Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Justin · 2009-05-19 01:50:00

Tairaku wrote:
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?

They are 3 different concepts as defined in Kiku's sticky. However in Japan there are generally 2 concepts, regular shakuhachi (jinuri) and jinashi. The general Japanese concept of jinashi is not the same as is explained in Kiku's sticky. That is the point I think Riley, Daniel myself and perhaps others have been trying to illustrate. I am not talking about which definition is "preferable". I am talking about which definition is actually in common use. That is my point entirely. Even if you or Kiku or I feel your 3 definitions as in the sticky and used in Osaka University are preferable, I do not think that is enough reason to actually deny the common usage, pretend it does not exist, or even simply state that the common definition is "wrong", without even mentioning that it is used in Japan.

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

My point of reminding you that Daniel and I live in Japan and that Riley was living here is to remind you that this information is coming from Japan. We are not theorizing that "maybe in Japan jinashi might mean little or no ji". We are simply telling you how the term has been used around us. This is to help give a picture of the terminology in its context.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Last edited by Justin (2009-05-19 01:53:05)

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-19 02:06:43

Justin wrote:
Tairaku wrote:
We know you live in Japan Justin. It is mentioned frequently.
My point of reminding you that Daniel and I live in Japan and that Riley was living here is to remind you that this information is coming from Japan. We are not theorizing that "maybe in Japan jinashi might mean little or no ji". We are simply telling you how the term has been used around us. This is to help give a picture of the terminology in its context.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

That's the reason we got a jinashi expert to moderate the jinashi forum instead of someone who doesn't care about the topic. Obviously the language might get a bit more specialized in a focused forum like this.

I play with a koto player from Japan. When she saw my 3.0 she just frowned and said, "Not available in Japan". Was she right?

Justin · 2009-05-19 02:49:33

Tairaku wrote:
Justin wrote:
Tairaku wrote:
We know you live in Japan Justin. It is mentioned frequently.
My point of reminding you that Daniel and I live in Japan and that Riley was living here is to remind you that this information is coming from Japan. We are not theorizing that "maybe in Japan jinashi might mean little or no ji". We are simply telling you how the term has been used around us. This is to help give a picture of the terminology in its context.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/
That's the reason we got a jinashi expert to moderate the jinashi forum instead of someone who doesn't care about the topic. Obviously the language might get a bit more specialized in a focused forum like this.

I play with a koto player from Japan. When she saw my 3.0 she just frowned and said, "Not available in Japan". Was she right?

Hi Brian
I don't get why you keep talking about non-shakuhachi people as if it is an accurate comparison. So, non-shakuhachi Japanese people don't know much about shakuhachi. And a koto player doesn't know 3.0 are available in Japan. So what?

Riley and I care about jinashi, and own and play jinashi. So do a lot of people here in Japan who use the term jinashi to refer to shakuhachi with little or no ji. That's not random non-shakuhachi people. I gave you specific examples of people who forum members might know, such as John Neptune and Murai Eigoro, both professional jinashi makers. For them, jinashi can still have some ji and be called jinashi, at least the last time I spoke with them. I'm surprised at the resistance to this simple situation.

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-19 02:56:12

Justin wrote:
I'm surprised at the resistance to this simple situation.

Nobody's resisting the idea that some Japanese people don't differentiate between jinashi and jimori and consider them the same thing. That appears to be a fact. But if some scholars, collectors and players want to use more detailed or exact terminology that's valid too. Why are you resisting that?

Jeff Cairns · 2009-05-19 03:10:42

It should be perfectly clear that anybody can do what ever they like for what ever reasons they deem fitting, however the problem occurs when people of varying beliefs try to communicate with each other, or worse, through a 3rd party without clarification. It seems to me that regardless of one's definitions, one needs to take into consideration the person/people being spoken to. That should be enough.

Justin · 2009-05-19 03:12:59

Tairaku wrote:
Justin wrote:
I'm surprised at the resistance to this simple situation.
Nobody's resisting the idea that some Japanese people don't differentiate between jinashi and jimori and consider them the same thing.

That is not the impression given from reading the sticky. The sticky seems to say there is one and only one meaning for the term jinashi, that being shakuhachi with no ji.

Tairaku wrote:
That appears to be a fact.

Then it seems strange that the terminology sticky of the jinashi forum should contradict that fact.

Tairaku wrote:
But if some scholars, collectors and players want to use more detailed or exact terminology that's valid too. Why are you resisting that?

I'm not. I never have been.

Kiku Day · 2009-05-19 03:43:49

I must admit - even as the jinashi moderator - I have run out of steam!

