Mar 232014
 

… yes if you have content worth charging for.

And, this brings me to a conversation i had a decade ago, while a channel was in the process of being launched. The channel was meant to be free to air and was designed for maximum reach. A few days before the launch I was asked if we could charge x per month (x was a figure greater than 10 – a lot in those days). The problem was simple, will someone pay Rs.X for something that was meant to be free – thank fully the promoters appreciated that perspective.

Will quality pay for itself ? It is anyone’s guess, because quality itself is a relative concept. Unfortunately – quality in content is often mixed up with esoteric, unreadable, stuff. And when you tell people you want ‘quality’ content – it conjures up visions of turgid academic writing , closed fonts, design from the 1940′s (where it looks like it is a manual typeset), no pictures, and the dryness of a tender announcement.

Offer for subsciption

Offer for subscription

Which is why this is such an interesting experiment. NYT has used the drug dealer’s methodology of hooking customers. Catch them cheap (99 cents for 12 weeks) and then some $8 a month. With content, i think it is important to get people to start thinking about paying. As a consumer, I like the idea of free content. As a producer, I need to think of ways to make it pay – be it ticket sales, firewalls, monthly subs – whatever.  As someone who has produced content (in what ever form) for the best part of two decades if there is one thing i know it is this – someone has to pay for it – Either the advertiser, or the subscriber or Santa Claus. Given that the advertising pie is finite, and Santa Claus does not exist – that leaves the subscriber :)

Needless to say, i have purchased a subscription to the NYT. Let us see if i will renew it :) 

Mar 202014
 

My column in today’s DNA

It is election season and, therefore, it must be the time for rhetoric, more rhetoric and even more rhetoric. Each party and its supporters are trying to pitch themselves to us, the voters, and each trying to get us to vote for them. While political leaders and party workers are traversing the length and breadth of India, trying to woo the masses in the blistering heat, their more privileged keyboard warriors are using their fingers to good effect, drumming up support on social media. And, it is social media, especially Twitter, with its concentration of journalists, editors, film stars, politicians, would-be politicians, policy makers, industrialists, media magnates, bankrupt tycoons, cricketers and the rest, that makes for the most entertainment. Because there is nothing as funny as serious, sanctimonious rhetoric in 140 characters, especially when you sneak some time to yourself to look at the phone on a tough working day. It is the sheer chutzpah in the pronouncements, the dauntless confidence with which people mouth inanities, the gumption with which inaccuracies and factual errors are put forward as ‘truth’ and the sheer pizzazz of the entire thing that makes you wonder if Twitter has taken its place in the sun as the provider of multiple streams of live commentary for what promises to be the greatest show on earth — the Indian elections. If only one could charge entertainment tax on the proceedings, the current account deficit would probably be wiped out.
So what are they fighting for? Politicians and political parties are fighting for power. They — especially the BJP and Congress — would prefer absolute power — 272 seats all to themselves, without their allies spoiling their party. Will they get it is anyone’s guess, but that doesn’t prevent them from projecting the confidence of being able to make that figure. But, to keep their options open, you do occasionally hear murmurs of a ‘larger NDA’ or “UPA III”.
While it is easy to figure what the politicians want, the role of their supporters on social media is slightly more complex. Their aim seems to be less about converting neutrals or voters who have not made up their mind into votes, and more on keeping the faithful gathered and motivated in the days leading up to the elections. It is a vital role that they play — the social media warriors — in terms of fact-checking, repudiating, muddying the waters, creating a ‘what if’ scenario in the mind of the public. While BJP supporters had the lead in the utilisation of social media for rallying and attacking, more recently the Congress and the AAP have joined in. As a result social media, in general, and Twitter, in particular, have become a battleground of ideas, allegations, innuendos and camaraderie. In my mind, the role of the partisans on social media is interesting because of the space that they occupy between the media and the party. They take corridor-level gossip from the party and drawing room chatter and blast them into a somewhat public space dominated by the traditional media, and when traditional media picks up this gossip, it gets carried back into social media for further conversations. Recently in a media conference, a point was made about mainstream media watching its audience (us), monitoring them via social media posts on shows and news, and using this instant feedback and chatter to fine tune content offerings But, a far more interesting phenomenon that we are observing in these elections is that a part of this audience, realising that it is being watched, are indulging in a sort of behaviour that feeds content to the media only to promote the former’s agenda. For a media professional, it’s a fairly fascinating phenomenon.

