Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

I have now incorporated the legitimate term jimori into my personal lexicon, especially as it is used by Japanese scholars and other random people in Japan, and can be found in the now defunct "Sankyoku" journal. Surely my distaste for the word will diminish with use. I certainly wouldn't want to be wrongly accused of no longer having my finger on the pulse in regard of shakuhachi research in Japan anymore.

I'm still curious about some things, though.

Firstly, a reminder of the definitions at the beginning of the jinashi section:
"Ji-nashi shakuhachi: is the generic term for shakuhachi with absolutely NO filler (ji, e.g., a paste made of urushi and ground stone) added to the bore."
“If any ji is added to the bore, it disqualifies as ji-nashi as the meaning of the word itself is "no ji" e.g., no filler.”

1) Since we are making the very real distinction between jinashi and jimori, is it accurate to officially call ourselves a 'jinashi' player, or a 'jinashi shakuhachi' player, if we use in our performances, both jimori and jinashi shakuhachi interchangeably?

Wouldn't it be more accurate/truthful to call oneself a 'jinashi / jimori' player or a 'jinashi / jimori shakuhachi' player, since there is a real difference between the terms?

2) If that sounds cumbersome, then why not just use the simple term, 'shakuhachi' to describe our instrument to the non-shakuhachi playing public at large? I have always wondered why this single term is not adequate. We all know that even the single word "shakuhachi" is a pain to pronounce for nearly everyone.

3) When we use the term jinashi, do we only mean flutes made with absolutely no ji, or is 'jinashi' a broader term that encompasses flutes made without any ji as well as jimori flutes? If this is the case, then the problem mentioned above re: 'jinashi' player disappears, but alas, the definitions at the beginning of the jinashi forum will have to be changed.

4) If jinashi has the broader meaning however, and it appears that it does, then we should really coin a new term that means flutes made with no ji at all.  As we non-Japanese have a propensity for Japanese terms to describe our instruments, I suggest the term “sokan” (麁管) [translation: crude flute]. Or alternatively, there is the word “senchiku” (専竹) [translation: solely bamboo]. I rather like the latter. It's not so value laden, and has some other nice connotations, eg, '[my] speciality [is] bamboo'.

We now have:

Senchiku – absolutely no ji
Jimori – just a little bit of ji ‘added’
Jinuri/jiari – absolutely full of ji  [I prefer jinuri to jiari; the former sounds better grammatically, but take your pick.]
Jinashi – we all know what this means. It could be either senchiku or jimori, but not jinuri.

If this degree of accuracy isn't important, then neither is the degree of accuracy inherent in the term 'jimori'.

Yet, even with the inclusion of senchiku into our vocabulary, there are still some problems.

If jimori designates an important difference in degree or method of fine-tuning an instrument, what should we call a shakuhachi that is exactly half way between a jimori flute and a jinuri flute? How about zasshu (雑種) [polite for 'half breed']?

But then, as these differences in fine-tuning are important, what shall we call a flute that is exactly half way between a jimori and a zasshu?

4) But seriously, at what point is a flute no longer a jimori and has becomes a jinuri? Also, how would we measure this?

I sincerely look forward to answers to my queries.

Last edited by Riley Lee (2009-05-05 08:50:29)

I just want everybody to know:

Just because we archived the Zen forums doesn't mean that we will archive the Jinashi forum if everyone acts up.

edosan wrote:

I think all this could be summed up nicely, and obviated as an issue, especially in your case Riley, by just calling yourself a
'ji-whillikers' player, neh?

If it sounds good, please send me one!

Though I am disappointed that my queries have yet to be addressed, I do admire the consistency and thoroughness with which the Powers That Be have applied their changes!

I suggest however, that instead of baseball references, cricket terms be used to substitute the words that were in, for example the following original:

S-e-n-c-h-i-k-u – absolutely no j-i
J-i-m-o-r-i – just a little bit of j-i ‘added’
J-i-n-u-r-i/j-i-n-a-s-h-i – absolutely full of j-i  [I prefer j-i-n-u-r-i to j-i-n-a-s-h-i; the former sounds better grammatically, but take your pick.]
J-i-n-a-s-h-i – we all know what this means. It could be either s-e-n-c-h-i-k-u or j-i-m-o-r-i, but not j-i-n-u-r-i.

Cricket is a far more universal sport than baseball.

Furthermore, I would have thought that at least one of the PTB would have been more mindful of his newly adopted country's status as #1 cricket team, having achieved this rank through a truly world series of matches, in contrast to baseball's so called 'world' series.

