Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

radi0gnome · 2009-05-15 13:36:11

Does it bother anyone that if they bought a flute without any ji, and then brought it to a repairman who said it would play better with just a little dab of ji in the right place and had the repair made, that you now have a different kind of flute? For that reason I think a classification system where jinashi, jimori, hocchiku, and similar instruments fall under a jinashi umbrella, and both jinashi and jiari fall under the shakuhachi umbrella may be suitable. It seems like that's what they did in zoology where there are different kinds of a particular species that may fall under the same genus and whatever other classes they have above.

Last edited by radi0gnome (2009-05-15 13:37:34)

dust · 2009-05-15 16:09:07

Here's an interesting description from a seller in Tokyo on ebay...

* The inside of this shakuhachi was lacqured in Japan black.
* The inside is not polished. (Jinashi)
* Shakuhachi; a vertical bamboo flute (with four holes in front and one in back)]

Jeff Cairns · 2009-05-15 20:24:21

With all the greyness here, it's interesting that we persist at all in attempting to justify construction method terminology, as imprecise as it has proven to be as a means of conclusively defining an instrument, as the terminology that we should use in discourse of anything other than explaining how an instrument was made. Not to open a can of worms, but it seems that we would do better to focus on words that are adopted to explain sound quality when we are talking of sound quality and leave the means of achieving sound quality to discussions of that. Though it has been pointed out that there is a tendency for certain construction methods to be represented by certain sound qualities, it has also been aptly observed that those qualities aren't always achieved by those methods and indeed may be achieved by construction methods that are attributed to other methods that are anywhere from a slight variation to absolutely different. In fact, sound quality as tone or 'neiro' (音色) to use the Japanese word, is usually attributed to the person and not to the instrument when generally perceived, though we all know that the instrument plays a huge role (in truth, at least to date, one cannot be separated from the other.)
I would like to propose that terms like jinashi, hotchiku, kyotaku, jimori, jinuri, jiari, senchiku, etc. be used only to explain construction techniques and avoided when talking about quality of sound generated as defining terms. As such, each of the terms listed above can be accepted on their own and without interpretation in that context. When sound quality is the topic of discussion, terms that suggest sound quality should be used without the emotional investment, confusion and dispute found in the above terms. For example, 'dark and woody with a tantalizing hint of wispy frivolity in the upper end' might be much better than 'jinashi' to verbally convey a sound quality. From here, we can discuss what those terms might be and why. Needless to say, such discussions would probably best not be done in this part of the forum.

Daniel Ryudo · 2009-05-16 04:52:25

With regard to further greyness, I attended a rehearsal with twelve or thirteen Japanese shakuhachi players, all with a shihan menkyo (license) and members of Kochi's Sankyoku Kyokai (traditional Japanese music association) earlier this afternoon. The former head of the prefecture's Sankyoku Kyokai, a shakuhachi teacher named Morio, did some research on the terms jimori and jinashi as well as asking other players some questions and he and several other players say that the term jimori when it is used in Japan is equivalent to jinuri, that yes, there are differences in the ways of applying ji according to shakuhachi maker, but the standard shakuhachi (filled with ji) is often referred to as a jimori kan. He also stated that Japanese do not use the term jiari as a type of shakuhachi, but only when describing if a flute has ji or not. Jinuri is the more common term, but nuri or nuru is also usually used as a verb, and jimori is the more commonly used term among Japanese players when describing what on the forum is referred to/classified as a jiari flute. To repeat, the term jinuri is used but jimori is the more common term in describing what we've been referring to here on the forum as a jiari flute; there is no difference, according to the players I talked with.

Many of the players here don't know the term jimori, however; they just know shakuhachi and jinashi. Another player mentioned that in the past when ji was first being introduced into flutes perhaps they made more of a distinction, using terms like ji o moru (to dab in ji) or jimori as opposed to jinashi but nowadays as over 90% of the flutes being played have ji in them, the most common distinction is just "futsu" (usual) and jinashi, so it would seem that the term jimori as defined in the sticky at the beginning of this thread has little or no basis in reality in Japan, and is just an arbitrary definition, as Riley Lee pointed out in his last post. According to the players I talked with today, in Japan the term jimori equals jinuri and jiari -- though this last term is not commonly used in Japan to define a type of shakuhachi. If jimori equals jinuri then it looks like we are back to two types of flutes. Of course we can make up more arbitrary definitions but it is probably better to use terms that aren't commonly used to mean something else.

Last edited by Daniel Ryudo (2009-05-16 04:57:07)

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-16 17:45:10

Thanks Daniel, that's an interesting report from the front lines.

What I say next is not intended as a criticism of your post, but is a commentary on this topic in general.