I think I have come with what I could add to this discussion.
Jimori is a revived term. One could say it is new in use at present. I find it practical when describing the method of construction as I think the 'jinashi revival' - as I see it - would inspire more and more makers to produce jimori shakuhachi. As I have written - it is a historical word and it is now used by certain groups (Osaka seems to be the centre of renewal in this retrospect - most probably because research on shakuhachi is largely done in Osaka).
I am not claiming it is used everywhere in Japan and widely accepted by all shakuhachi players in Japan. I think if I told Okuda this is a jimori - he would probably understand - as in my experience most Japanese do - but ask if that is a new term.

In the sticky these three terms have been explained. It is not claimed that if a maker describes a flute as 'a jinashi with a few dabs of ji' that that is wrong. Language is fluid - it changes. no-one will get punished from calling a jimori shakuhachi for jinashi shakuhachi. But it is a term that may win ground.

I am born in Japan and lived there the first 5 years of my life. Since then I lived and studied shakuhachi in Japan from 1987 till 2000 (the last 2-3 years I was also living half the time in Switzerland), so I usually say I was based in Japan for 11 years. Around the end of my stay in Japan the jinashi shakuhachi really had a revival - first outside Japan then more and more in Japan as well. In my experience during the first ten years when I was playing shakuhachi and living in Japan - basically NO-ONE in Japan in the usual kinko/tozan environment even KNEW the word JINASHI SHAKUHACHI. Most thought when they saw my shakuhachi that they were another instrument from a far foreign country. A lot of shakuhachi players would nod with a blank expression in their eyes if I mentioned Watazumi. If I didn't mention Watazumi they literally thought I had got my hands on a wrong instrument while believing it was a shakuhachi. Many had at least heard a little about a crazy guy who played crazy flutes. Is that what you do? In that retrospect Japan has moved far as well. The Yokoyama group knew of course more about Watazumi.

Even as late as September 2007 I played shakuhachi (my 2.9) at a min'yo song contest. It was a huge event and there were hundreds of shakuhachi players. A group of shakuhachi players discussed my performance (the usual thing that it is weird for a woman to play such a big shakuhachi) but I also overheard one person conclude 'She is not really Japanese (yes true, I am only half Japanese). The instrument she plays is not a shakuhachi. It is not a Japanese instrument! It is a foreign instrument'.
So this attitude still exist. Never-the-less jinashi shakuhachi does exist.
One's own friends cannot represent the world. If you live in Osaka - quite a few of people use the term jimori shakuhachi. But they of course do not represent all of Japan - just as other groups do not represent the truth.

In some ways I think jimori shakuhachi is where jinashi shakuhachi was in the 1990s. Most don't know. Most Japanese refuse it to exist... But it is sneaking in.

I think it is now useless to keep on discussing how much the Japanese are using the terms or not as a mean to justify the use of the terms. That can move in a few years. The thing is that there are three terms describing methods of construction.
Use it or don't use it. We all have to accept if others use or do not use or use it in a modified version.
That would be the most simple thing to do.

We have now clarified that there is nothing derogative in the term jimori shakuhachi, let's live with the fact that people use the terms slightly differently or don't use some of the terms. The terms are there. They may still be academic in use - but when language changes it has to begin somewhere. Perhaps the term jimori shakuhachi will not catch on. Let's see.

Justin · 2009-05-19 05:16:18

Kiku Day wrote:
Most thought when they saw my shakuhachi that they were another instrument from a far foreign country.

Hi Kiku
You have expressed how Japanese players did not recognise your instruments. I suggest this was not because they were jinashi, but may have been because they were a modern type of shakuhachi which those people had not come across, that type being extraordinarily long and fat. You yourself even said your instruments were not shakuhachi but another instrument. At that time you called your instruments "hocchiku":

Kiku Day wrote:
From my own experience, I can say that playing the hocchiku and shakuhachi
demands very diffrent breathing techniques. I have only played shakuahchi in
teaching situations when I have to be in tune with the student's shakuhachi
and I feel like it's a totally different instrument. and I play the
shakuhachi very badly ( I got my first one about half a year ago).So, not
only is the sound different, but they are quite different to play as well.
Hope this helps a bit to understand the wonderful world of hocchiku, which
is still quite unknown, alonside the world of shakuhachi.
Love Kiku

Had you been playing for example Edo period jinashi, I doubt they would have had any problem in recognizing them as shakuhachi. Among my Kinko-ryu associates for example, though some have and some have not heard of Watazumi, they are familiar with the older type of jinashi, often size 1.8 but other sizes also, and some students regularly use these jinashi - generally antique, and some with no ji, some with a little. I doubt any player would have difficulty recognizing them as shakuhachi.

