---

The fourth step of the sapta swara, offering both shuddha (natural) and tivra (raised) options. While these are somewhat equivalent to the Western ♮4 and #4 (=500 and 600 cents), the Hindustani Ma may also be set to a microtone between these points (plus, swaras are far more than just ‘notes’: in the words of Vilayat Khan, “whenever we use tivra Ma, [it is like] a prayer, shantha rasa; and whenever we use [shuddha] ma, there is a little bit of shringara…”). Madhyam (meaning ‘medium’ or ‘central’: i.e. the 4th of the 7 swaras) is also associated with moonlight, as well as the call of the heron. It also underpins the sonic geometry of several Hindustani instruments: e.g. the sitar’s main string is tuned to ma (meaning Sa=7th fret), and ‘Sa-ma’ is the second most common tanpura tuning (as ma-Sa-Sa-Sa). And see below for an explanation of why I use ‘m=shuddha, M=tivra’ – the ‘Ma capitalisation question’ can be a thorny issue [n.b. In the past, some artists called the shuddha ma position ‘komal ma’: e.g. Vilayat Khan.]

---

म (मध्यम)

Sa | Re | Ga | Ma | Pa | Dha | Ni

Search | All Tags | Glossary

• Ma Categories •

Shuddha ma: present
Shuddha ma: only
Shuddha ma: varjit
Shuddha ma: cannot be imperfect
Shuddha ma: cannot be detached

Tivra Ma: present
Tivra Ma: only
Tivra Ma: varjit
Tivra Ma: imperfect
Tivra Ma: detached

Generic Ma: present
Generic Ma: varjit
Double Ma: present

‘Komal Pa’ (mM & no Pa)

Mirror: m–N | mM–nS | M—S

---

• Quirks: tivra Ma exactly bisects the octave from Sa (see ‘palindromicity‘) • shuddha ma cannot be ‘imperfect‘ or ‘detached‘ (as all ragas must contain their own Sa) • shuddha ma is popular as an ‘open baaj tar‘ tone (e.g. on sitar)

---

Tanpura tuning: ma-Sa-Sa-Sa

• Why I use ‘m=shuddha, M=tivra’ •

The ‘Ma capitalisation question’ is a perpetual issue of raga transcription. Confusion abounds when it comes to indicating shuddha/tivra Ma – some use ‘m/M’, some ‘M/m’, and others ‘M/M^’. I, like most, use the former – but I’ve got plenty of questions about it, and debate rages as to which is the most logical choice. So this is why I believe that ‘m=shuddha; M=tivra’ is the best option:

 

• Mainly, it is both more ‘objective’ and more intuitive to use the principle of ‘capital letter=higher pitch’ – just as we already do for all the other swaras (rR/gG/dD/nN). After all, vibrational frequency and perceived pitch are the ‘inherent’ qualities of the sound (‘ahata’) – so it seems fitting to use pitch as the defining variable throughout our notation system. This is simple, objective, and consistent (‘lower=lowercase’).

 

• Historically, the ‘default scale’ for theoretical purposes has changed multiple times (e.g. Kafi was preferred in the 17th century, as noted in shastras such as Ahobala’s 1665 Sangit Parijat). This – as well as the fact that Latinized capital letters are already an alien addition to the original Sanskrit – means that we can’t just cede to a clear historical precedent in terms of our ‘m/M’ notation. And even if we could, it doesn’t mean that we should maintain a practice just because it is old (…previous raga cultures have shifted their approaches, so why can’t we?).

 

• Some artists, notably including Vilayat Khan, describe the shuddha ma position as ‘komal ma’, as part of an approach where all moveable swaras are either ‘komal or tivra’ (i.e. shuddha Re is ‘tivra Re’, shuddha Dha is ‘tivra Dha’, etc). While this method has mostly fallen out of use, it is still evident in older textbooks such as Rao’s Raga Nidhi volumes – and its presence in the literature adds more weight to the principle of ‘lower=lowercase’ (otherwise, the so-called ‘komal ma’ would be the only ‘komal’ swara designated with a capital letter). I see no good reason why Ma should be the only ‘odd one out’ here (…for one thing, a capital M is literally ‘higher’ than a lowercase m). Similarly, Western ‘Roman numeral’ chord notation uses the congruent principle of ‘minor=lowercase’ (e.g. ii-V-I).

 

• While ‘M/M^’ – for example used by Deepak Raja – is at least pretty clear (‘^’=higher), the ‘^’ character it is a nightmare when it comes to the digital aspects of raga transcription. For example, some text editors interpret it as a formatting command (e.g. indicating bold or italics), and others as a mathematical operator (‘to the power of’) – and I’ve had a couple of students ask me if it indicates a meend or ornament of some kind. My Ragatable spreadsheet was much easier to build using a ‘1-to-1’ positional encoding of the 12 swara positions (‘SrRgGmMPdDnN’).

 

• More practically, I’ve asked quite a lot of artists about this issue over the past few (including plenty of the Darbar Festival lineups from 2018-20 when I worked there). Most seem to favour ‘m=shuddha’, although several admitted that they hadn’t really given it too much thought. Similarly, I estimate that modern English-language raga discourse (based on reference sites, discussion forums, and the many hundreds of messages I receive) is roughly 70% ‘M=tivra’, 25% ‘m=tivra’, and 5% ‘M^’. So, even if I personally preferred ‘m=tivra’, I’d be pushing against what is becoming a growing consensus. If there is ever to be uniformity here, ‘m=shuddha’ is the only option that will bring it.

 

Disagreements welcome! This issue can summon some surprisingly strong opinions (e.g. Shrikant G Talageri wrote a lengthy critique of my choices, and I’ll update this page soon with fair appraisals of the clearest counter-arguments I receive). In the end, I don’t actually mind which system you choose to use – the main principle is to make your choice clear in the notation. Similarly, trust your ears!