It seems like we've got a situation where as Riley says "common usage" and the actual descriptive language differ. But I think this stuff about terminology is more interesting from a language point of view than from a musical one. And this is a musical forum.

On this forum we are almost all not Japanese players. They have not been excluded, but they don't belong to this forum probably due to a couple of factors primarily language and the fact that they don't like to write about shakuhachi even in Japanese.

I'm kind of bored with the "in Japan they think" and "in Japan most people say" approach because if we went along with that we'd:

1. Belong to the Tozan ryu
2. Use Tozan notation.
3. Play nothing but 1.8
4. Even if we belonged to something other than Tozan ryu, play nothing but 1.8
5. Play modern flutes
6. Avoid jinashi flutes and not even know they exist.
7. Be Japanese. (This is not easy to do if we are not Japanese).

Etc.

If we go along with majority Japanese shakuhachi thinking most of us wouldn't even be doing what we actually do. If all Japanese players got in line with what the majority of them think there would be no Kinko Ryu, Myoan, or any of the other smaller groups. Majority rules is a bad course of action in music. This stands in any style of music, not just shakuhachi. Luckily there are some Japanese players who go their own way regardless of what the majority do or think.

While many here insist we should toe the Japanese line, it's interesting that the vast majority of Western shakuhachi activity does not reflect what goes on in Japan.

In some ways that's good. For example Kinko, Myoan, Jin Nyodo, Watazumi/Yokoyama, Chikuho and other niche styles are heavily weighted in the West compared to their status in Japan, which is negligible.

In other ways it's bad, for example the fact that we seldom have the opportunity or commercial prospect of playing with koto or shamisen players due to lack of such and no demand for this kind of gig. But that's more the result of a lack of string players than any fault of the Western shakuhachi community.

Maybe we should develop clear Western terms for shakuhachi related concepts instead of attempting to rely upon vague, ambiguous and misinterpreted Japanese terms. I am also somewhat bored with statements such as "this type of shakuhachi could be translated as either 'with only a small amount of ji' or 'blowjob'". The stuff Daniel brought up in the above post shows that even jiari and jinashi are confusing terms. I thought for a while we were only debating "jimori". Who needs it? If the Japanese language can't define things clearly let's use English. Or Italian, that's a nice language for music.

Time to move on.

Riley Lee · 2009-05-16 23:30:55

Tairaku wrote:
Time to move on.

We might all move on, but #1 Sticky will stay stuck there forever in all its glory. As long as it remains, this topic remains open.... That sounds like a threat, but it isn't. Just an observation.

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-17 07:22:06

Riley Lee wrote:
Tairaku wrote:
Time to move on.
We might all move on, but #1 Sticky will stay stuck there forever in all its glory. As long as it remains, this topic remains open.... That sounds like a threat, but it isn't. Just an observation.

Riley, I posted your definitions as a sticky. That is the meaning of rock.

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-17 17:10:58

I was sort of letting this debate play itself out, but I suppose I may as well add my personal opinion on this matter.

The issue of whether or not "jimori" or "ji mori" is a needed term or whether we should just lump jimori flutes in with jinashi because "who cares" or "Japanese do", I suppose is up to the individual. Clearly people like Riley (a player) and Justin (despite being a maker as well) don't think there is a need. Kiku (following the lead of her Ph.D. advisor Simura) needs the term to describe flutes in her academic pursuits.

I VERY FREQUENTLY need and use some kind of terminology for "shakuhachi which is mainly jinashi but has some ji inside for tuning". I used to call these "semi-jinashi" before I was introduced to the term "ji mori". Now I would use the term "ji mori" most of the time for these flutes.

The reasons I need this term can be broken down into three categories:

1. As a flute collector and dealer I need to have a descriptor for these kinds of flutes so I know what I'm getting and my customers know what they're getting. For example I got an email yesterday from David Sawyer about a flute and he said, " mostly made by subtraction, with ji nearer the end". I understood what he meant, but if he said "ji mori" I would have also understood that to mean the same thing. I recently got another email from Chikuzen Gould where he said, "I got a jinashi flute from Shugetsu but I sent it back to him for tuning, now it's jimori." I'm always talking about this stuff with people.

2. Talking with makers. We always discuss "jiari", "jinashi" and then there are many ways we discuss the "ji mori" or "flutes with a bit of ji" concept. It would be useful in these cases to have a word for it.

3. As a player. A lot of times people ask me whether the instruments I am using are jinashi or jiari. In the cases where they are ji mori I say that, or use some other terminology to get the idea across.

So in my daily shakuhachi life there are numerous interactions where the concept of a flute with some ji in the bore is discussed and it would be pedantic and misleading for me to insist on either calling them "jiari" or "jinashi" and not use some intermediate description.