Next is the issue of how the term jinashi is being used:

Kiku Day wrote:
I think it is now useless to keep on discussing how much the Japanese are using the terms or not as a mean to justify the use of the terms. That can move in a few years.

Firstly I think if the majority of the shakuhachi community uses a certain definition for a word, that is surely enough justification to show that that definition is in common use. Secondly, if your agenda is connected to your last sentence, to "move" the definition, I am still not convinced that concealing or denying the common usage of the term, and thus misinforming the foreign shakuhachi community, is the best way to go about it.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Last edited by Justin (2009-05-19 05:23:06)

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-19 05:50:39

Justin wrote:
Kiku Day wrote:
Most thought when they saw my shakuhachi that they were another instrument from a far foreign country.
Hi Kiku
You have expressed how Japanese players did not recognise your instruments. I suggest this was not because they were jinashi, but may have been because they were a modern type of shakuhachi which those people had not come across, that type being extraordinarily long and fat. You yourself even said your instruments were not shakuhachi but another instrument. At that time you called your instruments "hocchiku":

Kiku Day wrote:
From my own experience, I can say that playing the hocchiku and shakuhachi
demands very diffrent breathing techniques. I have only played shakuahchi in
teaching situations when I have to be in tune with the student's shakuhachi
and I feel like it's a totally different instrument. and I play the
shakuhachi very badly ( I got my first one about half a year ago).So, not
only is the sound different, but they are quite different to play as well.
Hope this helps a bit to understand the wonderful world of hocchiku, which
is still quite unknown, alonside the world of shakuhachi.
Love Kiku
/

OK Justin,

If Kiku says that the instrument she plays is not exactly shakuhachi you ridicule that notion. Then if she says she played a shakuhachi in a contest and other people said it was not a shakuhachi you concur that they would not recognize it as shakuhachi. Make up your mind. When I said a koto player did not acknowledge the existence of long flutes you said I should not extrapolate from non-shakuhachi players. These geezers at the minyo contest are shakuhachi players so what's the excuse this time?

Instead of these people not recognizing instruments because they are modern type of shakuhachi that has never seen before is it possible that they are just ignorant and uneducated about the diversity and range of instruments in the shakuhachi family? I guess you would dispute that based on the fact that they're Japanese and apparently what most Japanese shakuhachi players view as standard is unassailable in your view.

Look at this pic. The flute on far left is an enormous 3.5 "modern" shakuhachi by Perry Yung. The one next to it is a 3.2 from Kyoto circa late 1940's (at the latest, that's when the guy I got if from purchased it from the maker). That means it's at least 60 years old, hardly "modern". Doubtful the dudes at the contest are much older than this flute.

If these guys don't look at a 2.9 and recognize what it is, they are just uninformed. Why is it that our "small foreign" shakuhachi community here knows of the existence of this type of instrument and the arbiters of taste in Japan don't? Something's amiss there.

Kiku Day · 2009-05-19 05:56:31

Justin,

it is striking to see how you have used time and energy to search through internet to see what I have written before you even began playing shakuhachi. The quote above and the one you posted before in this thread are both from the Shakuhachi list. Let me tell you (and the forum if people here aren't bored) a little about how I came to write these posts:

Okuda has always used the term shakuhachi for his instruments. When he had to specify the difference between the 'normal' shakuhachi out there and what he played - he said jinashi shakuhachi. That is what I 'grew up with' so to speak - in the beginning of my shakuhachi learning experience.

In 2000 for the first time in many years I was not in Japan studying shakuhachi as usual. I think I left Japan in March and went to Switzerland and then moved to London, UK to study ethnomusicology. Around this time Al Ramos began studying with Okuda. Al and I began to email together and he put me (without telling me) onto the shakuhachi list. I was very surprised when I received the first emails. I quickly figured out what had happened. I read the mails for a while. I was fascinated to read discussion about shakuhachi from non-Japanese people as I had only met a few until then. Part of the discussion on the list was about jinashi. But at that time the differentiation was shakuhachi vs hotchiku. I had to ask both Okuda and Al about this because that was the first time I had seen hotciku used as if something separately from shakuhachi. The post you quoted earlier, Justin, was the very first time I presented myself on the list (not the first post - but the first time I tell what I do). You (the forum) may find me bold, I am infamous for not holding back my opinions and wrestling with the big and influential in debates. However, I am not so bold that the very first time I introduce myself to a group of people who know each other pretty well - either through the list or the shakuhachi festivals and camps that had already taken place then - that I from the very first moment will debate whether I play shakuhachi or hotchiku. So, for the first time in my life I wrote/said that I played hotchiku/jinashi (in the first post). That was the differentiation used on the list - not my personal differentiation. However, I quickly changed - when I felt I could - to just call myself jinashi player. One reason for it is also that I do not have the Watazumi connection I would have liked to have if I were to call myself a hotchiku player.

