A Notation Sheet That Mixes Conventions Without a Legend
A student submits a handwritten notation of a Teentaal Qaida for internal assessment. He uses '×' at matra 1, '2' at matra 5, '0' at matra 9 and '3' at matra 13. In the same line he also writes '4' above matra 9 and a vertical line after matra 8. His bols are written as 'Dha Dhin Na Tin / Na Ka Dhi Na' in one section and as 'Dhaa Dhin Na Tin / Na Ka Dhi Na' in another, with no legend. The teacher says the notation is 'neither Bhatkhande nor Paluskar' and asks him to rewrite it. The student has a photocopy of a Paluskar-style notation from a senior, but he does not know its symbols. He has one evening before submission. He wants to keep his original bols but make the notation readable to an examiner who uses Bhatkhande conventions.
1. Identify the specific inconsistencies and explain why they matter.
Read the worked answer
The sheet has four problems, and each one blocks reading rather than merely looking untidy.
- Contradictory khali marking. In Teentaal, matra 9 is khali. Writing both '0' and '4' above matra 9 tells the reader two different things about the same position. A performer would not know whether to play an open or closed stroke there.
- Wrong vibhag division. Teentaal is 4+4+4+4. A vertical line after matra 8 may be a personal divider, but without a legend it conflicts with the standard four vibhags and can make the reader group the cycle as 8+8.
- Inconsistent bol spelling. 'Dha' and 'Dhaa' may be the same intended bol, but inconsistent spelling suggests two different strokes. In notation, one bol should have one spelling unless a legend explains the difference.
- No legend. Symbols such as ×, 0, 2, 3 and lines must be defined. Without a legend, the reader cannot tell whether the student is using Bhatkhande conventions, Paluskar conventions, or a private code.
The teacher's comment is therefore about consistency, not about whether the Qaida is good.
2. Rewrite the notation in a consistent Bhatkhande-style layout, including a legend.
Read the worked answer
A clean layout should declare its symbols first and then use them without exception. One version, keeping the student's bols but standardising spelling and khali, is:
Legend: × = sam; 0 = khali; 2 and 3 = tali; | = vibhag division; numbers above the line are matra numbers.
1 × Dha | 2 Dhin | 3 Na | 4 Tin | 5 2 Na | 6 Ka | 7 Dhi | 8 Na | 9 0 Ta | 10 Dhin | 11 Na | 12 Tin | 13 3 Na | 14 Ka | 15 Dhi | 16 Na
The reasoning is that Teentaal's divisions are 4+4+4+4, with sam at 1, tali at 5, khali at 9 and tali at 13. If the original composition genuinely has a bayan stroke at matra 9, that is a compositional issue to discuss separately; for notation, khali should be shown with an open bol such as Ta or Na, not with Dha. The student should choose one spelling, 'Dha', and use it everywhere. He should not copy the Paluskar sheet unless he can define its symbols; mixing an unexplained second system would repeat the original error.
3. What should the student tell the teacher about the Paluskar photocopy?
Read the worked answer
He should say that he has a Paluskar-style example but does not know its symbols well enough to use it responsibly, so he is submitting a consistent Bhatkhande-style notation with a legend. That is more honest than pretending to use Paluskar conventions and producing another mixed sheet.
The reasoning is that notation systems are not decorative. Bhatkhande and Paluskar conventions organise matra, vibhag, sam, tali and khali in particular ways; a student who borrows symbols without understanding them creates ambiguity. The examinable judgement is not 'which system is better' but 'can another performer read this sheet and reproduce the Qaida?' A declared system, consistent spelling, correct vibhag divisions and a clear legend achieve that. If the teacher wants a Paluskar version later, the student should learn the symbols first and then convert deliberately, not paste symbols from a photocopy.