Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Hi Derek,

What a universal dilemma! Shakuhachi certainly is an imperfect instrument. That is arguably what makes it so interesting and varied from a makers perspective.

I've been fortunate to have access to some nice instruments. One of the most important qualities I continue to discover in nice instruments is depth of tone. We're all different and therefore tune into different qualities, but those first discoveries of tone depth are qualities I continue to think about regardless of the style of shakuhachi I'm making.

Of course there is always some type of compromise when going in any direction. However, maybe those compromises don't seem so important when we hear and feel something close to what we tune into. Maybe they aren't compromises after all. That's always a head scratcher!

Ken

Ah… Thanks!  Quite eloquent on both ends, and some very interesting info I would not have guessed:  Hole placement method, and an intonation sacrifice.

The latter surprises me.  Since subtle, lingering harmonic overtones and octave relationships play such a large part in (what I perceive as) contributing to a depth of tone, I would think D-O-T and intonational oddities were mutually exclusive?

For instance, I labored for 2 solid days last week attempting to align chi no otsu with its kan octave, which was about ½ cent flatter.  Removing a micron just above the chi hole would solve the intonation but the body and interesting “tubular” tone of the lower chi was gone.  Adjusting a smidgen adjacent to the 3rd hole and its ½ way point also corrected it, but now tsu and re were becoming flappy.  I can’t remember staring at something for so long, not knowing what to do.  Heh… I ignored it, worked on another note, and it, of course, went away. :^/  What did I learn... ignorance is bliss?

Upon finishing any shakuhachi, I so often feel that it was merely a barrage of happy accidents that compounded into this thing I like and could never, never, ever replicate again, even if my life depended on it.  Grateful sigh.

Derek Van Choice wrote:

For instance, I labored for 2 solid days last week attempting to align chi no otsu with its kan octave, which was about ½ cent flatter.

1/2 cent? Isn't that getting a bit overly picky. A cent is 1/100th of a semitone, I don't think I could blow any note and not have it deviate by that much even on a finely tuned instrument. Unless it was a typo, then forgive me, but I just want to make sure about what kind of tolerances makers work to just in case it wasn't.

Brian, you got me to wondering about the Yamaguchi Shiro 2.0.  What would be the initial motivating factor for a maker to decide on the small holes?  Maybe a personal desire or commission for a more subtle, highly tonal instrument?  Tozan?  The bamboo?  I am guessing that was more of a rarity for him?

Please forgive the wealth of Q's, but I love to know what motivates great makers to make these decisions.

Thanks!

Derek Van Choice wrote:

Not having regular access to scores of what are considered exceptional shakuhachi (vintage master or otherwise), I would love to read a few posts from those that do, with a brief explanation of the strengths and weaknesses in these exceptional shakuhachi.  What was that great maker willing to accept in order to avoid losing the overall magic?

Hi Derek
That varies greatly between the people (who consider any instrument as exceptional), and also between makers.

One way to tell which shakuhachi the maker himself thinks is exceptional is by how many hanko are on it. You may have noticed that some shakuhachi have 1, some 2, some 3. Some makers used a system whereby their student models had one hanko, then really good ones had 2, and exceptional ones had 3. However, this is not a rule. Some makers put 3 hanko on all of their shakuhachi. They may either believe that all of them are exceptional, or, they may just be competing commercially with other shakuhachi. Inexperienced students may pick up 2 shakuhachi from different makers, one with 1 hanko, one with 3, and even if the one with 1 is better, may think the one with 3 is better (and so be happy to pay more) just because it has 3 hanko.

There was one maker who for objected to such things as that, and so didn't put his hanko on any of his shakuhachi! And I'm sure many of his no hanko shakuhachi would be better than many 3 hanko shakuhachi out there.

Then, some makers just put one on all their shakuhachi. Some 2 on all their shakuhachi except truly exceptional ones (or maybe just if a customer wants to pay more money), and so on. I recently came across a 2.7 Tozan shakuhachi made by a professional maker, with 2 hanko on it. I can say it was bamboo. I think I cannot say it was a shakuhachi. It was one of the worst instruments I have ever witnessed - I was commissioned to remake it, which I did so thoroughly.

Having said all of that, sometimes hanko can reflect something. Yamazaki Chikuin is one of my favourite makers. I have played some excellant 2 hanko shakuhachi of his, and also several 3 hanko shakuhachi. It should be safe to say  that he thought more highly of the ones he put 3 hanko on. So, these might qualify as shakuhachi we he thought of as exceptional. So, what compromises were made with them?

