Kishore Kumar: picture from here
zindagi ek safar hai suhana
life is a wonderful journey
yahan kal kya ho kisne jaana
no one knows what will happen tomorrow
maut aani hai ayegi ik din
death will befall all of us one day
jaan jaani hai jayegi ik din
the spark will depart one day
aisi baaton se kya ghabrana
why worry about such trivialities
yahan kal kya ho kisne jaana
who knows what the future will be
zindagi ek safar hai suhana
life is a wonderful journey
yahan kal kya ho kisne jaana
no one knows what the future will be
life is a wonderful journey
yahan kal kya ho kisne jaana
no one knows what will happen tomorrow
maut aani hai ayegi ik din
death will befall all of us one day
jaan jaani hai jayegi ik din
the spark will depart one day
aisi baaton se kya ghabrana
why worry about such trivialities
yahan kal kya ho kisne jaana
who knows what the future will be
zindagi ek safar hai suhana
life is a wonderful journey
yahan kal kya ho kisne jaana
no one knows what the future will be
Is it a fatal flaw in human civilisation, that when we find genius we must connect it to madness? Today I am thinking of Kishore Kumar. Examples abound: Goethe, Mozart, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Van Gogh, Howard Hughes, Bobby Fischer; for many, even Hitler.
My problem with understanding what mankind has, over the ages, including currently, recognised as endowed with that special quality which would transcend intellectual and innate creativity, and other virtues without the accompaniment of one or many strains of insanity, has generally remained unqualified for being titled a genius. Believe me, this is not even a complaint. It is just a rumination I am sharing with others who would like to think about it and either share with me this puzzlement or dispel it by throwing light on it by rational explanation. Like even recognition of exceptional merit being endowed generally after the demise of the concerned person, as if true value lies only beyond death, and genius is only if there is creativity, but in the midst of any or all kinds of perversity.
2 comments:
Kishore was definitely a great singer, comedian actor and occasional music director. But the title musical genius is being given to just about everybody. I have CDs titled "Genius of Salil Chowdhary", "Genius of S.D. Burman", "Genius of Hemant Kumar", "Genius of Rafi", Genius of Mukesh" etal. By the way, I haven't seen "Genius of Lata" and may be a good thing too (not to take away her greatness of the past, but she and Aasha have to stop singing now). I think they don't give title of "Genius" to ladies. To me, poets are the real geniuses who write words of these songs (such as the one you included) and the next in line would be music directors who create such beautiful tunes, but singers - no; they have talent.
Bhupen
The word genius is used all the time conversationally to denote appreciation or to lampoon someone. It is also appended before names of famous writers, scientists, singers, musicians, actors, to sell a product.
While your response to my blogpost makes a point which is admirable, it is running parallel to what my point was all about: genius as recognised scientifically, philosophically, historically and by some other man-made, complicated criteria. Therefore your question about RD Burman, Hemant Kumar "et al." is not responsive to my search and confusion. Kishore Kumar's voice, control, variation, variety, and its capacity to encompass the whole gamut of singing, without losing the sur, set him apart from others. My fondness for SD Burman, Talat or others would not authoratatively qualify those people to be called geniuses. A great example would be Tagore. In a serious history of literature he is not counted as a genius. Goethe is. Sartre is not. Mozart is. Van Gogh is. So the question here is not the popular labelling for selling a product or for after-dinner conversation at a party, where we use the word genius loosely. The point I am raising is about people who durably, somehow, get into that exclusive, elite club, where total unanimity exists, regardless of its commercial labelling, and gets registered in some authoratative, encyclopedic book as such. Let me give you a small example: Lata, herself not of any mean quality, for her voice world-wide, when asked who among countless male singers she has sung with or merely heard, would she judge the ultimate, replied, "Kishoreda. He was the only one who sang in every situation, in every kind of note, and negotiated sound, screech or hum with perfect musicality." And in this regard, my question was, Why has it to be, by and large, if not entirely, connected with some kind of madness, or be recognised only after the death of the concerned.
I hope as I have understood your rejoinder, you will also spend some time understanding my riposte now.
Bhai
Post a Comment