Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Jon wrote:

I am wondering why makers have taken to calling the mixture Sabi (Tonoko+Urushi), Ji?

Hi Jon
It seems that generally, shakuhachi makers have very limited knowledge of urushi technology. In times gone by, shakuhachi makers may have studied under urushi masters. But once you have a shakuhachi making teacher, generally you only learn from him, all that you need to know. So even if he had much knowledge of urushi, it is likely that he will only pass on the knowledge needed specifically for making shakuhachi. That's fine, and is a natural process.

I was inquisitive and had an instant love of urushi, so I studied under an urushi master in order to understand this substance more thoroughly. That's when I also came upon this upon this riddle too - why do all the shakuhachi people call sabi "ji"?!

I think generally shakuhachi people don't know about sabi, so that is probably the main reason. Like I said, the knowledge is limited. And for urushi artists it seems like they are confusing sabi and ji, since generally it is sabi they are using, if not some other more modern substance, even plaster of Paris which became quite popular though quite terrible in terms of quality.

However, their use of the term "ji" is not entirely wrong. Ji really means foundation, or underwork. As urushi artists we use the terms very specifically for the different layers of the underwork, ji referring to the jinoko layer, kiri-ko referring to jinoko+tonoko layer, and sabi referring to the tonoko layer. But, it seems that in a more ordinary usage it is not entirely wrong to refer to the whole lot as "ji". Any of that "stuff" which is under the urushi, even if that is only tonoko.

Last edited by Justin (2009-11-10 00:05:30)

Thank you Justin. I did not know the term Ji was sort of a umbrella term. The migration away from the "old school" urushi artists' techniques to learning only from the shaukhachi teacher's methods/"tradition" makes perfect sense. I suppose shakuhachi makers sometimes do not know about Jinoko or maybe they do and just stick to what they were taught. I'm surprised to hear of urushi artists using only Sabi or plaster paris in some cases. All that urushi work on top of plaster paris is odd to me, seems backwards. Especially if it's 日本urushi!

Tairaku wrote:

I'm a little confused. Is "sabi" more, or less evil and wrong than ji?

From my personal experience Ji made from Jinoko is harder and more adhesive. From what I have read and what I have been told by a few urushi artists is that Jinoko is stronger. The individuals I have talked to recommend I use Jinoko and Tonoko in specific ways but not just Tonoko. The shakuhachi maker I met in Japan went so far as to only use Jinoko at first and even dig the stuff himself and mix herbs into it! In his old age he conceded to using thin layers of sabi as well as "store bought" urushi as he could no longer harvest it himself...! I assume the oldest shakuhachi made with Ji are Jinoko and urushi Ji, possibly with Tonoko involved. In my imagination I see someone going to or happening on an urushi artist and thinking to themselves, "I can put that paste inside of bamboo!".

Last edited by Jon (2009-11-10 00:53:36)

Jon wrote:

The shakuhachi maker I met in Japan went so far as to only use Jinoko at first and even dig the stuff himself and mix herbs into it! .

Ken mixes Bombay Sapphire into his ji and that is one of the things that creates the "Taimu sound".

Tairaku wrote:

Justin wrote:

I was referring to shakuhachi makers. Tamai Chikuzen (teacher or grand-teacher of most of the shakuhachi makers today) was into plaster of Paris. The number of his shakuhachi I have seen cracked is worthy of note. I would not recommend it.
.

There has been much discussion about whether or not jiari flutes crack more than jinashi. I say yes. But maybe these are really susceptible. Would you say true ji ari (using actual ji rather than substitutes) are more stable?

Maybe we need a movement back towards true ji.

Jinoko should be more stable than tonoko. But well made shakuhachi with tonoko should be fine too. The traditional method takes many many layers. This takes a lot of time, and is part of the reason for the high cost of well made traditional shakuhachi. Nowadays some people take short cuts adding certain materials so they can do thicker layers. This often involves expansion, which increases the likelihood of cracks. However I have well made shakuhachi from the first generation of "jiari" makers, which have suffered no damage due to the ji, or sabi. So I am not convinced that ji, used in a skilled and traditional manner, increases chances of cracking.

I also read on the other thread you mentioned about the joint increasing the chances of cracking, as it is an addition. I would disagree. If a joint is made well, I believe the addition gives no problem. Indeed though some makers do not bind that side as they think it unnecessary, I always do bind that side, in which case it should be less likely to crack there than a shakuhachi with no joint.