Maybe that word is "ji mori". If not I still need some way to describe them. One thing that has become abundantly clear in this little debate is that every Japanese word is misleading, unclear and subject to numerous contradictory definitions. Also the same word seems like it can be written different ways which then opens it up to further confusion. But guess what? I've made a conscious decision in my life that I don't want to learn Japanese (would rather become more fluent in Italian if I have the time for language studies) and never want to live in Japan. So I would just like to have a word which is generally accepted for "flute which is mainly jinashi but has some ji." Obviously if we want to be argumentative those of us who know a little Japanese or a lot can tear apart any Japanese term or word, because apparently none have concise definitions. At least that's what I'm taking away from this debate, linguists correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe "unagi" just means "freshwater eel" but it probably also means "small car" or "empty toilet paper roll" and perhaps has regional variations as well. Probably also some sexual connotation.

Now to get on to the debate about "Sticky #1".

Kiku agreed to be the "Ji-nashi" forum moderator. We were getting a lot of posts on the subject so we decided to group them under one heading. Ken and I did not discuss amongst ourselves what people in Japan would do or think about this, because we don't care. He makes jinashi flutes and I play them, so it's meaningful to us, that's enough. One of the issues which was repeatedly brought up by forum members was "what is jinashi" and also whether there's any difference between jinashi and such things as Hocchiku and "Kyotaku". Some debates ensued including an emotional outburst from one of Nishimura's followers who didn't like the fact that we said Kyotaku were jinashi. He couldn't back up the claim that they were somehow different. Anyway most of the discussions were civil. But Kiku wrote the now infamous "Sticky #1" which has now been debated and dissected.

As the administrator of the forum I'm not going to edit that post. We only edit or delete posts which break the forum rules. Making statements that somebody might disagree with does not break the forum rules, or we'd have to delete 95% of the posts and our forum would start to look puny. If Kiku wants to edit her own post that's up to her.

Now I've posted Riley's modified definitions as an alternative viewpoint, although there is still a bit of confusion there, with the word "senchiku". I don't think that's a common term, so it's up for debate whether that should become codified.

So in terms of the issues Riley posed, I disagree that "ji mori" or at least some terminology for that kind of flute is unnecessary. Especially if that's based on the idea that we must go along with what random Japanese people say. It has been proven to my satisfaction that some Japanese use the term "ji mori" and some don't. That's a fact. I'll make up my own mind about whether it's useful to me rather than defer to some associates of Justin, Kiku, Daniel or Riley who I have never even met. Race does not enter into it except insofar as the language is Japanese. I am not in the habit of deferring to people based on their race. Anyway aside from Simura who uses the term professionally I consider most of the statements in this regard to be anecdotal. Interesting but not definitive. I do agree with Riley that when Kiku says jimori are "reasonably priced, well-tuned alternatives’ to jinashi flutes" that's wrong. It's confusing to bring commercial stuff into the definition. Anyway that's not correct because there are plenty of jimori flutes made by Yamaguchi Shiro and Araki Chikuo among others which are none of that. Furthermore I think ji mori flutes exist on their own merits, not as a compromise instrument. If I was Kiku I'd revise that.

When Riley says," I have had, since the 1970s, several flutes with only a bit of ji in the bottom end of the bamboo, perhaps just like the ones Kiku mentions having seen in #1 Sticky. According to our terminology, they are definitely jimori. These flutes have, in my opinion, the ‘amazing tone qualities’ that have all of us so captivated. I personally like their tone better than almost all jinashi flutes I’ve played or heard. Furthermore, they cost far more than any jinashi I’ve ever come across." I disagree with that because there are plenty of jinashi which would be more expensive than those and Riley has seen and played some of them.......at my house. But it really doesn't matter, his point remains. If he's talking about his Gyokusui 2.4 that is truly a kickass flute.

So now I'm going to take the "multiple definition game" to a new low and say let's stop beating a dead horse, which is not literally a dead horse but rather a metaphor and also not describing a game of basketball where each point scored spells out the letters H O R S E until there is a winner. And if any of us "come across" jinashi shakuhachi let's hope it's the definition of shakuhachi which means "bamboo flute" rather than the other one.............. Now I'm going to run. Which in this case does not mean literally "fast biped activity" but instead "get in my car and drive into town".

Justin · 2009-05-17 22:59:27

Tairaku wrote:
I was sort of letting this debate play itself out, but I suppose I may as well add my personal opinion on this matter.

The issue of whether or not "jimori" or "ji mori" is a needed term or whether we should just lump jimori flutes in with jinashi because "who cares" or "Japanese do", I suppose is up to the individual. Clearly people like Riley (a player) and Justin (despite being a maker as well) don't think there is a need.