So, yes Justin. I have used the word hotchiku to suit the terminology used already. Looking back I think it is better for me to use what I think is correct for me as a player. And I am - as I have always been - a jinashi shakuhachi player. But use the term shakuhachi most of the time when it is not necessary to differentiate.
Justin, I remember clearly a post you wrote where you explain the dimensions that makes a hotchiku. We know today that they are all shakuhachi. I am far too busy and have no personal quest finding old posts from you where you say something different to where you are now. You contacted me during summer 2003 to ask me for your first shakuhachi lesson. As I was moving to California a month or so later (August 2003) I passed you on to Michael Coxall. So remember that the posts from the shakuhachi list are before you entered the shakuhachi world. By then hotchiku vs shakuhachi was adopted as terms to differentiate the two - probably because of the interest for jinashi began with the interest for Watazumi.
I have since then, when I became more confident among the others on the list, worked for the understanding of jinashi shakuhachi.

And if there are any misunderstanding about my attitude to today's jinashi shakuhachi and Edo period shakuhachi in general, I just want to clarify that for example half of my PhD thesis is about the development of the jinashi shakuahchi construction today. I am arguing that the jinashi shakuhachi is a modern instrument that has evolved to suit our tastes and ears today. That is also why I did the experiment with a Shugetsu jimori and a taimu for the practical part of the project.

Kiku Day · 2009-05-19 06:02:57

Mmmmmm.... nice collection, Tairaku. I wish I had just a 10th of your collection. What a joy!
Is that photo taken on the veranda of your house?

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-19 06:16:58

Yeah, those are a bunch of long jinashi. The one that's 4th from the right is also pretty old. The rest are by Shugetsu, Perry and Al Ramos.

Justin · 2009-05-19 06:54:18

Hi Kiku

Kiku Day wrote:
Justin, I remember clearly a post you wrote where you explain the dimensions that makes a hotchiku. We know today that they are all shakuhachi.

Yes, I remember too. And by the way when you say "we", please don't include me. I always knew they were shakuhachi.

The mail you refer to of mine was from the Euroshak list, in 2005, when a beginner enquired as to the differences between the styles. I responded:

Justin wrote:
> To be honest I like them both. Both very
> different.
> Made with quite contrasting philosophies.

> >>>Can you elaborate somewhat on this?

Shakuhachi are bamboo, and the inside of bamboo is
rough and of a certain shape. To make it into a
shakuhachi you can do more or less to the inside.
Ji-ari means that ji, a kind of paste, has been added.
It is natural, and allows you to shape the bore very
precicely which thereby shapes the sound. That has
been done for about the last 100 years, and these day
snearly all shakuhachi are made like this. The result
is that the notes are made to all be stable and in
proper relation to each other, i.e. all as loud as
each other and so on. Also pitch can be controlled
precisely. that is the potential at least. Then there
are ji-nashi shakuhachi - no paste. Often so called
ji-nashi actually have some ji, but only the very
minimum to stabalise some notes or whatever. Also,
often ji-nashi shakuhachi have bamboo removed to shape
the bore. That is, rather than adding and subtracting,
they just subtract. Then there are hochiku. They are
basically long fat jinashi shakuhachi. Even some not
long are also called hochiku, but are at least fat! It
seems they never have ji, and are often not worked at
all in the bore, save removing the nodes. So they are
rough and wild! Many even have no laquer, though some
do, which protects the instrument from dryness or
sudden climate change.

My information about hochiku was from talking at length about the subject with Tom Deaver, and with Kodama with whom I had been studying. Okuda refered to Kodama as his top student. The term hochiku was being used by Kodama and Okuda at that time - in fact apart from Mugai, could they may have been the only teachers in Japan using the expression? So I considered their information as fair, for the usage of the term as it was at the time. To refresh your memory further, here was your reply:

Kiku Day wrote:
Please, let's not write and repeat rumours and guesses about shakuhachi
and Japanese music!