I still live in hope that my questions might be answered, though. Seriously!

Last edited by Riley Lee (2009-05-05 14:57:08)

Riley Lee wrote:

I still live in hope that my questions might be answered, though. Seriously!

That may take a real hat trick, old bean.

chikuzen wrote:

What happened to living with the gray?  I think new terms are good if they provide a common vocabulary. But now we'll need to take a vote and a process that enables us to do so. That would be a first on the forum. What fun!
.

I have discussed w/Ken about adding polls to the forum. We don't have that capability at this time, but many forums have polling options. We sort of decided it would create a circus atmosphere and give the troublemakers another tool to wreak havoc. What do you think?

Just my 2 cents...

Most non shakuhachi people say, "Shakuwhat?".

The term, Japanese bamboo flute works better.

P.S. If you don't say it quick enough they will just call it a Didgeridoo and walk away.

edosan wrote:

What troublemakers?

[FWIW, I dislike the idea.]

Yeah we're not gonna do it.

Who are the troublemakers? Ha. Some people who are suffering from an identity crisis. Don't know what race or nationality they are. Also lacking filter between brain and keypad.

Riley Lee wrote:

I sincerely look forward to answers to my queries.

Riley,

I suspect you are waiting for my answers... but I can't answer - I didn't read your post till the end.
With all respect... you have stated your opinions. Fine. If there are terms you don't like, you are free not to use them.

You know as much as I, that the organological definition of a shakuhachi is a 'Japanese, vertical, notched, oblique bamboo flute'. Do we use this each time we say what we play? No, we play shakuahchi.
Meanwhile, those who find the knowledge of certain words useful will continue to use them when it is appropriate.

When performing I usually write/say I play shakuhachi.

End of history - as my Xenmeister says.
Now, let's all blow!"

Kiku, I’m not trying to express my opinions. I’m trying to point out what I perceive to be inconsistencies with both your definitions and the way in which they are used.

My questions are asked in the spirit of the questions that were, for example, asked of me when defending my PhD thesis. My examiners weren’t trying to express their opinions, nor were they really trying to destroy my thesis or change my opinion. They were trying to help clarify bits that were fuzzy.

As an academic-in-training, you are aware of the need for precise definitions. The definitions can be anything you want, but you should be able to defend them. Also, once defined, the terms must be used consistently. Even good definitions fail if used illogically or inconsistently.

Finally, may I suggest that blowing away a questioner or trying to curtail a discussion with statements such as, ‘end of history, now let’s all blow’ is not in the spirit of this Forum. I think that we’re all here because we enjoy discussing shakuhachi things when we aren’t playing them.

Lorka,
I fear that you have not understood who is saying what in this conversation. Also, this issue hasn’t been resurrected because it never died. Let me explain, to save you the trouble of reading earlier posts.

I am the one who thinks it best to simply say Shakuhachi and leave it at that. I have always argued against the term jimori, and don’t even use jinashi, jinuri or jiari, in contrast to Kiku who uses the term jinashi regularly (see below) and pretty much introduced the terms jimori and jiari to this Forum.

My suggested additions to the growing list of terms were in part satirical and in part an attempt to help clarify fuzzy bits. I am growing quite fond of 'senchiku'; it does help clarify the other terms.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that using terms like jimori and senchiku is, in your words, a showing off of shiny terminology in an absurb, uppity manner going beyond reasonable into silly land. But I certainly do appreciate your hyperbole.    :-)

Words like jinashi, jimori, etc. may have their use, though I prefer not to use them personally. I am merely asking about what I see as problems with the way they are being used by others.

Kiku,
Your statement, “When performing I usually write/say I play shakuhachi”, really has me baffled. I think you need to explain but a few examples (see below) to the contrary, written for the general public.

From http://www.mujitsu.com/concert.html:
“Kiku Day  is a ji-nashi shakuhachi player from Copenhagen, Denmark with roots from....”

From http://www.shakuhachisummer-soas.com/teachers.html:
“Kiku Day (Zensabô ji-nashi honkyoku and improvisation)
Kiku Day is a ji-nashi shakuhachi player from Denmark with roots from....[and] spent over ten years in Tokyo studying honkyoku on ji-nashi shakuhachi under Okuda, Atsuya.”
“...Kiku is currently...exploring the possibilities of playing the ji-nashi shakuhachi in contemporary music.” End quote.