I don't think I ever said that. I just said that it seems to be a very rare term here in Japan. Daniel's report of it being used to mean the same as jinuri was interesting. Baring that in mind, I have some problem accepting Kiku's statement about the words jinashi, jimori and jinuri and her definitions when saying:

Kiku Day wrote:
They couldn't be more clearly defined and they are very consistently used.

I am also curious about whether the old sources you refer to Kiku refer to "jimori", to describe a type of instrument, or "ji o moru", to describe a making process. Daniel mentioned that, and seems to be saying that the term ji o moru is commonly used to describe the process of making jinuri shakuhachi. I'm also curious about what definition the term had if it did occur.

Anyway, those questions I pose are not to argue against but out of general interest and background knowledge on the term. The way that Shimura is using it, as Kiku has explained, seems quite clear and I don't have a problem with it. I do agree though with Riley that there is no clear line between jimori and jinuri as far as I can tell - that would seem a definite grey area and that it would be subjective to classify such grey area shakuhachi as being under either one or the other category. But that is not necessarily a problem, just an illustration that however much one tries to classify, the natural world rarely fits neatly into categories.

The term I personally had the most trouble with was "jinashi", and Kiku insisting that it means shakuhachi with absolutely no ji, and that this definition is "very consistently used". The sticky presents the definition as THE definition, i.e. what it means in Japan. But Riley's, Daniel's and my own experience contradict that. At the very least, that shows that Kiku's definition is not consistently used in Japan. It may be consistently used by a few shakuhachi people.

Kiku, if you are not happy with this definition:

"Jinashi - Literally meaning "without ji", this term is used to describe shakuhachi with little or no ji."

If you really disagree with that, then perhaps you could include both views, like this:

"Jinashi - Literally meaning "without ji", this term is used by some people to describe shakuhachi with little or no ji, and by some people to describe only shakuhachi with no ji."

The reason why it may be necessary to include "shakuhachi with little or no ji" in the definition, is because that is what it means to at least a large portion of the shakuhachi community, if not the majority. Therefore omitting that definition would seem to be deliberate and misinforming. That was my problem with this issue, and has been for a few years already. So I am glad that it is being discussed properly now.

As for being ao contradiction, I see no contradiction. People have said that jinashi means "no ji" so how can you call a shakuhachi jinashi if it has ji? To take an example, you may that "that person has no fat on them". If they really had no fat in their bodies they would be dead. but we all know what is meant.

Jinashi is a term to describe a minority shakuhachi, to differentiate it from the common shakuhachi. I am not familiar with the exact history of the birth of the term jinashi (I would be interested to hear about it though). As far as I understand, it arose when the common shakuhachi was made with ji all along the bore, what we call jinuri now. If there are a minority group of shakuhachi being made with no or little ji, and also the shakuhachi from past generations, with no or little ji (for example some Edo period shakuhachi had just a little ji in the bottom), then, looking at these, a distinctive feature is that the bore is not coated in ji all along. That difference is far more distinctive that the difference between a shakuhachi with no ji, and a shakuhachi with a tiny bit of ji. The main distinctive part would be the fact that you can see the distinct chambers inside the shakuhachi, the sections of the bamboo. So, as a relative term comparing them to shakuhachi with ji all along the bore, where you cannot see the chambers inside the bamboo, "jinashi" is a good term. Even if the shakuhachi has a small amount if ji, relative to the regular (jinuri) shakuhachi, their distinguishing feature is still their lack of ji. So, "jinashi".

Why is their a need to classify further? It appears it may be either the demands of University research, and/or the wish for the minority to subdivide itself, i.e. some members of the jinashi community to further subdivide the classification of their instruments. Or, perhaps, players of shakuhachi with "no ji" wanting to distinguish themselves or their instruments from shakuhachi with "just a little ji". If the latter is the case, if they wish the term jinashi to apply only to their "no ji" shakuhachi, it might seem as if they are trying to hijack the term! On the other hand if the former is the case, Riley tells us that scholars are free to define terms arbitrarily, but the problem may arise when they redefine a term, and then tell us that their new definition is actually the "common usage" definition. I am not an expert in the matter, but this seems like what may be happening here.

In conclusion, concerning the sticky, the terms jinuri and jimori seem fine, just the definition of jinashi seems incorrect. Kiku, if you still insist your definition is correct and don't want to include the definition being "with little or no ji", I think you should at least explain the context of your definitions, for example "The following are definitions used at Osaka University", or whatever. Also when you write in your sticky:

Kiku Day wrote:
I really feel that the use of terms in this way as I have seen it:

• Ji-nashi to describe shakuhachi with a little ji added

is wrong!