I was surprised at your reaction to my sharing information to help the questioner get a picture of what we were talking about. So dismissive and superior. And the reference to my "rumours and guesses" about Japanese music were concerning my sharing information about the pitch of re meri in Kinko notation, and the details of the key in which it occurs. This was a subject you had not studied (Kinko-ryu, and specifically sankyoku) and so did not understand, but rather than research or discuss, you presumed me to be wrong, and simply stated my information was incorrect (publicly), and proclaimed some misinformation. After all, how could I know something you didn't, when you have studied shakuhachi longer than I? So better to label my information as "rumours and guesses".

And as far as you continuing to remind me that you have played shakuhachi for longer than me, I think that is not enough justification for being so dismissive. Although I did find it a source of amusement, like when you wrote in a mail to me how you had studied music for 34 years more than me, are an ethnomusicologist, and I should see you as someone to ask. As you proudly informed us that you started your music training at the age of 3, I was most amused to find that you are 66 years old. You really don't look it you know. {EDIT: I removed the direct quote since Brian has complained about it being from a private mail, thought I found it relevant as it was Kiku's justification for publicly calling my reasonable information "rumours and guesses", and reasoning which she appears to be sustaining in her above post.}

But seriously, it is that attitude and approach at controlling information to the shakuhachi community which I did not and do not feel comfortable with. Perhaps that is my personal weakness or sensitivity, and I do feel uncomfortable sharing information about shakuhachi in such an atmosphere, but this time I have chosen to speak up again, about this subject which is my passion - shakuhachi. For me this is not personal. You know that I like to get on with everyone, and I do my best to. I am not here to threaten anyone's position and I never have been, merely to share information. Sometimes I wish that was more welcome.

Lastly Kiku, I would like to leave you with your own advice:

Kiku Day wrote:
Nobody has said your knowledge is not of value. Just don't present them as the only truth!

Last edited by Justin (2009-05-20 06:10:41)

Kiku Day · 2009-05-19 07:46:33

Justin wrote:
My information about hochiku was from talking at length about the subject with Tom Deaver, and with Kodama with whom I had been studying. Okuda refered to Kodama as his top student. The term hochiku was being used by Kodama and Okuda at that time - in fact apart from Mugai, could they may have been the only teachers in Japan using the expression? So I considered their information as fair, for the usage of the term as it was at the time.

You see, if you just take old quotes out it doesn't work without explaining where-from it came and why it was said. Just like you - I have called my instruments shakuhachi always but been influenced by what words and definitions were used at the time. But unlike you - I am not searching the world-wide net after quotes to take out of context from before I began playing shakuhachi and therefore had no chance of knowing about the milieu at the time.

Yes it is true, there was a period where Okuda got more and more in contact with non-Japanese players that used the term hotchiku. He then told me in one conversation that he has decided to accept and also use the word hotchiku because non-Japanese seem to understand it better than jinashi. That, of course, has influenced Kodama.
I have known these two people very closely since 1988 and am still in contact with them often on phone and email and have a personal relationship with them both and their families.

To use the word hotchiku is totally fair - but there was a period where we forgot Watazumi also used that word for his small instruments too - since lots of people got fascinated by the huge instruments he played. There have been confusion about these terms so it is not at all strange we have all used them or said what they were and then learned or realised something more later. The problem is when we begin to dig up decade old quotes to make points about today... or think there is a difference in construction between hotchiku and shakuhachi as such (which I don't think anyone on the forum does anymore).

I think we have landed in a place where there are three terms presented. Some people don't think they are all valid because of various reasons. Fair enough! That is fine. But now with Riley's sticky we all know what they mean. But we do not have to use them. Some of us will continue to use them.

Thank you Dan for your poems and research. It was interesting to read. I think you should be the official forum poet.
Thanks to Riley for clarifying the definitions.
Thank you Horst Xenmeister to come with the only sane post here!
Thank you, Justin for publicising personal conversation.
Ok, off-line for a while to do some writing about shakuhachi! We must all be nerds seen from the outside world! And we are all here to share information.

Justin · 2009-05-19 10:03:15

Tairaku wrote:
Justin wrote:
Kiku Day wrote:
Most thought when they saw my shakuhachi that they were another instrument from a far foreign country.
Hi Kiku
You have expressed how Japanese players did not recognise your instruments. I suggest this was not because they were jinashi, but may have been because they were a modern type of shakuhachi which those people had not come across, that type being extraordinarily long and fat. You yourself even said your instruments were not shakuhachi but another instrument. At that time you called your instruments "hocchiku":

Kiku Day wrote:
From my own experience, I can say that playing the hocchiku and shakuhachi
demands very diffrent breathing techniques. I have only played shakuahchi in
teaching situations when I have to be in tune with the student's shakuhachi
and I feel like it's a totally different instrument. and I play the
shakuhachi very badly ( I got my first one about half a year ago).So, not
only is the sound different, but they are quite different to play as well.
Hope this helps a bit to understand the wonderful world of hocchiku, which
is still quite unknown, alonside the world of shakuhachi.
Love Kiku
/
OK Justin,

If Kiku says that the instrument she plays is not exactly shakuhachi you ridicule that notion. Then if she says she played a shakuhachi in a contest and other people said it was not a shakuhachi you concur that they would not recognize it as shakuhachi. Make up your mind.