The other thing very clear in these elections is this: The mask of media neutrality has finally fallen off and is being left for dead. Journalists do not even pretend to have a lack of bias. When leading anchors don the political mantle, and prominent journalists push the agendas of political parties without joining them, then you cannot help but wonder, how much of the content that they put out is biased and how long ago did this begin? This is not about voting preferences. You can still vote for who you believe in and try and be balanced in content. It is about pushing political agendas in the name of journalism. In an ideal world the bias should impact ratings. But, as recent studies in the United States show, it is the ratings of those seemingly unbiased platforms that are falling when compared to those who take partisan views. Research also reveals that audiences are more and more looking for views that dovetail with their own. They don’t want the bland neutrality of Doordarshan. They much prefer the fire and brimstone of the evening news anchor who demands answers on behalf of the nation.

Way back in 1964, Barry Goldwater, the American Republican Party candidate for President, in a speech declared: “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”. It seems that our media — mainstream and social — have taken this speech to heart. Except that liberty and justice are no longer absolutes but relative to whom they support. For example, outrage on suggested curbs of freedom of speech is not universal but defended by party supporters and opposed by detractors.

We are in for fun ride where truth is falsity, and falsity is truth. So who do we, the people, trust? The answer, surprisingly, is each other. According to a recent Zee Media Taleem Poll on the state of the nation, while 54% said that they relied on electronic media for their views and opinions, 30% still rely on friends and peer groups for ‘truth’. In a world where truth becomes an elusive commodity, it is little surprise that we are getting back to a more traditional way of making up our mind: our own personal social networks.

Mar 092014
 
logo2013

There are only two kinds of interviews that i had conducted in the past – the first was job interviews and the second were interviews in camera, for shows. So when i got asked if I would like to interview Rahul Sood, GM Microsfoft ventures, for @DNAi kind of went overboard on the conversation. It was done TV style without the recording on tape. I had recorded the interview on the phone, and it had to be transcribed. A half an hour conversation i s a fair number of pages of typed material :)

Large organisations give you stability, smaller organisations give you innovation. How do you combine out-of-the-box thinking and the ‘get ready to go’ mode of innovative entrepreneurship into a big company?

When I joined Microsoft, I spent 11 months figuring out what I was going to do there. As an entrepreneur, you’re always trying to find something, and that something is a problem to solve. In a company full of brilliant people where everyone is smarter than you, how are you going to find problems to solve? Also, you need to be able to inspire people and lead them in a direction they believe in.

How do you get things done? There is a lot of collaboration in big companies. You have to bring people along, get them to get behind your ideas and buy into them. The way to do that is by finding people who know how to get it done within the company. I looked for people who had been there for a long time, and was able to get them to tell me how to get things done. That’s how things started moving.

We launched the first ever incubation fund at Microsoft, which had never made investments in small companies before. And we were told Microsoft had never done something like that before, that it wouldn’t be accepted. But we were able to find a way to make it happen. We listened to people and found out why they said no. Just because they say no doesn’t mean you have to give up. Once you find out why they said no, you figure out a way to make their no a yes. You’re trying to find the quickest way to get from A to B, and there are ways of doing that within a big company. You find people who are frustrated (with the way the system is going) and know how to get things done, and you try and short circuit the problem as quickly as possible. If you short circuit it right, you and the team are going to be successful.

 

Is the reason why Microsoft is looking at ventures is because it missed the bus on Search or on Social Networking, both of which grew out of garages?

