That's two questions! (Laughs) Actually, the dividing line is very thin, when it comes to computer versus written score. The computer is more free-wheeling, it is like a jam session really, where you can play around, keep adding layer, tracks, then refining, tinkering around till you get the right sound. The written score is more rigid, inflexible, it gives less scope for improvisation. There are times when the creative freedom of the computer works, and there are times when you need rigidity.

Could you give examples?

Well, if you compose a beautiful romantic melody, you don't want your musicians and singers 'Interpreting' it and maybe distorting the pure sound you are trying to orchestrate. But there are other times, like for instance I remember when we were doing the Piya Haaji Ali song for Fiza (the Hrithik Roshan-Karisma Kapoor starrer). We actually had a rap session, sang and played for a good 28 minutes and then we cut it down to six minutes.

If I had tried to compose for the six minutes, it wouldn't have sounded as good -- sometimes when you are freewheeling you even chance upon good sounds by accident, you find it works and you then expand on it. There are times when I've laid on 108 tracks, and erased most of them and ended up with just eight, ten tracks.

That is very much part of my working style. Normally, singers are called for recording, they come in, they have an hour or two, they listen to the tune, rehearse, sing, go away.

I don't work that way. I bring the singer down to Chennai, to my studio.

There is only me, and the music, and the singer. And I let him or her play around, sing, interpret, make mistakes, and I record everything, all that candid unrehearsed singing. And sometimes, something a singer does during such a session actually prompts me to rewrite my tune, change it, incorporate something new that the singer showed me. I thinker a lot before I finally feel satisfied...

If the tune is created in 10 minutes, what then is the point of all this tinkering?

I guess part of it has to do with boredom. I started doing this, playing music, when I was 11. I was composing jingles by the time I was 18. And now I am 34 -- it's been a long time, doing this, so it is easy to get bored.

Then I think, if I am bored, what of the audience? So then I try to do something about that boredom, mine and that of the audience. I might, for instance, insert a little sound somewhere, you won't even hear it the first time, or the second or third, but suddenly, one day when you are listening to that song you think, 'Hey, that sound, I didn't hear that before'. And you start listening to the familiar song with, what shall I say, new ears!

Actually, I think I am easily bored. (Laughs) Maybe that is why I tinker aroused so much, and I have been doing that all my life. For instance, right in the beginning, in Roja, we had a song without an antara (verse) and a mukhra (chorus).

That was because when playing in orchestras while I was young. I got bored with the antara-mukhra format -- it is so predictable, so when you are playing, it is almost like an office job. So when I stated composing, I thought, let me try something different.

Is that same boredom the reason you introduce so many new, different voices then?

Yes, but only in a way. When I came into the industry, you had very few voices -- a Lata Mangeshkar, an Asha Bhosle, an S P Balasubramaniam... you could count them on your fingers.

I thought it was funny to have the heroine and her maidservant both sing in Lataji's voice. (laughs). But seriously, I realised that if you limit the voices, you also limit the variety in your songs -- after all, you can't compose a Shakalaka baby if Lataji is decided as the singer. So then I went looking for new, fresh voices, which would allow me to experiment with my music.

They say you are 'influenced' by Arabic, oriental music, that you draw heavily on it...

You mean I copy! (laughs) People have the right to their opinions, I don't argue.

I've learnt Western classical, and Carnatic, and Hindustani. I also listen to a lot of other music -- Arabic, Sufi, oriental, whatever. And like anyone else, I'll have my favourites, things that move me.

As a listener, what do you listen to most? Rock? Fine, then why not rap? R&B? Pop? Classical? You've probably heard all that, you probably listen to some of those styles even now, but when you are playing the music of your choice you play rock, right?

A composer, any composer, has favourite styles that he listens to when he is relaxing, when he is playing the music of his choice. And since they are personal favorites, since they are in your heart, it is always possible to be influenced by it. But does not mean copying? Like I said, I won't argue about such things.

Another criticism is that you are increasingly like a factory churning out music - you take Tamil songs and pass them on to Hindi producers, for instance...

Well, why not? It is a crime only if I don't tell the producer what I am doing -- and I never do that. I, in fact, play the original song for the producer before I even begin reworking it.

But why do it? Is the creative well dying out?

No, that is not it. You see, people in the Hindi regions somehow think it is infra dig to listen to Tamil songs. Take Roja -- it became popular only after it was re-recorded in Hindi, then everyone was singing those songs. So, if there is a very good Tamil song, then redoing it in Hindi is merely spreading the music to a wider audience.

Still staying with the criticism, they say there is a sameness to your music...

Yes I know, I've heard that too. It is like, you can't win either way. If I do different things, then people complain that it doesn't sound like my music. And if I stick to what they call my 'trademark' sound, then I am accused of always sounding the same.

Also Read: Spotted: A R Rahman in Texas

Back

|

Next