One such shakuhachi I played had a kan no ro which was extremely unstable. In the usual playing position, it was nearly impossible to play. Perhaps played extremely gently, it could manage it. but it could take no volume. However, if one meri-ed on that note, it was playable. I cannot imagine any good of the top shakuhachi makers of today accepting such a compromise. I was shocked. What was he doing?

I have a suspicion that he may have been a meri-buki player. That is, that he played in a more meri position as his regular position. If he had, then that note might have been okay. However, it would have to have been really very meri. Was it that? Or, was he satisfied to meri more every time he came to that note?

Another of his 3 hanko shakuhachi had a similar problem. Otsu no ro was very unstable. I saw a number of people play it, and none of them could play otsu no ro without it rolling wildly. In that condition it would be unusable. So, what was he doing?! However, after I played it for some time, I found I could control that note. Then it became very usable. It requires skill to control it, or perhaps just time to accustomise to it. Once I could control it, it was a superb instrument, one of the best I have played.

Again another of his 3 hanko shakuhachi, was quite out of tune. Of course, they are all out of tune, as nearly all (or all?) old shakuhachi are. As you have said, tsu is generally flat, chi is generally sharp. but it's not only that. It is very common or even usual to find other random tuning problems. Some makers have their own peculiarities, such as Brian mentioned about Miura Kindo having a very flat tsu. But also each shakuhachi is tuned differently (not intentional). You might have otsu no ro and kan no ro in balance, but otsu no re and kan no re out of balance, for example. More about that later, but back to this shakuhachi. Otsu no ro again was a little bit tricky, ri also.

So what was good about them? They had an excellant tone colour. Really superb. That is what I love about them. And I believe that is what led them to be judged as excellant.

To give you an idea of the tuning of 2 individual shakuhachi which would be considered by many to be exceptional shakuhachi:

Written is a note (e.g. ro) followed first by the value for otsu, then the value for kan. Figures are given in values of how many cents they vary from the equivalent note on 12 tone Equal Temperament (the tuning system used today). These figures have been taken as an average from many a number of measurements. Since there are many variables, they are rough, but will give you some relative picture.

Miura Kindo
ro    -7    0
tsu    -28    -20
re    -10    0
chi    7    14
ri    -16    -14
i    3    6


Chikuin
ro    0    14
tsu    -26    -14
re    -7    15
chi    20.5    34
ri    -12    14
i    31    18


Many of you have heard of Yamaguchi Shiro. He was another great maker. I recently tried one of his shakuhachi. His shakuhachi are actually quite notorious for being out of tune. But what surprised me about this one was that it was even difficult to get a sound! Finally I could get a proper sound, but several of the notes were extremely difficult to play in a stable way. After much effort, I could play music on it. There was indeed something very nice about it. I could find a very good tone colour in it. So it did have that positive quality. However, it was so difficult to use, and even then had such a limited capacity, that I can safely say that it was not very good. So we cannot say that that was a compromise acceptable for an exceptional instrument. However, we can say that that shakuhachi was an acceptable compromise for that exceptional maker.

I could write on and on, but this may at least give you some idea.

To summarise the points I find most relevant:
Pitch in the old days was much rougher than it is in today's shakuhachi. This is one of the main reasons for people preferring modern instruments - so that they can play in tune. Some people object and say that there is no "in tune". That is fine for those people. However many players do have personal requirements for the pitches they want to play, and indeed, so do some audiences. This is especially true when playing in ensemble.

However, I believe there is a limit in this also. Of course, a few cents out here and there will never be heard - indeed may be literally impossible to detect without machines. Jinashi also can be expected to be more out of tune than jiari. That is part of their nature. It is possible for a great maker to make a jinashi quite in tune, but, the amount of control a maker has over the jinashi's tuning is far less than with a jiari. But that has to be accepted - to be more flexible with jinashi (thus more work for the player!) Then, actually sometimes even with jiari, making it perfectly in tune could be a compromise. One example is otsu no i. In traditional Kinko shakuhachi, otsu no i is generally sharp. If you play it gently, it may be in tune. but if you play it loudly, it becomes very sharp. In kinko-ru music, that note is always played softly - that is the nuance. So that is not a problem. Probably, this is another indication of the music and the instrument co-evolving.
Then in some modern shakuhachi, the maker tries very hard to make otsu no i in tune even if played louder (as is required by some modern players). This can be achieved somewhat (though not entirely), but an important question is how much they have had to compromise on other aspects to achieve that goal. It is possible that a significant compromise has been made to the tone colour. Some would think it is much better to have otsu no i as it is traditionally, and just learn to control that note. Indeed, if you give a modern shakuhachi to a player of traditional shakuhachi, he will most likely play otsu no i flat, because he has the habit of adjusting for that note on his traditional shakuhachi.