Kiku, you have an agenda, which was unambiguously expressed in an announcement of your 26 March 2009 concert at the Southbank Centre. I think it appropriate to quote extensively from that announcement:

Begin quote.
“Kiku Day is a jinashi shakuhachi player. The shakuhachi went through a series of ‘improvements’ after Japan opened up for the outside world in the latter half of the 19th century and was influenced by especially Western music. During the process of building a new modern country, the Fuke sect of Zen Buddhism – the members of which were shakuhachi playing mendicant monks komuso – was abolished. Ensemble music was favoured over the Buddhist solo repertoire. Shakuhachi makers experimented creating modern shakuhachi tuned to Western pitch, having a larger volume and a ‘purer’ sound like a flute. The old shakuhachi was marginalized in the mainstream of traditional music world and only eccentric amateurs were thought as players of this instrument. It has enjoyed a revival of interest in the last 5-10 years – mostly by non-Japanese players. Kiku believes the complex timbre with noise elements of the old shakuhachi has potentials in new music and is trying to create a repertoire that will place this instrument in the 21st century.”
End quote.
BTW, I didn't dig up any of the above quotes; they were emailed to me.

I could argue against a number of assertions and implications in this last quote, which I think are misleading. But that’s not my objective here.

My point is that you Kiku, prefer jinashi shakuhachi, and you make a point of differentiating what you play (jinashi shakuhachi) with what many others play (shakuhachi) whenever possible, the exception being, it would seem, when it suits you in your comments on this Forum.

It is fine to have an agenda. We all do. If your goal is to increase the awareness of the joys of jinashi shakuhachi and to demonstrate their suitability as a contemporary musical instrument, it is an admirable one. I don’t see the need to be anything but totally honest about it.

I’ve been playing jinashi flutes (using the broad meaning, not the strict ‘senchiku’ meaning) since I bought my first one in 1972, but have never made the distinction that you frequently make. I may have just been keeping it simple for the likes of Lorka and myself, but then again, I may have been inadvertently doing a disservice to the jinashi concept.

If, on the other hand, your agenda is to suggest that jinashi shakuhachi are not just different to other shakuhachi, but are actually superior, then of course, you are free to do so, but you may find resistance from many camps. I know you keep saying in this forum that you are not doing this. It just that frequently, it appears that you are.

Summary:
Be prepared to ‘defend’ your ideas, in a friendly, scholarly or Socratic sense of the word. Don’t brush off questions with statements about opinion, or implications of ‘like it or leave it’. By defending your ideas, they might either become stronger or change for the better.

Inconsistencies in both the definitions used in this Forum, and in the use of the terms themselves, need sorting out. I have previously described what I think these inconsistencies are.

I still look forward to a considered response, not only to this posting, but to my previous questions.
PS Forgive my ignorance, what is zensabô?

I don't know very much at all about the shakuhachi having taken up the habit only 1 month ago and this is simply my personal opinion but why not ask/consult with the traditional owners of the instrument. It's their instrument, their tradition. That's what we do in Aboriginal Australia (or at least we're meant to anyway). Respect and empowerment to the tradition. Besides they might have the answers.

Tairaku wrote:

You can learn about an instrument from people in the culture that originated it, but thank God, Buddha, Mohammed, Virgin Mary, Zeus, the Great Spirit and the Pope that nobody "owns" an instrument. Music would be much poorer for that. Music and instruments have no boundaries.

Actually it's an 'expression' used by ethnomusicologists, anthropologists etc. As in 'the traditional owners of the land', 'the traditional owners of the instrument', 'the traditional owners of the ceremony', 'the traditional owners of the language' etc.

Owners - Custodians

It doesn't refer to them owning the thing and now no one else can use it (although sometimes it can), it's not that type of 'own'.....the other one. The one that means 'the people who came up with the thing in the first place'.

Not quite sure about "Music and instruments have no boundaries". I know what you mean though, and I for one wish that I was free to learn some of the sacred Australian Aboriginal ceremonial songs, but.......I can't! And I'm certainly not going to infringe on that one. It's a boundary I can't cross! There are others.

Riley,

As the jinashi moderator I will now try to clear up what is so confusing for you.

First of all. These terms are not my inventions! I am not defining them personally. I am translating the definitions.

Jinashi shakuhachi (地なし尺八) = literally: Shakuhachi without ji (used about shakuhachi where the material is only bamboo)
Jimori shakuhachi (地盛り尺八) = literally: Shakuhachi with ji added/filled (used about shakuhachi where there is some ji in the bore but not a whole bore built up with ji)
Jinuri shakuhachi (地塗りり尺八) = literally: Shakuhachi with ji coating (used about shakuhachi where the whole bore is built up with ji)

They couldn't be more clearly defined and they are very consistently used.
I think the only person being inconsistent is you because you want jinashi to mean something else than it does and react emotionally.

