant that for some time. It's irrelevant that technically someone can hear smaller differences. This was the smallest difference that was heard on some instrument many millenia ago. - XJ

Hi Gene and XJ, Sruti does mean "Smallest difference that can be heard". But what is implicit in this is "smallest difference heard ON TANPURA or any string". Let me explain this. When Sa is played on Tanpura, it does not resonate with just one frequency of Sa. There are also other standing waves superimposed on the main one. They are obviously with decreasing amplitudes. Pa (1.5 times the frequency of the main standing wave) is the one 'heard' with next level of amplitude and so on. If we sort all these by amplitude and take the top 22, these are the Sruti's which can be heard on Tanpura when a string is plucked. The next ones have weak amplitudes and anyway they come very near to one of the 22 Sruti's and thus are ignored. - Sanjay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanchitnis (talk • contribs) 11:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that pitch classes are repeated as you ascend the harmonic series. So if you go up to the 22nd harmonic you are only getting 11 pitch classes: 1/1, 17/16, 9/8, 19/16, 5/4 21/16, 11/8, 3/2, 13/8, 7/4, and 15/8. Brak (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sruti or Shruti??

Should it be spelled as Shruti or Sruti? Maybe is is spelled both ways depending on which language one speaks. If that is the case, then both the spellings should be highlighted.

Both spellings are acceptable. - XJ

4:3 and 5:4

I think there is a mistake here:

1. 4:3 is taken as distance between Sa & Ma Shuddha this was placed on "13 th shruti"
2. 5:4 is taken as distance between Sa & Ga Shuddha this was placed on "13 th shruti"

How can they both be the 13th shruti?

Magnusjonsson (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

More controversial than expressed here?

I've been trying to understand the 22-note system, and it seems to be much more academically controversial than the Wikipedia page expresses. There seems to be no agreement on the shruti, or even if they can be expressed as fixed ratios/frequencies. For instance, "Music contexts: a concise dictionary of Hindustani Music" By Ashok Damodar Ranade says "Almost every aspect of the sruti phenomenon has raised controversies that are raging even today." It seems there are three viewpoints: one is that shrutis are evenly-spaced quartertones at about 53 cents, the second viewpoint (expressed in the Wikipedia page) is that they are irregularly spaced, and the third is that there are no fixed 22 notes, but variable systems of pitches depending on the musician.

A potential reference for the table in the article, by the way, is http://www.22shrutiharmonium.com/research_topic_35.asp

I think things are not nearly as cut-and-dried as the Wikipedia article implies, but I don't know enough to start modifying it. 76.126.159.111 (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sruti in contemporary Hindustani/Carnatic music

There seems to be a large body of research measuring the actual frequencies of a given note produced by musicians (comparing within a particular performance, between different performers of a given raga, between different performances of a raga by an artist, etc) all showing that there is a fairly large variation (larger than ascribed to those between different srutis) in general, and that this variation in any case bears no relation to the ancient 22-sruti system. There are many papers by Jairazbhoy, Arvind Krishnaswamy, Levy etc showing this. I can dig up references, but so far as I know, the academic literature based on actual measurements thinks the sruti theory is no longer applicable to Indian classical music. If nothing else, I think the academic viewpoint should also be expressed in this article. --Gargletheape (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Gargletheape, I have made the appropriate changes. But I still did not remove the 22 sruti table in case someone should object it. I'll update the article this week with more data and clean it up! Gopalkoduri (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

22 Srutis

Hello!

I'm a music technology student, who have been active in reading musicological literature of India since past 3 years. I have edited the article; included clarifications on some important points. I don't see the relevance of 22 sruti table in this article. I have kept it as written in my edit. I thought I should first discuss it here, if someone objects it. 22 srutis is not a standard accepted consensus. It is only proposed by a few, several of which have limitations in explaining the practical usefulness of their derivation. So, let us discuss here and improve the article!

Thanks, Gopalkoduri (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Objections

My name is Aleh Zhlutka. I come from Belarus and have a honors diploma in sound engineering. I got interested in the shruti system at least five years ago. Having read about Shadja, Madhyama and Gandharva gramas and the inervals between their tones expressed in the number of shrutis and having no other information at disposal, I started checking all possible variants, which took more than a week. As a result, I received shruti ratios in common fractions. All ratios but one were the same as in the table (which used to be present in this article), and at the website http://22shruti.com/. Later I noticed that I made a mistake while calculating one ratio - all fractions matched completely after I corrected it.