There has never been a time in the history of the tech industry where the barriers to entry have been so low, and the accelerants so high, that you can put five people in a garage and they can create something really disruptive. If you look at the types of companies being created right now, the ratio of the people in the company to its value or the revenue it generates is completely lopsided compared to what it used to be.

It used to take years and years to build a big company. Now the accelerants are much higher, so you can build a company a lot faster. With access to incubators, accelerators, VC funding, angel investors and other entrepreneurs in the ecosystem, it is easier to go out and attempt to be an entrepreneur. So we’re noticing that trend.

The other thing we’re noticing is that entrepreneurship is starting out at a much younger age. Students in grade school are thinking, “We must go out and start our own company.” This is a really interesting trend. Because of these phenomena, there has been a billion dollar company created every month for the last 84 months somewhere in the world. And most of these have been funded eventually in Silicon Valley.

When you look at these developments, you ask, what are Microsoft’s biggest strengths? Besides the fact that we are a big technology company, we’ve got amazing software, and some incredibly smart people, what is our biggest strength? It is our footprint in the Enterprise. We have so many people in the Enterprise who rely on us to be successful so that they are successful. They build on our platforms, they depend on our services, on our Cloud. They use Exchange, Office and our other products without even thinking about it. Microsoft has many, many customers in the Enterprise.

Knowing that today’s start-ups are the Enterprises of tomorrow, we need to engage them at a much earlier stage. This is not about us missing the boat on certain things, but about us helping to create the next generation of billion dollar companies. And by helping to create them, they become our partners in the long term. We are investing in ecosystems around the world, not just in Silicon Valley. We’re investing everywhere so we can help develop ecosystems, bring in entrepreneurs and create a more entrepreneurial culture inside Microsoft, and get people on the outside to think of how they will partner with us.

 

Is it also because it is easier to think out of the box, and be disruptive outside a large organisation than inside? 

It certainly is easier. You can think disruptive anywhere – inside a big organisation or outside. The question is, can you actually be disruptive inside a big organisation? The whole point of being disruptive is you are disrupting what big companies do. If you are inside a big company and being disruptive, then ideas may start getting difficult. For example, if you worked for a bank, and suggested they converted all physical branches to coffee shops, it would be disruptive, but it will also be difficult to sell the idea. It is hard to be disruptive inside a big company, when you are not disrupting yourself and when you cannot think about disrupting yourself.

Microsoft is such a big company that does everything from consumer to enterprise, that everyone is disrupting us. So we need to think more disruptively. Internally, we need to think about how to disrupt our own business. Ventures is interesting because it gives us access to interesting disruptive innovations that we can potentially acquire or partner with. But, I think in any large organisation, there has to be a team whose job it is to think about how to disrupt your business.

 

One of the areas in which technology has tremendously disrupted is media. Why?

They (technology start-ups) went after things that consumers cared about instantly. Music, media consumption, reading – people care about these. They read books, newspapers, consume music. If you are able to make their experience that much better through technology, you’re going to create something disruptive, because it is driven by people, not corporations, not by government interests. It is being consumed by people, and therefore the people are creating a movement by saying they want this.

When you take a big problem space like media, you have disrupted it through digital means. Napster was possibly one of the original disrupters. Piracy was a big problem the media industry was dealing with. At the same time, making it easier for consumers to consume was a big problem space. With this perfect storm of making piracy legitimate, and making media easier to consume, people just grabbed on to it, and it became a big deal.

 

Education, which should have been disrupted, was not? Why? 

The reason education is not getting disrupted is because there is a lot of protectionism here. The government isn’t allowing people to be disruptive. Education should be free to the masses. If you could make education free to one billion people in India, and make it accessible to them in ways hitherto not possible, you could create a bigger emerging middle class. You can reduce poverty, and help bring in more than engineering thinking into the mix. Therefore, you need to do two things. First, you have to make education accessible to everyone, through MOOCs (massive open online courses), through online means where education can be accessible to people who cannot otherwise afford it. Second, you have to stop thinking engineering and producing that many engineers. We need more creative thinking and creative people here, and combine that with engineering. When you do that, you bring design thinking into the mix. We also need to teach entrepreneurship at school (college).