Do call/write Simura or Tukitani if these terms are too difficult for you to understand. They were the people who told me how to use them in the first place! I am sure they can explain so you understand the definitions and how consistent they are.

I remember from your posts a long time ago you wanted to know how many dabs of ji before they are jimori. Let me turn the questions around. You want only two words to exist: jinashi for shakuhachi without and with some ji added. Jinuri/jiari for shakuhachi where the bore is built up with ji . So, how many grams of ji before they will no longer be a jinashi but a jinuri?
Exactly the same problem.
The way Simura explained the word jimori was that if there is one dab of ji added, that is it - it is jimori. But as I didn't in particular feel this was a provocative statement, I did not ask pedantic questions about how many grams...
So - again just trying to clarify a word I have no investment in - I guess down to dictionary-like definitions of this jimori, a dab of ji disqualifies it from jinashi. But this is not in particularly my personal opinion that it should be like that because I don't have emotions involved in whether this is correct or not. Please do understand this difference.

What was inconsistent were that in discussions earlier - perhaps you haven't read the posts - people began defining hotchiku as one category of tuning method, jinashi as another, kyotaku as a third etc. There seem to be a need of defining the difference between a shakuahchi with no ji added, some ji added and ji in the bore. That need is not something I have created. There were several people coming up with their own definitions and people were expressing their confusion. For example hotchiku needed to be long and wide. What is long and wide? How long and how wide before they are no longer a shakuhachi?
After all it is much simpler to say they are all shakuhachi - and the terms above express the method of tuning.
People can call their shakuhachi - making the affiliations they want freely, of course, but using hotchiku or kyotaku as one particular category or instrument is difficult and inconsistent because there is nothing that makes them distinct from a shakuhachi and the rules that defined them were - something people randomly came up with.

Nothing more! We all play shakuhachi!

Riley Lee wrote:

My point is that you Kiku, prefer jinashi shakuhachi, and you make a point of differentiating what you play (jinashi shakuhachi) with what many others play (shakuhachi) whenever possible, the exception being, it would seem, when it suits you in your comments on this Forum.

Riley, as a shakuhachi player, you are very well aware of that most of our activities as a shakuhachi player is not done behind a computer screen - nor promoting ourselves on the net. The vast majority of time we spend in solitude playing and practicing. Next - we spend a fair amount of time doing little gigs here and there. Local concert halls, Japanese societies etc. When I play at thse places I most of the time say/write I play shakuhachi! It is not because you and your friends can dig out quotes from the net that I am only saying shakuhachi when it suits me on the forum. Most of my life is spent outside the forum and most of the time it is not necessary to specify which type of shakuhachi I play. If I told my closest friends that I do no longer play shakuhachi but jinashi shakuhachi, they would say something like 'That's a pity. You played the shakuhachi so nicely'. The vast majority of time I only use the term shakuhachi - as I mentioned in my previous post.

BUT here on the forum I am the jinashi moderator. So, of course the majority of my posts are about jinashi. It is when there are discussion in this forum I feel I have a responsibility to write and answer people's queries. I also write about other things - if you look around. I also present myself as a jinashi shakuhachi player - but unlike Nishimura Koku and Watazumi Doso - I am certainly also 'just' a shakuhachi palyer. If you look carefully around through my posts here on the forum - most of the time I do write shakuhachi here as well - unless it is a discussion about jinashi.

I prefer jinashi shakuhachi when I am talking about what I like to play personaly. And let me again say that this is solely due to its sonority! This, I have never hidden that from the public! I love the jinuri shakuhachi just as much as I love the piano.

As you suggested yourself:

Riley Lee wrote:

2) If that sounds cumbersome, then why not just use the simple term, 'shakuhachi' to describe our instrument to the non-shakuhachi playing public at large? I have always wondered why this single term is not adequate. We all know that even the single word "shakuhachi" is a pain to pronounce for nearly everyone.

That is exactly what I do - like most other players! But as I do play this type of shakuahchi called jinashi shakuhachi - I would appreciate the freedom of expression to be able to say that when I find it necessary to make a distinction.

When I am doing a concert such as the one in Purcell Room, yes this one was all about playing new music for jinashi shakuhachi, so of course I say that - especially here on the forum or on my own website where there will be contact with other shakuhachi players. If you had been in England - all the public material such as announcements in papers, journals etc only the word shakuhachi was used. In the headline I even just said Zen Flute.... trying to make it slightly broader towards an audience who wouldn't know what a shakuhachi is.