Any person familiar well enough with the fraction expressions of music intervals, as well as with the notions of pramana, nyuna and purna shruti (81/80, 25/24 and 256/243 respectively) can calculate all these easily. If I had known about them, it would have taken much less time to get the correct ratios.

Moreover, such calculations are presented at http://22shruti.com/ (though the explanation is not quite simple, as common fractions are mainly replaced with decimal fractions). Nevertheless, the website presents scientifically correct information, that's why I don't see the point in removing the link to it from the article.

What concerns the deleted table: in general, I appreciate it, as it provides quite valuable information: the NAMES of the shrutis, their expression in fractions and even their frequencies. Still, there's one thing that could be improved: if A (440 Hz) was taken as Shadja instead of A# - it would simplify the understanding of the table.

My opinion is that: 1. there can be no real controversy about the shruti system and ratios for those who know how to operate with music intervals and read traditional texts attentively. 2. the table and the link to http://22shruti.com need to be returned to the body of the article. 3. pramana, nyuna and purna shruti should be presented in the article together with their ratios expressed in natural fractions.

Aleh Zhlutka (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Aleh Zhlutka,

I dont find anything wrong with the calculation as such. But calculation of those 22 srutis has no relevance at all in current or past Indian classical music performance practises. Having spent a long time reading and investigating the evolution of Indian classical music, I have interacted with few musicians and musicologists. If you stress that the calculations make sense mathematically, well, 1+1=2 makes equal sense, because it is mathematically correct. But what matters is the relevance of such calculations to the practise. Indeed, the sruti calculations can be made another article if you so insist. Including it in this article will only confuse the readers, since they will start relating these ratios to the notes used in performances. -- Koduri Gopala Krishna (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for the answer. Of course, the shruti system as such may be of little use for the contemporary performance (which can be stressed in the article), but it's still important to draw the names of the 22 shrutis and their ratios to demonstrate that such system existed in the past as a part of the music theory. Practice counts, but history is important as well.

If you agree that the ratios drawn in the table are correct, why writing that 'As a result, there are several derivations of 22 srutis attempted by scholars which attribute various ratios as sizes of the 22 srutis.'? - First of all, the names of these scholars aren't mentioned in the article, and no sources are drawn to support this opinion. Then, you don't tell whether they refer to traditional texts or to the contemporary practice in their research. As a result, the readers may start thinking that nobody knows the original ratios for shrutis.

What concerns detailed calculations - it's quite unclear how a separate article could be attributed to this one. Should it be written there that these calculations are related to the ancient times? In addition, detailed calculations are beyond the scope of Wikipedia articles which need to present a good starting point for interested readers. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine that an article without the names and ratios of shrutis can be such a point.

That's why I am still convinced that the shruti table is necessary for this article

Aleh Zhlutka (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

The point is, these calculated 22 values were never in use. The Bharata is the first one to use the term sruti, and he uses it in a totally different context. The problem arose when there is a clash between understading two different systems of oragnizing the modes viz Grama system with several modes, and the recent system with raagas. Scholars went on to fit the notes and microtonal intervals (which are the perceptually conceived intervals arising from gamakas) into ancient Grama system, which has been using srutis.

The idea of 22 srutis has no proper context earlier or now. They are mathematical derivations and nothing more, nothing less. I have provided the sources from the most trusted musicologists, please go through them, especially the one by Ramanathan. -- Koduri Gopala Krishna (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

The assertion that the shruti system has never been in practical use is not supported by any traditional texts and cannot be verified. In addition, Bharata describes an experiment with tuning two veenas. In general, it seems doubtful that in the ancient times somebody would have written about a theory that was useless for practice.

Natya Shastra gives readers enough information to calculate the shrutis without mistakes (which was done by Dr. Vidyadhar Oke, Dr. S.Ramanatham, Erv Wilson and other people (including me)), though you write that "there are several derivations of 22 srutis attempted by scholars which attribute various ratios as sizes of the 22 srutis." without mentioning these scholars by name. By the way, the "research" section of Oke's website http://22shruti.com explains many things well enough, though in some cases one may need to transfer decimal fractions to natural ones to get the idea.