Here’s the thing with education, in India in particular and other markets like it. India produced 1.5 million engineers last year. That is absolutely insane because we don’t need those many engineers. There are schools (colleges) coming up with accredited programmes. Many of them prey on the poor to send their kids to these colleges so that they can get a degree. To what outcome? The outcome should be a job. Some of these colleges are promising jobs, and the jobs the graduates get are pretty much at data entry operator level. So why do they have to do a four year programme for that type of a job?

You actually said “online education is like the Wild West”. Why? It should be a no-brainer that online education should work. Yet there is a problem. Why?
It is the Wild West because there are no standards at the moment. Every market and ecosystem is different. Different markets have different types of needs. Education is the Wild West because, if you try and create something disruptive here, you can get shut down by someone else. Education is a big policy issue. You need to think about the big problem spaces in India that need to be disrupted. Education, policy, infrastructure – there are so many different areas that need disruption. But it needs government support. The government has to say enough is enough, let these entrepreneurs go out there and solve problems.

 

Does formal education itself need to be disrupted? 

Universities are dying institutions. Unless you are going to be a radiologist, a doctor or a lawyer. MBA programmes, for instance, need to change. We put our companies through a four-month accelerator programme. 850 people apply to get in, and we only accept 10-15. It is harder to get into our programme than it is to get into Harvard. And, in four months, you learn more than you do in a typical MBA course. You learn everything, from taking an idea, turning it into a prototype, doing customer validation, marketing, strategy and branding. You learn pitching, how to tell a story, how to get funding, and how to structure your company. You learn all of that in four months. So the question is, are we stuck in a 19th century mindset? Four-year programmes, eight-year programmes, get your degree, go for your masters? Absolutely, we are.

 

How does India compare to the rest of the world for start-up ecosystems? 

The top start-up ecosystem is obviously Silicon Valley. The second is Israel, and it is higher by quite a bit. When I went to Israel, I looked around to understand why it has a strong start-up ecosystem. There are only 7 million people there. In Israel, they don’t focus on local issues, because it is too small a market. They are focussed on global problems. But they are also big risk takers. Entrepreneurship is encouraged by the government, by educators, by parents, by history. And they live every day like it is their last. Husband-and-wife teams quit their jobs to start a company. So, there is the desire to be an entrepreneur and it is a badge of honour to be one. They understand the need for customer validation. Initially, when you’re creating something for a global market, you must understand the market you are creating for.

In India – and here is the difference – we’re not encouraged to be entrepreneurs. Risk taking is not encouraged. Parents will not encourage you whatsoever. Educators do not encourage you, nor do they teach anything in this space. No one really knows what it means to be a start-up here, and they should. And, because of all this, we don’t like to take risks.

The other part is population. There are a billion people here. It is great market to create products that solve problems. But Indian entrepreneurs are focussed on solving problems in the US, building apps for the US, and not even thinking of solving local Indian problems. Here, many start-ups are creating engineer-led products or apps. They are focusing on markets they don’t understand. They are going after the US market v/s doing customer validation in India.

So what we did, at Microsoft Ventures, is said there is a reason why this ecosystem lags behind. And that is because you don’t understand the customer you are going after. We need to bring in a mix of entrepreneurs, we need to bring in more women because women think different from men. There are more women designers than men in India. We need to start blending these teams together. We did that and had some interesting things happen. We saw some start-ups emerge from our accelerators that are focussed on Indian problems that are actually growing. And they provide really unique value propositions. We can actually help these companies go into similar markets in Africa, Brazil, and China, and that is exciting. So, in order for India’s start-up ecosystem to evolve, they need to focus on Indian problems, and a more balanced approach. And parents, educators and the government need to encourage entrepreneurship.

 

How can technology be better used to combat social issues? 

You can really do a lot with technology like cloud computing and data collection. Today, any piece of hardware you create needs to be connected to the cloud, and that cloud needs to be intelligent and be able to gather and analyse data, and produce results that you might not think about.

