Make the Mohan Veena, but inform us

It's not a mark of snobbery from a globe-trotting maestro. If you stand against piracy of music, you are less likely to criticise such a move. Pt Vishwa Mohan Bhatt has got a patent for two of his instruments, the Mohan Veena and the Vishwa Veena. And according to his disciple and son Salil Bhatt, a patent for the third type, the Satvik Veena is on the way. Which means that anyone trying to come up with an emulation of these veenas will have to get a nod from the Bhatts. Legally.

Why the patent? Unusual of its kind in Indian music, but required. Well, the veenas aren't up for grabs as our turmeric, neem or Basmati, you might say. But yes, even if half as important as these tangible basics, and half Western, Bhatt's musical legacy borrows a lot from the native tradition of veena-playing. He has proved that it is important for a musician to secure his instrument, moreover an innovation. As fakes seldom qualify to bring you that ecstasy. A Les Paul should sound a Les Paul, right?

Pt Vishwa Mohan Bhatt experimented with the Hawain guitar in the '60s adding several embellishments, including drone strings to make it sound like a veena. Although guitar was brought into the Hindustani genre at AIR studios way back in the 1950s, no one really proclaimed it a veena till Bhatt popularised his version in the West. With Bhatt winning the Grammy in 1994 for his album, 'A Meeting by the River' with Ry Cooder, the Mohan Veena got a following. So, Indian veena makers sold out crazy emulations of the Mohan Veena even before the Bhatts could recover from jet lags.

Imitations that neither met the sound standards, nor matched the structure of the original. Some veena makers "made millions and gave the imitations their own names". Though people in the US are pretty careful about checking patent numbers before buying an instrument, they get robbed here for an extra string or a fret.

Usually music legends have a select group of craftsmen and experts catering to their demands when it comes to altering the structure of their instrument. Some go for really minute inlay changes in the instrument to get a better sound output. So, should such regular changes define the need for a patent? Should musicians stop a layman from picking up an instrument in the process of saving their own intellectual ideas? Certainly not. A 100 stringed santoor, the basic make, is less likely to be secured through a patent by any prominent legend. Like a regular sitar or a sarod. But if an improvised version, like of the santoor with additional drone strings that evolves a different playing technique altogether needs a patent, it should get one. Only if the musician was willing.

Because there are listeners to whom the make matters as much as the musician and the music.

Please read our terms of use before posting comments