You see this as inconsistency?
Not more than you say /write you play shakuhachi and some of them are Shugetsu jinashi/jimori.

Therefore try to understand it this way:
You say you play shakuhachi even though you also play Shugetsu jinashi/jimori. Thus you use one word for two types of shakuhachi.

Because I am playing the minority instrument as my main instrument I do use the sub-category when I find it necessary and I use the overall word shakuhachi when I for example play for lay people who do not care about sub-categories.
Thus, yes I say I play jinashi even though I have since autumn 2007 got a Shugetsu jimori and perhaps my taimu is a jimori as well. That is pretty much the same as you: I use one word for these two categories of shakuhachi - although I have only played jimori in concert 4 times so far.
I don't play jinuri shakuhachi. I have nothing against them - but I can't play them well - they are too different and I have no desire in learning to play jinuri right. But I still say I play shakuahchi most of the time because I think they are all shakuhachi.

When I write bios such as on my website - OR as in the quote you have from the London Summer School 2006 where I was teaching a certain style of shakuhachi and the students were to choose which lessons they wanted to take, and therefore needed information about what I was teaching - yes I do write jinashi shakuhachi. I do not hide that my speciality is jinashi shakuhachi! Just as you do not write 'Riley Lee is a shakuhachi and jinashi shakuhachi player' since you do play Shugetsu jinashi since 1970s - I also write/say at most of my gigs that I play shakuhachi. Here we are doing the same and we are just as inconsistent - I must admit, I like that - otherwise life would be way too complicated.

Several people said last time you had your round of jinashi/jimori frustrations that we are in reality saying the same. On the whole, we both agree that we are playing shakuhachi and the rest are sub-categories. I think everybody here on the forum now understands you find the use of the subcategory jinashi very provocative. That must be your agenda.

Riley Lee wrote:

It is fine to have an agenda. We all do. If your goal is to increase the awareness of the joys of jinashi shakuhachi and to demonstrate their suitability as a contemporary musical instrument, it is an admirable one. I don’t see the need to be anything but totally honest about it.

I think I am very honest about that I work for the awareness and growth of jinashi shakuhachi. My whole PhD thesis is about placing this instrument in the 21st century instead of playing it as a exotic tool of ancient Japan. Therefore I also came with the three disputed terms to clarify confusion about hotchiku, kyotaku, jinashi, semi-jinashi, jinashi-fuu, jinuri, jitsuki, jiari etc.

The jinashi shakuhachi has destinct characters in the sound that I love and believe it is a contemporary instrument of today. I am researching into the different types of jinashi created. Wow, it is great to see how creative makers find new methods to make the bamboo sound the way they like. It is wonderful and a privilege to follow that creativity closely. jimori is one method used more and more and there are wonderful jimori out there.

On the other hand it seem like you have an agenda where jianshi shakuhachi really makes you blood boil and thereby block for your understanding of what many can see immediately: We both use the word shakuhachi because we both play the shakuhachi. But yes, my speciality is jinashi - which is a minority group within shakuhachi. That is why I use both words when describing what I do.

Riley Lee wrote:

If, on the other hand, your agenda is to suggest that jinashi shakuhachi are not just different to other shakuhachi, but are actually superior, then of course, you are free to do so, but you may find resistance from many camps. I know you keep saying in this forum that you are not doing this. It just that frequently, it appears that you are.

The superiority thing is YOUR agenda! I have never written and have never thought jinashi was superior to anything else - which I have written again and again because you seem to have hang-ups on this. You must feel extremely insecure and threatened by jinashi shakuhachi for some reason. A few days ago you were accusing me of saying that jimori is inferior. Now it is jinashi being superior of all shakuahchi types including jinuri. What is YOUR agenda? Some consistency in your critique would be appreciated and especially if the critique were not based solely on emotions.
As I have written before, I have chosen jinashi as my instrument solely due to its sound that appeals to me personally. I would not have chosen jinuri as my instrument - just as I have not chosen saxophone as my instrument. I still enjoy listening to saxophones and jinuri shakuhachi. They are both just not my instrument.

If you had quotes where I write jinashi is better than jinuri and jimori the subject whether I have an agenda not not would be far more discussable than an emotional man saying 'it appear that you are'. You want consistency and clarity. Your critique could not be less clear!
If you have more questions I hope this time you will base them on facts and not 'something in the air'.
I myself have many other things to do.