 

What are the top three tech trends to watch out for? 

Security is number one. Privacy is less of an issue. As the next generation grows, privacy will be zero. Everyone will know who you are, where you live, everything about you. So, security will be everything, both in the real, physical world and online. Security companies will create an online persona that will follow you around (online) and be your guard. Security will be a huge, huge area.

Number two – education, I think, will completely change. The more we open source it, the better it will become, and the better our societies will evolve. The idea of open source education is a big trend.

Number three – wearable technology, like smart fabrics. Things like Google glass, Nike Fuel bands. In a world of connected devices, where all hardware connects to the cloud, I think you will be able to extract data about everything about us from it. As a result, our lives will be extended. We will be able to live longer lives through technology. I think people will be able to live to a hundred and fifty, with some of the technology that is coming.

 

What is the future of journalism?

The future of journalism is crowd sourced. The best writers will always rise, people will read them and follow them. People who began blogging f years ago are becoming famous now. They’re building big brands and big companies. They just started writing on their own. Look at Om Malik. He has come such a long way and Giga Om is such a big brand. That is the future. People who write well and influence people in a big way will disrupt the traditional journalism business.

 

What is your advice to young entrepreneurs? 

The first piece of advice I will give them is to figure out their motivation. You have to have the motivation to want to be an entrepreneur. Because, being an entrepreneur is hard. You are not just going to become the next Facebook or Instagram. You first need to know why you want to be an entrepreneur. If your motivation is monetary, forget about it, because if you are going to chase money, you are not going to make it. Money should be the last thing on your mind. The first thing that should be on your mind is that, as an entrepreneur, you are passionate about something, and want to solve a problem in that space.

The second thing is about brand. It is not just a logo on box. It is the outcome of building a great product, having a customer base. The customer base becomes your fans. If you want to build a community, you have to get social, write, get engaged with your community and create a vibrant community where people will give you feedback that you will share with each other. Once you do that, it becomes the soul of your company, combining with your culture. Essentially, when you have those elements, when you have a great team with a great culture, a great product, a community that is writing and evangelizing about your product, then that becomes the soul of your brand. Then the outcome is the logo and all that stuff you created around the product. You just can’t go and create a brand. Brands grow.

 

Rahul Sood is GM, Microsoft Ventures, which looks at investing in tech start-ups. Prior to that, he was founder of VoodooPC and the CTO for Hewlett Packard.

Harini Calamur is Head of Digital Content, Zee Media Corporation.

Feb 122014
 

My column in the DNA on January 31st

“The Medium is the Message” declared Marshall McLuhan, a phrase that has become the most misinterpreted phrase in the short history of mass media. What McLuhan talked about was far deeper than mistaking your TV set for a soap. What he meant was, that every so often a technology manifests itself, that is so revolutionary that it disrupts the very way in which society is structured, the way people think and our very concepts of the way the world about us is ordered. He begins by describing the invention of the printing press and the evolution of print as a medium. That invention led to the printing and sharing of ideas, allowed for scientific ideas to be duplicated in an error free manner, allowed religious texts to be available to a larger audience, allowed mass literacy– by enabling the printing and reprinting of books, and allowed ideas of equality, fraternity and freedom to permeate through the world. Each subsequent mass media– film, radio waves, terrestrial broadcasting, satellite broadcasting and now the Internet – has changed the world – not just because they exist as boxes in our house, but the way they allow for the exchange of ideas, the permeation of values and the empowerment of people.

The digital world is exciting not just because technology is exciting, but because of what it allows consumers to do with that technology. Fifteen years ago, before the first dotcom bust, the technophiles were talking about consuming news on a handheld device, ordering milk, getting your pizza delivered, get your heart rate monitored – and many people laughed. Today, we take the apps on our smartphone for granted. The office on the go, is not just a promise for the distant future, but very real. But, the digital revolution is exciting not just about the conveniences that technology offers us. It allows far more than that. The real promise of digital technology is not what advertisers or large corporates want us to consume, rather it is the enabling of peer to peer communication. Where we, as citizens or as consumers, talk to other  citizens or consumers on issues that bother us, on things we like, or causes we support– and thereby bypass the entire mode of broadcasting.