The shruti system is well-organized. In fact, it is more accurate than the Pythagorean system or the medieval European theoretical constructions. This is an achievement of music theory which belongs to your native country and could be reflected in the article by illustrating it with the table you decided to delete.

According to N.Ramanathan's article "Sruti in Ancient, Medieval and Modern Contexts":

"Like grAma, the term mEla also means a group. Both terms mean a group of svara-s, but here their similarity ends. While, in the grAma-system, different scales are formed by taking differing commencing svara-s and keeping the intervals constant, in the mEla system, different scales are formed by taking the same commencing svara and by increasing or diminishing the intervals of the subsequent svara-s. So in the mEla system, we find the intervals of svara-s undergoing changes and therefore svara-s are not assigned fixed intervals in terms of Sruti-s. For instance, the intervals of kAkalI-nishAda and Suddha-madhyama would vary depending on the dhaivata and the gAndhAra which precede them respectively. The interval of kAkalI-nishAda would be of three different Sruti values depending on whether Suddha, pancaSruti or shaTSruti-dhaivata preceded it. Thus Sruti as a measure of intervallic magnitude is not fully utilised in the mEla system."

It explains the reasons for "controversies" of the modern times - the grama-shruti system is no longer used!

The reference base for the present version of the article includes just three articles by two authors, at least one of whom, Arvindh Krishnaswamy, is not even aware of where the 22 shrutis come from. Here's an excerpt from his "Inflexions and Microtonality in South Indian Classical Music" to prove this: "First of all, each of the 22 “most popular” sruthis has been assigned a frequency ratio selected from the well known Just Intonation (JI) or Pythagorean tuning lists which are foreign to India." I wonder whether he accuses me of it as well. Believe it or not, I still know nothing about such "tuning lists".

Thus, the article is not scientifically neutral: it presents opinions of two modern authors as facts, without even mentioning other points of view. Aleh Zhlutka (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to state two facts very firmly:

1. The calculations given by the site you've cited cannot be proved to be corresponding to those which are meant by Bharata. If you can prove it or cite references which are authentic that proved it, I've no objection for the inclusion of the calculated srutis table in the section which speaks about Grama system (Ancient period: Grama system). I completely agree with the scholars who are very sure about their claims about the correctness of their derivations or the mathematical vigour involved. But, that alone cannot be a reason to show it as something which Bharata has intended.

2. Those sruti ratios have no relevance in the current practise.

In the article itself, I've written it very clear so that the reader understands that srutis existed and are used in Grama system. I've also made it clear that they have no relevance in today's system.

Please provide more references countering these two points, and I have no problem in restoring and changing the article accordingly. I'm completely open to learn what I've missed. Being a native, I feel very proud of the nuances of Indian music like raaga structure, the use of gamakas, complex taala strcuture and the fact that it is one of the most active classical traditions of the world. I shall do whatever is good for nurturing its growth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopalkoduri (talk • contribs) 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

I want to state some things as well:

As I have already written, A.Krishnaswamy's competence doesn't exceed the limits of research on the contemporary musical practice. By writing that “each of the 22 “most popular” sruthis has been assigned a frequency ratio selected from the well known Just Intonation (JI) or Pythagorean tuning lists which are foreign to India." he just makes a blank statement, without giving a precise account of the information he considers as wrong and disproving it by substantial evidence. He fails to provide sufficient quotes from Natya Shastra or Dattilam to present the views of the traditional authors, too.

Moreover, contrary to A.Krishnaswamy's statement, I still know nothing about such tuning lists, and was able to obtain the shruti ratios without them, as well as Dr. Lalmani Misra, Cris Forster and others. Of course, one cannot prove that these ratios were meant by Bharata, but one cannot prove the opposite either.

The other referenced author, N.Ramanathan, states, “One should either try to define svara on the basis of mathematical ratios or on the basis of Sruti-s. If we measure intervals in terms of Sruti then we should not equate it with mathematical ratio and vice-versa. It would be just like equating a "spoonful" of sugar to 5 "grams'.” However, he seems to forget about Bharata's experiment with tuning two instruments, whereas there are no contradictions between the experiment and the natural fractions given in the shruti table.