Hi Brian
I think you missed my point. I thought what Kiku had written about Japanese players thinking her instrument was not shakuhachi, sounded as if simply because it was jinashi, they did not recognise it. As if jinashi was such a different thing for them. However, I think what made it so different was actually something more than that. It was not the kind of jinashi which was played in the Edo period, or which are still played for example by some traditional Kinko-ryu players. It was, I presume, one of the extraordinarily long and fat shakuhachi which Kiku often seems to play. My point in quoting Kiku was to illustrate that even she herself felt that her instruments were different enough as to be totally different instruments.

Kiku Day wrote:
I feel like it's a totally different instrument.

In this context it is easier to understand why the other players thought similarly.

Tairaku wrote:
Instead of these people not recognizing instruments because they are modern type of shakuhachi that has never seen before is it possible that they are just ignorant and uneducated about the diversity and range of instruments in the shakuhachi family?

Yes, but the two are connected. Because this style is modern, and still not so popular, many shakuhachi players have not been exposed to them. These two things are directly related.

Tairaku wrote:
I guess you would dispute that based on the fact that they're Japanese and apparently what most Japanese shakuhachi players view as standard is unassailable in your view.

Come on Brian, you know I have never been saying that. All I have been saying is shakuhachi terminology as used commonly in the Japanese shakuhachi community can define the common usage definition of the term as used in Japan. That's really very simple.

Tairaku wrote:
Look at this pic. The flute on far left is an enormous 3.5 "modern" shakuhachi by Perry Yung. The one next to it is a 3.2 from Kyoto circa late 1940's (at the latest, that's when the guy I got if from purchased it from the maker). That means it's at least 60 years old, hardly "modern".

I would still call that relatively modern, in the long history of shakuhachi. Still it is more recognizable (especially before the 3rd hole was moved) than the 3.5. But more to the point (if there is one), in the 1940s, what percentage of shakuhachi do you suppose were of such a length as 3.2? Less than 0.001% perhaps? That's just a guess of course. But I don't think you would disagree that these long fat shakuhachi are a relatively new phenomonon.

Tairaku wrote:
Why is it that our "small foreign" shakuhachi community here knows of the existence of this type of instrument and the arbiters of taste in Japan don't? Something's amiss there.

That's an interesting question. I was just discussing with a group of Japanese musicians last weekend how in Japan, the majority of players are Tozan, a modern tradition largely based on Western music, and that the Edo period honkyoku players are in the minority by far, whereas in the West, honkyoku is dominant, and Tozan-ryu has barely any representation. (Of course there are other styles too, but to keep it simple...) That's an interesting topic in itself, but here I would just say that I think the popularity of these long shakuhachi abroad is directly connected to the dominance of honkyoku, and perhaps also largely specifically connected to Watazumi's influence and popularity, directly and also through his student Yokoyama and Yokoyama's students. In Japan, the lack of exposure to the very long shakuhachi may also be directly connected to lack of popularity of honkyoku, and in particular the new wave of honkyoku from the Myoan people who took up these longer instruments.

As for the (relatively) modern trend towards longer shakuhachi, perhaps Daniel would like share with us about this topic? Daniel, you have recently been researching this haven't you, and the connections to the lengthening of Irish tin whistles.

Justin
http://senryushakuhachi.com/

Last edited by Justin (2009-05-19 10:08:25)

kmag · 2009-05-19 20:08:43

Hello to all,
As a beginner I fail to see how adding another term serves to clear the waters.
To me Cast Bore is a trade mark and is the same as jiari. It has a hard, glass-like, predetermined bore, either through gauges or the casting process.
Jinashi has a more natural bore and as soon as the process starts it is no longer as nature made it. It becomes a process of an artists manufacture. If, as a beginner, I subscribe to the term jinashi as mapped out on this forum I will assume that it has no ji. If the maker does not subscribe to this forum and and uses the term in the more common usage it may have ji. The question will not be asked and a lack of communication will result. If the more common, broad interpretation of the term is used questions will be asked with a result of an exchange of information. As it now stands it seems the term jimori only muddies the waters since it is not in common usage. It also just creates another broad spectrum. Flutes that are totally made one way(jiari) flutes with no ji (jinashi) and a huge number with anything between 1% and 99% ji applied (jimori).
The term jimori mostly serves not to describe the character of a flute but identifies the user as a member of this forum.
I believe the term jinashi serves the purpose of creating more discussion and a more accurate exchange of information.
Kurt