The earlier modes of communication were one way– from those who wanted to say something to those who wanted to listen. Those who had something to say were the elite, challenging the views of other elite. Those who wanted to listen, were the commoners– people like us. There was certain etiquette, a certain politeness, a sort of ‘let the status quo remain’ attitude that permeated through the system. Digital has changed that. It is as though all the barricades, all the inequality of access, all the proper way of behaviour that tied us down – has come crumbling down, dissolved by the power of digital. Purists and public intellectuals often argue that the rise of digital has given rise to uniformed opinion, and therefore diluting the nature of debate. That people who don’t have expertise should not be taken seriously. That the new media is not so much democratic but anarchic. A babble of voices blurting out whatever they want, consequences be damned. These arguments are the death knell of a dying system- a stratified, inbred hierarchy that is trying to keep control on the way the world thinks and behaves. We are at the dawn of the digital revolution.

There will be mistakes made. But, those mistakes will be quickly rectified– by the very same crowd that the elite hold in contempt. The advantages are many- sacred cows are no longer considered exempt from questioning or indeed, considered sacred. People’s issues can no longer be buried. Brands can no longer run roughshod on consumers. If that isn’t a promise for a better future – I’m not sure what else is.

Oct 242013
 

The Last of the Great Playback singers of Indian Cinema has passed on today, marking the end of a glorious era of Film Music. Manna De is no more. His music however, lives on.  Compared to Mohd. Rafi or Kishore Kumar – he didn’t sing as much for Hindi films, but the songs that he sang left a mark.

It’s been a long time since i put together a compilation of songs, for quite sometime my music consumption has been predominantly Hindustani Classical Music.But, Manna De along with Mohd. Rafi gave me my first ever taste of the classical, something that has been with me for life.

Manna De, more than any other Hindi singer – was completely at ease with classical music. A voice like honey, he was comfortable with all sorts of songs – the philosophical (Tu Pyaar ka Saagar Hai) l, the romantic (Yeh raat bhigi bhigi) , the teasing (dil ki umange hai Jawan) , the classical (Ketaki Gulab Juhi), the tragic (sur Na saje)  .

Here in no order of preference, are some of my favourite songs sung by Manna De. if you have your favourites, please post them.

Yeh Raat Bhigi Bhigi - Mukesh is said to be the voice of Raj Kapoor, but i personally preferred the duets that Manna De sang for him with Lata. Be it this, or Pyaar huva or Aaja Sanam …. Shankar Jaikishen composed the music, and the film is Chori Chori . The guitar as the prelude is possibly one of the most distinctive pieces of Hindi film music. i need to hear two chords to identify the song. Enjoy Raj Kapoor & Nargis in this brilliant composition.

Na to Karvan Ki Talaash Hai - My favourte Qawalli from Hindi Films. Manna Dey, Asha Bhonsle, Mohd. Rafi and others. The song runs for almost 10 minutes. Manna De opens the classic piece and Rafi ends it… both are at their best in this song. Roshan Sahab (the father of Rakesh & grand father of Hrithik) composes a masterpiece, lyrics are by Shailendra -

Tu Pyaar ka Saagar Hai – I used to have this huge crush on Balraj Sahani when i was a kid. in those glorious days of watching Chitrahaar and Hindi films on Doordarshan. I could never understand his films in those days – but i simply thought he looked yummmm :) i still do. and of all his songs, this one was played the most frequently. Soul stirring stuff. Balraj Sahani & Nutan in the film Seema. Music by Shankar Jaikishen.