you could perhaps explain that although you personally feel it is wrong, it is actually common (if not dominant) for those shakuhachi to be described as jinashi, in Japan. As it is written in your sticky, it gives the impression that you see some foreigners describing shakuhachi with a little ji in them as jinashi, and that they are wrong because they do not know how the terms are used in Japan. Whether or not you feel common usage is wrong, people should know what common usage is. That only aids bridging the Japan - overseas shakuhachi communities, helping mutual understanding and communication. Whereas, having the overseas community unaware of Japanese usage of the terms, and believing a different definition to be the only one, could work against that and cause misunderstandings.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Last edited by Justin (2009-05-18 22:47:17)

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-17 23:57:28

So Justin,

If I go to your website and want to buy a flute from you, I might ask you what kind of flute it is. If it is totally without ji you will tell me jinashi. If it is ji mori you will also tell me "jinashi" because that's what Japanese people you know would say? Then I don't get the correct information unless you add something else like "but I used a bit of ji in the bottom half." Wouldn't it just be easier to say "ji mori"? That's why a term like that is useful.

There are other words used to describe shakuhachi such as "nobe". Maybe most Japanese people don't care how many pieces a flute comes in, but some people do, so we use those terms.

Let's face it most Japanese people don't even recognize a shakuhachi when they see it. I know this for a fact because they come in here at Chado and ask me what it is. I wouldn't take their opinion about it very seriously just because they are Japanese.

BR

Horst Xenmeister · 2009-05-18 07:46:23

Vary imprortanting when mak wurst puting correct thing inside. Good pig, spice and intestines if the sausage only. Bad sausages, hunderfleisch, insekte bone und haar.

Simlar with Shakuhachi vary imprortanting puting corect things inside.

1. Jinshi gut
2. Ji moru OK
3. Jiari beter
4. Casted form in quality of beter-BEST WAY! Most naturally. This is develepment of shakuhachi to modernen world.

End of history.

Last edited by Horst Xenmeister (2009-05-18 07:48:13)

No-sword · 2009-05-18 08:29:02

Come on, I think it's pretty obvious that Justin is talking about Japanese people who know a thing or two about shakuhachi, not random dudes on the street. And I don't see anyone here making arguments based on race; that's a really weird thing to bring up.

What people are arguing for is convenience. You can "make up your own mind" and refuse to "defer" to people's anecdotal evidence all you like, -- but unless the person you're talking to has read this thread, you're still going to have to ask "So, does that jinashi actually have ji in it or what?" (And if they're Japanese, the answer might well be "Yeah, just a little," apparently... at least until enough English speakers are buying non-jinuri shakuhachi from Japanese makers that the term starts to standardize internationally.)

Imagine if the Japanese blues community decided that the blues had to be about women, and blues-form songs about being broke or other subjects should be called the "purples" instead (or the "reds" if played on electric instruments). Sure, whatever, they have the right to do and play what they want, but you have to admit it would complicate their dealings with blues guitarists elsewhere.

Justin · 2009-05-18 11:34:50

Tairaku wrote:
So Justin,

If I go to your website and want to buy a flute from you, I might ask you what kind of flute it is. If it is totally without ji you will tell me jinashi. If it is ji mori you will also tell me "jinashi" because that's what Japanese people you know would say? Then I don't get the correct information unless you add something else like "but I used a bit of ji in the bottom half." Wouldn't it just be easier to say "ji mori"? That's why a term like that is useful.

Hi Brian
If it were you, I would respond according to how I understand you, and bear in mind what language makes sense to you. I also discuss at length what exactly is required with my customers, which includes the type of shakuhachi and also the repertoire. For shakuhachi with just a tiny bit of ji in them, to foreigners I generally end up telling them "In Japan this is known as "jinashi", but some people in the foreign community use the term jinashi to only mean those with no ji - this one has a tiny bit of ji". That, I tell them so they are not confused by the difference between the way the term is usually used in Japan, in contrast to the way it is defined on this forum, which they may be exposed to. Since they may encounter both uses of the word, I make sure they understand the shakuhachi in question, in light of both uses of the term.

Usually people don't care if there is or isn't a tiny amount of ji. Those who do generally ask directly.

You say wouldn't it be easier to use the term jimori - my reply is that, as I said, I have nothing against the word being used. The reason I generally don't use it is because almost no-one knows the term and would not know what I am talking about. In conversation with Shimura I may use the term though.

But still, the point is, though "jimori" may specify that the shakuhachi definitely has some ji in it, "jinashi" does not specify that the shakuhachi definitely has no ji in it (though it does definitely tell us what type of shakuhachi it is). So you still need to explain further, to convey that information. I can't give you a term for that. In English I might say "this has absolutely no ji in it". I understand that to those people who have such particular interest in shakuhachi with absolutely no ji in them, they may want just one, convenient word to use for that. Riley already pointed out the trouble of appropriating an already existing word (and No-sword made a perfect analogy with "blues"), and suggested instead another word "senchiku". I cannot judge whether this is an appropriate word, but the idea seems sound. If there is a word (or phrase) to be used, I would suggest one which Japanese shakuhachi players would understand, hopefully one which is already in use with that meaning. I would expect there must be a phrase, perhaps a 2 or 3 word expression, which can convey this, no? Anyone?