It is adjustments like that which are integral to old shakuhachi, and which one comes to naturally when playing them. That may be seen as a compromise by people un-used to it. The new "solution" may also be viewed as a different compromise.

So that deals with the minor tuning factors, but then as for the greater trends, such as sharp chi, flat tsu etc., that is dealt with by changing the holes. I believe Araki Kodo II was the first to start changing the hole system. As has been mentioned already, the holes were placed according to an aesthetic. Araki Kodo wanted his shakuhachi to be in tune, so he started making chi hole smaller. Then the spacing was changed (either by him or his son Araki Kodo III I think). Now today we all have our various preferences and can make our shakuhachi in tune for today's players.

Then comes stability. Stability is about being able to push a note. Can it withstand more pressure and still sound good? As I have indicated already, many old shakuhachi have problems with this. Actually, all shakuhachi have problems with this! It is just a question of how far they can go. Usually it is desirable that a shakuhachi is "well balanced" which includes that all the notes can be pushed about the same amount. Many old shakuhachi will have some notes that can't be pushed much. Or, that need very individual care to make them work. The aim of modern makers generally is that one can play each note in a standard way, and they all sound good. It is not desirable that one has to change the way one blows for each individual note, or even change just for one note - they want to be able to play them all in the same way.

However, in so happens that some of the very stable modern shakuhachi sound, to many people, boring. This indicates that there has been a compromise of tone colour. And similarly, some of the great old shakuhachi have stability problems, and need to be played carefully, but, have excellant and very interesting tone colour.

So sometimes there is a choice one has to make - do I make it as easy to play, or do I make it sound interesting. Now, don't get me wrong - making it unstable doesn't automatically make it great! Usually it makes it bad! But, there is sometimes this balance between stability and tone colour. Making easy to play shakuhachi which are very stable, makes them really easy to sell. It means beginners can pick them up and they seem to be easy for them. However, such instruments may not capture your fascination. That's why it is always better for experienced teachers to judge which shakuhachi is good or not.

The real challenge is to make a shakuhachi which has the best balance between stability and ease of play, and tone colour, and that can then play acceptably in tune. If you find all of that, you know you've got a great shakuhachi.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Last edited by Justin (2008-08-18 10:02:31)

I think these things have been talked about numerous times but new conversation sometimes brings out some new unforeseen perspectives. It's interesting to notice the difference here between the players point of view, Brian's, and the maker's, Justin's and Ken's.  Brian is willing to have a flute with a few quirks since the tone satisfies him. This means that he also has in mind certain songs he feels he can play on the flute with confidence. I myself am in the same boat. It certainly is true that usually, the more attention that is payed to getting perfect pitch and balance by the maker, the less interesting the sound is. So there must be compromises. This brings to surface many other things to talk about when it comes playing. For example, the older (solo) pieces didn't move nearly as fast as modern ones. The slower the song moves the easier it is to deal with pitch inconsistencies from hole to hole. If one plays a slower moving song then he can enjoy the variation from tone to tone and will be satisfied playing the flute.  Also, one can do many things after playing a flute for a few years that one can't when he first tries playing one. You get used to each other (this is definitley what happend to Justin when he played the Kindo. Those have to be played a while). So I'm guessing that what are perceived as pitch problems with the older shakuhachi by todays standards were not always viewed as "problems. There's also the fact that there is such a thing as "cultural pitch", or different pitches being acceptable to people living in different times.

    As a performer and a teacher, I look at the shakuhachi more for what it CAN do if I'm going to buy it.  The reason being is that I'm earmarking it for a couple songs. So in one sense I'm less demanding that one flute play every song. The maker has to think about pitch and balance, and even the aesthetic look of the flute to sell to the average player who wants to play as many songs as possible on one flute. These are the high general demands of the amateur that makers have to satisfy. Professional players can be even more picky but in other ways. Economics adds pressure to both sides as most of us cannot afford to purchase a different flute for each song we play. And the makers have to satisfy a large number of people to make a living. I'm certain the job of a craftsman is very difficult when seeing all the personalities on this forum. There must be quite a variety of desires! 


REDUNDANT MESSAGE POSTER

Last edited by chikuzen (2008-08-18 14:09:21)

Just me repeating myself.

Tairaku wrote:

Regarding what Justin said about Yamazaki Chikuin. I had one of his flutes which also had a somewhat unstable ro. But it was a great flute and I wish I hadn't gotten rid of it (to a guy who 'fixed' the ro). Obviously there was something about Chikuin that caused him to make those kinds of flutes but I don't think we should change the flutes.