Priapus Le Zen M☮nk · 2009-05-19 23:17:22

Again that whole Jinashi/Jimori is a gaijin thing. In Japan most people talk about Shakuhachi as being good or bad period. IF the flute is without or with a little Ji and plays well and does all that is needed according to your teacher it is referred as a good flute with little or no paste that is all.

Most pure Jinashi are considered as crap and ARE crap when it comes to Shakuhachi music so this is why the flutes are generally what they are today. The whole ho! the flute has to be without any ji be big long etc is backwards engineering no matter how you picture and how you want to beat this dead horse. Japanese made flutes the way they are today for a freaking reason and called it Shakuhachi also for a reason because it is 1.8 shaku in length humm maybe because overall it is what is best????

Good Jinashi flutes can be found but they are rare and quite expensive just they way a normal flute is never under 2000$ when it comes to buying one.

On this one I have to be according with Justin, Daniel and Riley they are the ones that make more conventional sense of what the Shakuhachi is like in Japan today.

By the way it is Shimura NOT Simura and Tsukitani NOT Tukitani I am sick with them or writers using some old unused way of writing Japanese words in English to look or be fancy hell might as well go all the way back to Mount Fouji instead of Fuji.

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-19 23:42:21

Gishin wrote:
Again that whole Jinashi/Jimori is a gaijin thing..

"Cast Bore" is a gaijin thing and I don't see people going off on a web Ji-had (hi Kees) about that? Why is that? As far as I'm concerned it's just another kind of jiari flute and doesn't need its own term. Now excuse me while I write an essay on why, I have to dig through some of my old emails to find quotes. Or maybe I'll just ask Horst if he can write it but Horst words might crash the server.

Kiku Day · 2009-05-20 01:47:43

Gishin wrote:
By the way it is Shimura NOT Simura and Tsukitani NOT Tukitani I am sick with them or writers using some old unused way of writing Japanese words in English to look or be fancy hell might as well go all the way back to Mount Fouji instead of Fuji.

Hi Gishin.

I also think the kunrei system of spelling is stupid. One needs to have a education in how to pronounce it. The reason for it is used in the case of Tukitani and Simura is that for some reason the music researchers in Japan I have met have the opinion that kunrei system is the system to use and not the hepburn system. Officially Monbusho or the department of education have decided - in theory - that the Japanese children should learn kunrei in the schools. But the hepburn system has won so much ground that they don't teach it anymore. However, the music researchers insist to have their names spelled in kunrei system. Both Simura and Tukitani corrected me personally the spelling of their names. Yamaguti Osamu (another music researcher) even got the kunrei spelling of his family name in his passport. When I write my thesis I have to use the hepburn system, but I will write in the introduction that I use this. In the bibliography I will have both Tsukitani and Tukitani - although under the latter I will only write see Tsukitani (crazy - I know).
So, it is not because we think it is fancy. If these people are so passionate about using kunrei when writing their names - fine I can do that for them.

Priapus Le Zen M☮nk · 2009-05-20 06:41:13

Kiku Day wrote:
Gishin wrote:
By the way it is Shimura NOT Simura and Tsukitani NOT Tukitani I am sick with them or writers using some old unused way of writing Japanese words in English to look or be fancy hell might as well go all the way back to Mount Fouji instead of Fuji.
Hi Gishin.

I also think the kunrei system of spelling is stupid. One needs to have a education in how to pronounce it. The reason for it is used in the case of Tukitani and Simura is that for some reason the music researchers in Japan I have met have the opinion that kunrei system is the system to use and not the hepburn system. Officially Monbusho or the department of education have decided - in theory - that the Japanese children should learn kunrei in the schools. But the hepburn system has won so much ground that they don't teach it anymore. However, the music researchers insist to have their names spelled in kunrei system. Both Simura and Tukitani corrected me personally the spelling of their names. Yamaguti Osamu (another music researcher) even got the kunrei spelling of his family name in his passport. When I write my thesis I have to use the hepburn system, but I will write in the introduction that I use this. In the bibliography I will have both Tsukitani and Tukitani - although under the latter I will only write see Tsukitani (crazy - I know).
So, it is not because we think it is fancy. If these people are so passionate about using kunrei when writing their names - fine I can do that for them.