Tairaku wrote:
Let's face it most Japanese people don't even recognize a shakuhachi when they see it. I know this for a fact because they come in here at Chado and ask me what it is. I wouldn't take their opinion about it very seriously just because they are Japanese.

BR

Brian, the people I was talking about were professional shakuhachi makers, professional teachers and performers, and amateur enthusiasts, of shakuhachi. I think Daniel also mentioned that the numerous people he asked were all qualified shakuhachi masters, some of them high ranking. Riley I also assume has his experience of the usage of the term jinashi from being among numerous professional shakuhachi masters. No-one is talking about non-shakuhachi random Japanese people. We are talking about a word specific to the Japanese shakuhachi community, and the meaning it has in that community.

Last edited by Justin (2009-05-18 11:39:19)

radi0gnome · 2009-05-18 11:54:30

Justin wrote:
Usually people don't care if there is or isn't a tiny amount of ji. Those who do generally ask directly.

What I'm getting from this discussion is that most people don't care about a little ji as long as the flute has a rough bore in the spirit of a typical pure jinashi flute. But that leads me to another question I had back about a year or so, what about flutes with no ji but with a polished bore? I got an answer, I think Kiku's, that such a flute would still be jinashi. However, such a flute would not be fitting the spirit of a jinashi flute.

I'm not sure if there are many of those kind of flutes around, but I know there are some, and while everybody is trying to sort out whether a few dabs of ji changes the kind of flute a rough bore flute is, I think maybe the polished bore "jinashi" should be taken into consideration too.

edosan · 2009-05-18 12:25:08

Yeah! And what about the ones that've had a tiny bit of Ji in them that was then taken out?

Or the ones that had a tiny bit of Ji in them that FELL out?

What about them?

radi0gnome · 2009-05-18 12:37:48

edosan wrote:
Yeah! And what about the ones that've had a tiny bit of Ji in them that was then taken out?

Or the ones that had a tiny bit of Ji in them that FELL out?

What about them?

I know you're being sarcastic, but it does support the argument that both flutes with no ji and flutes with a just a little ji are jinashi.

Justin · 2009-05-18 13:56:25

radi0gnome wrote:
Justin wrote:
Usually people don't care if there is or isn't a tiny amount of ji. Those who do generally ask directly.
What I'm getting from this discussion is that most people don't care about a little ji as long as the flute has a rough bore in the spirit of a typical pure jinashi flute. But that leads me to another question I had back about a year or so, what about flutes with no ji but with a polished bore? I got an answer, I think Kiku's, that such a flute would still be jinashi. However, such a flute would not be fitting the spirit of a jinashi flute.

I'm not sure if there are many of those kind of flutes around, but I know there are some, and while everybody is trying to sort out whether a few dabs of ji changes the kind of flute a rough bore flute is, I think maybe the polished bore "jinashi" should be taken into consideration too.

Some shakuhachi have the nodes totally filled flat, so that they are not protruding at all. But you can still see the different chambers to some extent, and can often still notice the characteristic texture of the bamboo inside. They are still "jinashi". Some people prefer their shakuhachi to have more prominent nodes, but both styles still occurred a long time ago. Perhaps you are refering to that type.

There is another type which is very modern, which is shakuhachi made using gauges, but not using ji. The usual way to make jinuri shakuhachi is with gauges. It seems bizarre to make jinashi with gauges. You would end up with a bore which is probably smooth, and I wonder if this is the type you are referring to. Although this type is I suppose "jinashi", I would not call it jinashi. I have an image of someone roasting tea leaves to become charcoal, then making mixing it with water. Well, yes, it is "tea", but...
I was at a honkyoku meeting once where someone brought some shakuhachi made in that way. no ji, only bamboo, but made using jinuri techniques. Everyone seemed to treat them as a novelty item, but not take them seriously.

I came across another maker who made shakuhachi with gauges, I believe. He called his shakuhachi "jinashi", but they looked like jinuri actually. He said that they had no ji in them. It is possible that they had no ji in them, but incredibly unlikely. From examining them. I would say I was 99% sure they had some kind of filler in them. And the bore was totally cylindrical, which it never is with jinashi, i.e. natural bamboo does not grow like this. And the bore was smooth. My experience of studying many different construction techniques tells me that was due to a jinuri construction technique. I was 99.99% sure that he had used gauges to construct the bore. He was selling them as "jinashi". But then, he also denied using gauges. So, you also have to use your own intelligence sometimes.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Last edited by Justin (2009-05-18 22:46:34)

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-18 17:42:05

A lot of fun discussion.

