[doctorzlo]

kr:

"On point c, I have two thoughts - why is that the only standard for determining a genius? Why i it wrong to classify as standards for a genius - the quantity of indian folk composed, or carnatic music composed or number of film scores in a year or the versataility of excellence in all forms of music? Why is it that if someone has not composed 5 symphonies by the age 12 that he is a not a genius?"

I've already described the criteria I've used. If some Indian composer has composed an equivalent amount of folk/carnatic at that age growing up in a non-musical family, please name him, I'll anoint him a genius and sing his glories.

"So, to call them that they are not worthy of a genius, you do not have the data points as to how many symphonies our guys would have composed if they had just concentrated on that form. "

So what about the fans who claim genius precisely on the grounds that the composers they idolize have incorporated Western forms? If instead they emphasized the pure Carnatic/folk component they could've avoided these odious comparisons, but of course they can't really afford to do that since in that realm they can't compete with the seriousness of the real Indian classical masters.

Sure you can establish a pure film composing genre where you can exult in your own standards, but you've thereby lost the opportunity of claiming parity with masters of WCM and ICM. The music will always strike the international audiences you court as filmi and light. Indeed the TIS project certainly demonstrates the truth of this observation in its efforts to present itself on the same level as WCM/ICM masters and not the usual filmi fluff.