He also writes “Sruti is not a precise, acoustically standardised measure, but a perceptual measure like a spoonful of sugar which is of use in the field of art. It is meaningful in music because it is cognisable by the ear and does not require any instruments for recording it.”

Yet, when somebody tunes a musical instrument by ear and moves frets on a veena or sitar, he makes it according to the laws of physics and hearing. We perceive a fifth as a fifth (an acoustically standardized measure based on our perception) and differentiate it from other intervals irrespective of whether we know that it is expressed as 3/2 or not. And even if we tune it some cents away from 3/2 because our hearing is not very precise, the theoretical ratio will still remain 3/2. Otherwise, according to N.Ramanathan's logic there shouldn't be any musical mathematics and theory at all, perception alone will suffice. At the same time, he writes “In fact it is for the purpose of classification that the concept of Sruti was formulated, it had no existence in performance.” Do we have perception of non-existent things, which cannot be expressed in mathematical form? It seems unbelievable.

However, if N.Ramanathan:

1) repeats Bharata's experiment several times in presence of competent witnesses (and his “spoonfuls” are much different from the shruti values provided in the table), and

2) proves by ear another “fact” (“In fact, as pointed out by Dr B C Deva in his article "Continuity in Music and Sruti" (p.100) in the book "Music of India: A Scientific Study" (Munshiram Manohar Lal, Delhi, 1981) there are at least 7 values between 1 and 16/15”)

– he can be recognized as a competent scholar. Until then, he has to be considered as incompetent.

Thus, if there is no definite proof that the mathematical values provided in the shruti table are wrong, they can be regarded as corresponding to the shrutis of Bharata and Dattila, though not presented explicitly in their treatises, which can be written before it. I believe that the mathematical ratios provided there are useful, as they present the ancient shruti system more clearly and help to demonstrate its similarities to Ptolemy's tense diatonic (revived by Gioseffo Zarlino in the XVIth century), the findings of Safī al-Dīn al-Urmawi, etc.

Aleh Zhlutka (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You can argue that current practitioners have been influenced since they always practice with equal temperament instrument i.e. harmonium, they don't know what they are doing. Especially true for junior artists.

Also Dr Oke claims you are wrong, so at least put that perspective out there for people to decide? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipYLnhC5YDo

– Mrkks (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

All proposed values ever given for the shruti are speculation at best. Sadly some people become dogmatic that "their system is the truth".

I noticed that Dr. Oke is cited a lot in this conversation, and his theory is being projected as "truth". While I give him props for studying this topic, and even inventing a harmonium to be tuned to something other than 12TET, but there are some who see issues with his system. Doesn't mean he's wrong, doesn't mean he's right. We need to be academically honest that there is no consensus. Brak (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sruti and Pitch

Sruti in Indian classical music is Pitch in Western music. Why it can not be mentioned in the article? Thanks --Musicindia1 (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Simple change needed: First sentence is factually incorrect.

The first sentence needs to be changed, as it is factually incorrect.

"The shruti or śruti [ɕrʊtɪ] is the smallest interval of pitch that the human ear can detect and a singer or musical instrument can produce"

This ^^^ is literally not true. It is not the smallest. There are much, much smaller intervals both detectable by the human ear and produceable by instruments; modern microtonal instruments prove that, some having as many as hundreds of intervals in an octave (whereas the shruti system typically has 22 notes, much larger intervals, over the same space). It is kind of hard to explain how this is just blatantly incorrect if you don't already have some base knowledge of music and know what I mean by intervals and octaves and microtonal in the first place, so I won't write an essay here, but I am trusting that someone else notices this and changes it.

It should read something along the lines of "The shruti or śruti [ɕrʊtɪ] is a system of pitch intervals which were thought in ancient times to be the smallest intervals of pitch detectable by a human ear or musical instrument.

Something like that. Because that is true. That's how the whole shruti thing started -- people thought they were the smallest detectable intervals. However, NOW, in modern times, we know for a fact that is not the case and people prove this every day by using modern instruments that have smaller intervals.

I don't think anyone could say with a straight face, in 2024, that a system of 22 intervals is the smallest detectable amount of intervals... That's how the system originated, but it is now known to be untrue.

My IP address won't allow me to change. Someone make it accurate please 2601:19C:5080:18E0:CC33:81C:E0D6:F145 (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)