Indeed as I said the Kunrei thing is quite stupid and to some extent quite retarded. Now this being said I would bet some $$ on it that on their Passport they are using the Hepburn system so legally and internationally they would have to use it. Doing otherwise shows they want to be unique and spell their name in a funky manner that has no relation with what the rest of the world is connected to . Might as well say we play Syakuhachi

Tairaku 太楽 · 2009-05-20 07:31:00

Gishin wrote:
. Might as well say we play Syakuhachi

I believe that is syakuhati?

Follow this link, many of the protagonists of our little "JI DRAMA" are mentioned here. Is Yamaguti Osamu the same one who is beloved as "Shugetsu", maker of either 'jinashi' or 'jimori' shakuhachi? I didn't know he was a professor! Very cool.

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/music/seyama/skk201.html

But no matter what system used, "KNOB" is spelled K N O B.

Priapus Le Zen M☮nk · 2009-05-20 07:38:30

Anyway the use of this system only has value to maybe Japanese people themselves because Internationally and legally people in general have NO training to read that stuff. Having it spelled with the Hepburn system makes it a safer bet when dealing with people to have your name spoken in the proper manner. So far only the Japanese have this with the Hepburn system where you can safely say a name without screwing it up this cannot be said with Chinese and also Korean.

Kiku Day · 2009-05-20 08:56:21

Tairaku wrote:
Follow this link, many of the protagonists of our little "JI DRAMA" are mentioned here. Is Yamaguti Osamu the same one who is beloved as "Shugetsu", maker of either 'jinashi' or 'jimori' shakuhachi? I didn't know he was a professor! Very cool.

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/music/seyama/skk201.html

Same name two people Yamaguti Osamu is the only one who managed to have his name officially spelled in the kunrei system. He used the argument that because he has published so much in English as Yamaguti, people abroad will think it was another person if his name was spelled Yamaguchi. So he is Yamaguti on his passport.

No-sword · 2009-05-20 09:10:16

You know, Kunrei vs Hepburn is to romanization as the jinashi/jimori distinction vs "call everything jinashi" is to shakuhachi.

- More logical, but historical inertia isn't on its side (yet)
- Preferred by a minority of the community with a personal interest in the matter
- Misunderstood, ignored, even derided by those who have no such interest

I know a couple of people who prefer to spell their name in Kunrei shiki (it actually is still taught in schools, mostly to primary school kids...). Both told me that they prefer Kunrei because they don't like the assumption that everything in the world should be organized for the benefit of English speakers. The personal is political etc.

They do have Hepburn on their passports though... apparently that's hard to avoid.

Last edited by No-sword (2009-05-20 09:11:08)

Riley Lee · 2009-05-20 09:13:53

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

I know of a maker in Japan who, for a time, sold cast bore flutes. His private term for these were "Death Flutes", because the resins or whatever he used in the bore, was carcinogenic. But only during the making process. So his term applied only to the maker. He doesn't make his 'Death Flutes' anymore, and he is still alive. Ironically, he smokes!!?!

Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

#201 2009-05-19 01:50:00

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

Tairaku wrote:

Justin wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

#202 2009-05-19 02:06:43

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

Justin wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

#203 2009-05-19 02:49:33

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

Tairaku wrote:

Justin wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

#204 2009-05-19 02:56:12

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

Justin wrote:

#205 2009-05-19 03:10:42

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

#206 2009-05-19 03:12:59

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

Tairaku wrote:

Justin wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

#207 2009-05-19 03:43:49

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

#208 2009-05-19 05:16:18

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

Kiku Day wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

#209 2009-05-19 05:50:39

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

Justin wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

#210 2009-05-19 05:56:31

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

#211 2009-05-19 06:02:57

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

#212 2009-05-19 06:16:58

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

#213 2009-05-19 06:54:18

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

Kiku Day wrote:

Justin wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

#214 2009-05-19 07:46:33

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

Justin wrote:

#215 2009-05-19 10:03:15

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

Tairaku wrote:

Justin wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

Kiku Day wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

#216 2009-05-19 20:08:43

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

#217 2009-05-19 23:17:22

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

#218 2009-05-19 23:42:21

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

Gishin wrote:

#219 2009-05-20 01:47:43

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

Gishin wrote:

#220 2009-05-20 06:41:13

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

Kiku Day wrote:

Gishin wrote:

#221 2009-05-20 07:31:00

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