About the jinashi with smooth bores. I have one from the Edo period which is an excellent flute. The bore is completely smooth. That must have taken a lot of work It's a very nice flute and shows that this method has been around since Edo.

A lot of mention has been made of "one tiny dab of ji" or "a couple of tiny dabs" etc. But there are some excellent flutes which have quite a bit of ji while retaining significant portions of the bamboo wall. In jiari shakuhachi making the goal is to have total control over the bore profile by shaping the entire wall with ji. Jinashi fundamentalists who refuse to add ji work only through subtraction.

The ji-mori method may involve a little ji for tuning or a lot. The threshold is whether the wall remains visible. Some of Yamaguchi Shiro's best flutes are like this. The bore is pitted and rough. They differ from jinashi flutes and also differ from Shiro's full jiari.

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-18 17:52:02

No-sword wrote:
Imagine if the Japanese blues community decided that the blues had to be about women, and blues-form songs about being broke or other subjects should be called the "purples" instead (or the "reds" if played on electric instruments). Sure, whatever, they have the right to do and play what they want, but you have to admit it would complicate their dealings with blues guitarists elsewhere.

You seem to be implying that Westerners made up the term "ji mori" but Kiku said it's a term being used by Simura, who knows enough about the subject of jinashi to have opened up a museum of jinashi instruments in Japan. He's an expert.

I doubt Simura coined the phrase.

Whether or not Joe Blow in the shakuhachi community in Japan uses the phrase does not mean it is undesirable to have a word to describe these flutes. If it's a new thing, it's progress. But I'll admit before I knew the term I just said semi-jinashi and I survived.

No-sword · 2009-05-18 19:59:02

You seem to be implying that Westerners made up the term "ji mori" but Kiku said it's a term being used by Simura, who knows enough about the subject of jinashi to have opened up a museum of jinashi instruments in Japan. He's an expert.

I was unclear, sorry. What I meant was the opposite. It seems like people are confusing two arguments:
- What definitions should be used on the forum
- What definitions the words actually have in the broader shakuhachi community

There doesn't need to be a problem there. We can use Simura (and Kiku)'s academic terminology and still recognize that many players/makers outside the academy use certain words differently or not at all. It doesn't mean that either side is wrong, or that Japanese is too vague, or that we need to (or even could) make up replacement words to apply universally, or anything like that. It's just the standard scholar/practitioner divide you see in every field.

Whether or not Joe Blow in the shakuhachi community in Japan uses the phrase does not mean it is undesirable to have a word to describe these flutes. If it's a new thing, it's progress. But I'll admit before I knew the term I just said semi-jinashi and I survived.

Sure, I'm not anti-progress. I'm just pointing out that trying to force it by overriding the terminology used by the Joe Blows of Japan will have consequences for communication later. (Of course if you think of it as similar to all those honkyoku with the same name but different contents, or vice versa, maybe it's a good thing for communication to get confused. It enriches the culture in a way, even if it does make things tough for outsiders and newbies.)

To be honest I think "semi-jinashi" is a great term: less ambiguous than jimori, understandable even in Japanese, obviously a neologism so likely to start an interesting conversation about what exactly you mean. Then Joe Blow can tell his friends about that weird guy from Tasmania and his bare treetrunk fetish, they can tell theirs, and the words and knowledge spread. Now that's progress!

Reading between the lines, it seems to me that Riley's basic complaint was that the sticky defined certain terms in a way that (a) wasn't consistent with his understanding as an academic and player, and (b) seemed to imply that "less ji = superior" was an objective, universal truth. These are real issues but as far as I can tell they have both been addressed...

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-18 21:18:40

It occurred to me that there's this whole other type of shakuhachi "Cast Bore" which is described that way because it's made differently and some different materials are used. Yet nobody is challenging that appellation nor writing extensive essays about it although some of the same objections could be made. Such as "it's just a shakuhachi, we don't need a special word for that" or "it is jiari, it does not need a new term".

Does anybody know what Japanese shakuhachi people call cast bore instruments? Does it have a specific term?

Justin · 2009-05-18 22:45:42

Tairaku wrote:
No-sword wrote:
Imagine if the Japanese blues community decided that the blues had to be about women, and blues-form songs about being broke or other subjects should be called the "purples" instead (or the "reds" if played on electric instruments). Sure, whatever, they have the right to do and play what they want, but you have to admit it would complicate their dealings with blues guitarists elsewhere.
You seem to be implying that Westerners made up the term "ji mori" but Kiku said it's a term being used by Simura, who knows enough about the subject of jinashi to have opened up a museum of jinashi instruments in Japan. He's an expert.

I doubt Simura coined the phrase.

