Harmony contributes richness (‘body’) to the melody. Indian classical music achieves this effect in different ways. It is an interesting question to ask why harmony is part of Western music but not of Indian music.

Now clearly not all Indians feel this way because not all Indians relate to Indian classical music. But Indian classical music represents that ethos and desire (Naad Brahma).

In the tradition of Western music there is a specific time period (1730-1830) which is known as the classical period. This terminology distinguishes styles of music within the Western tradition. For example, the period before is known as Baroque and the period after as Romantic.

However, in our discussion we are not using the term ‘classical’ in terms of a periodization like this. In our discussion classical refers to a genre or type of music. Thus there is folk music, pop music, etc. Classical music is a specific type of music that is not folk or pop, for example.

So, the question is: What type of music is classical music? One way to characterize it would be to say that it is music whose primary purpose is not entertainment. Rather, it as an art form. In both the Western and Indian traditions its origins are in liturgical or devotional chanting (in the Indian tradition this music is described in the Samaveda). Now art forms continue to become more and more refined and abstract over time till all that remains is the pure essence and all the inessentials are stripped out (Naad in the case of sound). Think of the difference between folk dance and Bharatnatyam, for example, in the case of dance – in the latter, even the twitch of the eyebrow contains a story.

Because classical music is abstract and refined to the represent the essence of sound, it is the polar opposite, in some sense, of popular music. This leads some people to level the charge of elitism against it. I feel this charge is misplaced. By this token, any search for truth or beauty can be labeled elitist.

So, we are talking about this type of music and calling it classical music. It has always been present in both Western and Indian traditions although many elements and styles inside each tradition have changed over time (Baroque, Romantic, etc. in the West; Dhrupad, Khayal, etc. in Hindustani). It is music whose origin was in religion and devotion and whose primary purpose is not entertainment but aesthetic appreciation. In this regard, I think the notion of classical societies and classical times is not a useful one.

Is this a correct characterization of the philosophical disposition of an Indian? Theoretically, is it even possible to be so philosophically disposed – can a person want to unite with the universe at the exclusion of other individuals? Is that even coherent?

Even in a Hindustani music performance, I wouldn’t call the performers individualistic. Yes, there is a main performer (a singer for example) and the others are accompanists. But they have to work together to create the artistic product. There is what Menuhin calls “competitiveness” between say the singer and the tabla nawaz but this competitiveness is also in the larger interests of creating beautiful art. In that way, it’s like a jazz group where each person gets a chance to solo in turn. But they are all working together otherwise the product would fail.

I feel there is yet another more cogent explanation for the emphasis on harmony in Western music vs. melody in Indian music.