The Enigma called A R Rahman

Much has been talked about A R Rahman. For starters, the double Oscar winning music composer, singer, arranger, musician from Incredible India needs no introduction. He is the undisputed king of Bollywood music, a music churning factory. Braced with the thought that awards gauge artist's accomplishments is the maestro's own thought that awards show people's affection, a wise saying which reflects his welcome to them with open arms.


With everything in cine world resting highly on publicity and promotion, from music albums to movies to soaps, the name ARR is enough for any to-be released album to generate the necessary 'heat'. I'm bringing forth this after the much awaited 'Blue's music hit the market(or has it, officially?). This was the virtuoso's first release post his stupendous international alludes with Oscars. I heard the songs and barring one, found them to be mediocre. One more thing that ARR is known for is his mammoth fan following and what 'fans'. I was very keen to read the music reviews of Blue's soundtrack and was really surprised to note that it has got rave reviews, albeit with lots of disclaimers:
"Having said that, this is A R Rahman's album and it's a recognised fact that his music takes time to grow, so maybe, the listener will start liking it after several hearings."
What is this? A verily profound fact? Or a veiled excuse?
We know people who make music and also who make good music. We also know people who make symphonies. But can anyone deliberately make music such that the listeners don't like it initially and then like it, every time ? What is it, a computer program? Or is it just that he is a damn lucky guy who gets lucky several times, or every time? However, it isn't luck if you get lucky every time, or is it in his case?
With due respect to Rahman's genius, isn't it possible that you listen to an average song and don't like it, and assume you should like it after several hearings as this music takes time to 'grow' and then are found liking it? I smell a yes here, though remotely and I also don't know much. One more factor that throws weight behind this hypothesis is the fact that the maestro is known for his ruthless experimentation. He's both a master of melody and tweak. He tweaks it to the point that the subtle complications hit you in face, giving you a feel that this is something never heard, never attempted thereby compromising the set pattern. But who cares about the set pattern as far as the product is 'A Product !!!'.
From the very onset of his stellar career he has been on the receiving side when it comes to everything and that includes success and complaints. He is repetitive, his sounds seem similar, he lacks melody etc. However, all these apocryphal mentions were never comprehensively established and thus the enigma in Rahman continued to haunt people with his mellow music and elude the cynosure with his well disguised persona. Once when asked by a scribe as to why he is reticent and meek, he had said 'I feel I'm being stripped when I speak much, it's like I'm getting naked'. This perhaps is one of the aspects that make him click and I say so because the mystery with him remains unexplored.
People always categorise Rahman into the Rahman of the 90s and the Rahman of now and I always feel the former to be the one that has the power and the class that is propelling the latter. ofcourse, times change and with changing times things evolve but the talent has to do what it should since the genius does what it has to. As I think of winding up this terse, I'm sure I have again committed the same old sin of keeping lot of loose ends open. And yeah ! the enigma called Rahman puzzles, perplexes and haunts me much more than before.