Whether or not Joe Blow in the shakuhachi community in Japan uses the phrase does not mean it is undesirable to have a word to describe these flutes. If it's a new thing, it's progress. But I'll admit before I knew the term I just said semi-jinashi and I survived.

I was sure he was referring no to the term jimori but the term jinashi. No? It's a perfect analogy. Blues can be about a variety of subjects, but, a Japanese community (in the analogy) could say "blues can only be about women". The analogy being, in Japan jinashi generally refers to shakuhachi with little or no ji, but this small foreign community is defining the term to mean "only those shakuhachi with no ji". A very illustrative analogy. Even if this imaginary Japanese community found it more convenient to classify in this manner, it would hinder communication with the rest of the blues community. Also if they believed that that was the "definition", they might go to blues clubs in the US and believe the blues musicians were not genuine, or lying, or they may get into arguments etc. Or, it might dawn on them that what they were told was not actually true, and that their Japanese community had been wrong, which may shock them or give them a new view of their teachers there, etc. All unnecessary problems. At least, I believe they are unnecessary, and therefore worth me writing about them here, even if it risks having some people get irritated with me. If I were thinking only of myself I would have just kept quiet and kept my friends happy.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-19 00:01:29

Justin wrote:
ety of subjects, but, a Japanese community (in the analogy) could say "blues can only be about women". The analogy being, in Japan jinashi generally refers to shakuhachi with little or no ji, but this small foreign community is defining the term to mean "only those shakuhachi with no ji".

Is Simura part of this "small foreign" thang?

Justin · 2009-05-19 01:18:40

Tairaku wrote:
Justin wrote:
ety of subjects, but, a Japanese community (in the analogy) could say "blues can only be about women". The analogy being, in Japan jinashi generally refers to shakuhachi with little or no ji, but this small foreign community is defining the term to mean "only those shakuhachi with no ji".
Is Simura part of this "small foreign" thang?

No, he is one man in the vast Japanese shakuhachi community. You can probably find one US blues player who says "if it is not about women, it is not blues". Does that mean that is the general definition of the whole US blues community? I don't think so. That blues player may be very good, and a good authority, but that does not necessarily mean a Japanese blues community has to then think everyone else is "wrong", and that is actually the general meaning/definition of blues.

So far you have heard from a number of people living (or had been living) in Japan, who report that generally in Japan jinashi means "with little or no ji". This comes from each of us having experienced the meaning of this term from countless professionals and amateurs. I am not sure that the fact that one teacher who uses the term to mean "only those with no ji" is enough to then conclude "in Japan jinashi only means only those shakuhachi with no ji".

Last edited by Justin (2009-05-19 01:20:19)

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-19 01:26:25

Justin wrote:
So far you have heard from a number of people living (or had been living) in Japan, who report that generally in Japan jinashi means "with little or no ji". This comes from each of us having experienced the meaning of this term from countless professionals and amateurs. I am not sure that the fact that one teacher who uses the term to mean "only those with no ji" is enough to then conclude "in Japan jinashi only means only those shakuhachi with no ji".

Nevertheless jinashi, ji mori and jiari are THREE different concepts, so is it preferable to have only two words for them and still not know what we're talking about?

We know you live in Japan Justin. It is mentioned frequently.

Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

#176 2009-05-15 13:36:11

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#177 2009-05-15 16:09:07

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#178 2009-05-15 20:24:21

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#179 2009-05-16 04:52:25

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#180 2009-05-16 17:45:10

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#181 2009-05-16 23:30:55

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

Tairaku wrote:

#182 2009-05-17 07:22:06

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

Riley Lee wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

#183 2009-05-17 17:10:58

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#184 2009-05-17 22:59:27

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

Tairaku wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

#185 2009-05-17 23:57:28

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#186 2009-05-18 07:46:23

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#187 2009-05-18 08:29:02

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#188 2009-05-18 11:34:50

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

Tairaku wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

#189 2009-05-18 11:54:30

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

Justin wrote:

#190 2009-05-18 12:25:08

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#191 2009-05-18 12:37:48

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

edosan wrote:

#192 2009-05-18 13:56:25

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

radi0gnome wrote:

Justin wrote:

#193 2009-05-18 17:42:05

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#194 2009-05-18 17:52:02

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

No-sword wrote:

#195 2009-05-18 19:59:02

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#196 2009-05-18 21:18:40

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

#197 2009-05-18 22:45:42

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

Tairaku wrote:

No-sword wrote:

#198 2009-05-19 00:01:29

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

Justin wrote:

#199 2009-05-19 01:18:40

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

Tairaku wrote:

Justin wrote:

#200 2009-05-19 01:26:25

Re: To Ji or not to Ji that is the question.

Justin wrote:

Board footer