 Kaun Aaya mere Dil ke Dwaare – I cannot remember watching this film, though i must i have. i devoured everything on Doordarshan whether it was Krishi Darshan or Santakukdi or Kilbil … Anoop Kumar (Kishore Kumar’s brother) and Anita Guha in Dekh Kabira Roya. Music by Madan Mohan

Dil Ki Girah Khol Do – the film “Raat aur Din”. The subject multiple personality disorder. The year 1967. And a commercial success. Nargis in her last leading role. Fabulous film. Fabulous music. Watch it also for a very young Feroze Khan. Music Shankar Jaikishen

Ja Tose Nahin Bolu Kanhaya – Raga Hamsadhwani. Lata Mangeshkar & Manna De. The movie is Parivaar and the music director is Salil Choudhary .

Hoke Majboor Mujhe - The film Haqeeqat. Possibly the finest war film ever made in India. From the point of view of the men who serve. Directed by Chetan Anand it starred Balraj Sahni (him again), Dharmendra and a host of others it is set around the 1962 war – which no one talks about. The song ‘kar chale ham fida jaan aur tan saathiyo’ by Rafi is guaranteed to bring tears to your eyes. But, this song, more philosophical is equally good. Check out Manna De in this

Mausam Beeta Jaye – The film “Do Bhiga Zamin”, the director Bimal Roy. Music Salil Choudhary. Actor Balraj Sahni and the voice Manna De. I cry everytime is see this film – nothing has changed for the farmer. When we decided to make our film “Jhing Chik Jhing” i went and rewatched this film — the famers’ lot is the same. there is a line in Jhing Chik Jhing where Bharat Jadhav says ‘we are farmers, we grow food but our children go hungry; we grow cotton and our kids wear torn clothes’. This is not the post to call for agricultral reform or greater support to farmers, but consider it said :(.

By the way, despite the subject this was not an art film. it was a commercially viable film .

Ketaki Gulab Juhi - a duet with Pandit Bhimsen Joshi. The song is a competition between the two singers, and in typical Hindi Film ishtyle … Pandit Bhimsen Joshi loses. If your mind can overcome this fact… listen to the song…

Zindagi kaisi yeh Paheli - Manna De sings for Rajesh Khanna – a man with a medical death sentance. the music by Salil Da. The film Anand. Lyrics by Yogesh.

Laga Chunri Mein Daag – Music by Roshan (grandfather to Hrithik ). The film is Dil Hi to Hai starring Raj Kapoor and Nutan

O Meri Zohra Zabeen – the Film is Waqt – the first of the last and found sagas …. The song is picturised on Balraj Sahni (be still my fluttering heart),the music is by Ravi and lyrics by Sahir Ludhianvi.

Mud Mud ke Na Dekh Mud Mud Ke – Asha and Manna De in this fabulous number from Shree 420. Picturised on Nadira & Raj Kapoor. The music is by Shankar Jaikishen and lyrics by Shailendra. The film is about a young idealist Raj Kapoor, who is seduced by wealth, fame and fortune – represented by Maya (nadira) … and brought back to the straight and narrow (not to mention poverty) by Vidya. The song marks the turning point in the film when Raj Kapoor goes over to the evil side….

Pucho na Kaise Man - The film was hackneyed but the music was great. Staring Ashok Kumar in a triple role , the film is Meri Surat Teri Aankhen. Music by S.D.Burman

Sur Na Saje Kya Gaaon Mein - the film Basant Bahar. music by Shankar Jaikishen – who hitherto had been considered to be ‘pop’ music composers without a handle on classical – and how they proved the world wrong. Starring Bharat Bhushan who possibly had some of the best classical songs featured on him. The other great song in this film is Ketki Gulab Juhi sung by Manna De and Bhimsen Joshi !

Phir Kahi Koi Phul Khila - the film is Anubhav – a complicated tangle of marital relationships. It has a wonderful sound track. Other classics in this film include the brilliant number by Geeta Dutt – Mujhe jaan na Kahon, meri Jaan. The film stars Sanjeev Kumar and Tanuja as the newly married couple with more than than their share of problems.

And, today when it seems that the heavens are spring cleaning (atleast in Mumbai) one of the most famous duets sung by Manna De and Lata Mangeshkar … his ease with both high and low notes, and the sheer beauty of his voice.