I know what you mean. Many old shakuhachi are altered these days to fix such instability problems, but this can have varying consequences. At worst, it can end up ruining good instruments by well intentioned people who don't know what they're doing. Then even a good maker might have to choose from new compromises to fix it. I came across a shakuhachi by Gesshu which had an unstable otsu no ro. I could have quite easily improved it, by compromising kan no ro a little. It would have brought overall much better balance to the instrument. But then, that would be my choice of compromise. In a way, it would be a shame that that old instrument would no longer be in original condition then, the way the original maker had made it. If everyone did that to every instrument, maybe there would be no original past instruments left! Actually, many are already altered by modern makers and no-one might know!

There is a tradition of stamping one's hanko on an instrument when altering the bore. I think this might be avoided on vintage shakuhachi which are to be sold on, otherwise it may decrease the value as it proves the condition is not original. But I think it is better to stamp them. That way no-one gets tricked, and we know what is what (not just us, but future generations too).

I once saw a shakuhachi with about 4 different hanko on it. I wondered, was this because it was so good, that all these different people stamped it as owners because they loved it? Or, was it so bad that all these people had to repair it!

If the choice is really made to alter an instrument, I think the most important factor is to have an holistic view. One has to look at the instrument as a whole, not simply the note to be fixed. However, this can at times require the whole thing to be altered! Such is the nature of shakuhachi. Which choice of compromise? However, I prefer to not look at these things as compromises. It is all a balance. Art is balance.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

First, I can't believe that you are talking about a half cent. Humans can't even distinguish pitch variation of less that about 10 cents, and the slightest change in embouchure or blowing pressure will vary the pitch that much or more. In the saxophone world we are totally happy if the notes are not out more than 20 cents, after that it is about the embouchure.

Leaving that aside, some shakuhachi are never done if their owners are makers. John Neptune's primary 1.8 has been reworked constantly over the years, and the bore looks like a bumpy dirt road, but does that sucker play! He let me try it. Amazing...

I have had the good fortune to collect a number of excellent old shakuhachi over the years, so I have some benchmarks from which to work. I think the primary attribute of a good flute is balance: all the notes should sound with equal ease and have similar character. Tuning and intonation are also important in my book, at least for ensemble work. I went to a show of Shinzan flutes some years ago in Tokyo: about 100 of them, ranging in price from 300,000  to 5,000,000 yen. They were amazingly consistent in intonation, timbre and response; it was basically only the form of the bamboo that varied to any great extent. I really don't know how he does it.

I have four good 1.8s. All are excellent instruments, in that they play all three octaves in tune and in all there are no weak or difficult notes. They are very different in character, however. My favorite is an exceptional old Meiji instrument by the unknown maker Chikudo (at least he is not in any books of makers). It has a huge bore, which usually leads to a diffuse (if big) sound and a difficult top end. Not this one. Somehow he managed to get the big bore response with a sound that coalesces into a solid-cored huge, open sound, and it plays all the way up. I'm taking measurements and will try to reproduce it in the next flute I build (if I ever get around to another). I also have a very old Shinzan that pushes back at you but will take anything you give it, with a dark, smoky but centered sound. The Seppo responds quickly and richly, but with a certain wildness and turbulence, and the Chikusan has a bright, clean and somewhat aesthetic tone. But all have balance.

Actually tuning is the easy part. On the Seppo, for instance, Re was miserably sharp, as it is apparently on many older Tozan flutes. I closed the hole with a bamboo plug and redrilled it and it is now spot on.  I bought a fabulous 1.6 that was cracked across the top joint at a flea market for 7,000 yen. The sound is great, but Re was a bit sharp and Ri a bit flat. It was easy to do a bit of filling and undercutting to fix that, and it removes one more thing to have to think about when playing. That flute, by the way, has good balance except that the open fingering of otsu Ro is a bit weak. I can compensate for that, to be sure, but it would certainly be nice if it responded as nicely as on my 1.8s. However the rest of the flute is so good I will not touch it.

The bottom line is that, in the really great flutes, there need be no compromises in the basics: overall balance of response and timbre and good intonation. However these were sometimes apparently not the priorities for past makers, who concentrated on certain aspects to the exclusion of others. In my experience, perhaps with the advent of shakuhachi playing with Western instruments, the fashion has turned to good intonation and even response. But as my Chikudo flute proves, this sometimes was the goal in earlier times as well.

FWIW,

Toby

Last edited by Toby (2008-08-21 04:19:27)