However,  the female side, which is a subtraction, does increase the chance of cracking somewhat. And that may be what you were talking about. Joints actually are not very new. I have seen jointed shakuhachi dating back more than 200 years. Handled well, i.e. making sure that the joint is kept lubricated and used in the proper manner, a well made joint should last a very long time. However, it is not so uncommon that after some time a small crack may develop from the female end (generally the bottom of the top half of the shakuhachi). I often have to deal with such repairs - (though the shakuhachi are sometimes even 80 years old before this happens, and some may go longer. When this crack starts to develop, that is the time to send it to a restorer to be properly bound. In this way, keeping shakuhachi well and looked after, they can continue to be played for hundreds of years whether or not they are one piece, two piece or even three piece. In fact I have played a 3 piece shakuhachi from the 18th century which still plays very well.

Hi Brian
My point about the joints was that it was not the addition of the joint material which increases the tendancy to crack, but the removal of the bamboo for the female part of the joint, thus making the bamboo wall thinner. Additions by themselves don't necessarily increase the tendency of cracking.

The addition of urushi to the bore, for example, will decrease the chances of cracking. Some komuso even added urushi to the outside of their shakuhachi, and this will further decrease the chances of cracking. I would suggest that ji applied well by a skilled craftsman, then covered by urushi as is the usual way, would give greater crack resistance than a shakuhachi with no urushi at all.

In fact, I have honestly seen nothing to suggest that ji applied properly in any way increases the tendancy for the bamboo to crack. I don't see how that is obvious as you claim. I've seen plenty of cracked jinashi.

What you have said about different material moving at different rates is certainly true. And it can happen, at times, that some urushi or even some ji can peel or crack away from a shakuhachi, even when that shakuhachi has not cracked. However this seems to be extremely rare. Indeed the only shakuhachi of mine with which this has happened has been on a Tozan shakuhachi only about 30 or so years old. This was my first shakahachi, and, it should be noted, this had a non-traditional filler - perhaps plaster of Paris, or some similar substance. My Edo period shakuhachi and my jinuri shakuhachi from the first generation, do not have this problem though they are far older.

Everything is impermanent, as has been said. So whether or not there is ji, it will not last forever. But it may be worth baring in mind that Japan has been developing urushi technology for at least the last 9000 years. Jon rightly mentioned the use of bowls which regularly receive hot food or soup. This receive far harsher treatment then does the inside of a shakuhachi. And yet they have ji under the urushi - at least the high quality ones do. And it is these high quality ones which are kept year after year, and even passed on through generations. (I commonly see such bowls over 150 years old). Due to the ware they receive from chopsticks, in old Japan once the urushi was starting to wear, they would be sent to the urushi craftsmen to receive another coat. But the foundation (ji) was expected to hold strong. The materials and techniques were developed especially for this, over many many generations. And this is part of the reason why I have confidence in, and prefer to use, the traditional materials and techniques as taught to me by my urushi master. I wish I could have such confidence with computers, which are supposed to last how long - 3 years?!

As for utaguchi inserts, although they may increase the tendancy of cracking somewhat, I am quite sure utaguchi inserts developed due to their functionality. This to me seems obvious both from my own experience as a maker and also from my study of Edo period instruments, and I believe this functionality to far outway the potential risk from cracking. But I know you don't think that, and that's fine too. That debate may best be left for the other thread.

Last edited by Justin (2009-11-10 08:09:53)

BrianP wrote:

I am curious what methods you use specifically when you are making a jiari shakuhachi in regards to sabi, ji etc.  I have seen dental plaster, plaster of paris and heard of people mixing herbs and so forth.  What method do you personally use in the construction of your flutes?  I didn't notice specifically you stating anything in particular that you do above so if I missed the answer to this above I apologize.

Thanks,
Brian

Hi Brian
I didn't talk about my methods since I'm can't really say I am representative of usual makers. Since you've asked, I use the finest quality jinoko from roasted volcanic rock (expensive and hard to come by), and also tonoko. I learned the use of ji while studying under several shakuhachi makers, and have talked with others about their techniques and experiences, as well as my research of shakuhachi I have restored, and the consequences of various techniques over time. My style is based on the traditional Kanto style but my methods and specific choice of materials comes largely from my work under my urushi master and researching and developing specific ways of applying those techniques.

Last edited by Justin (2009-11-10 09:38:20)

Michael asked me to play for you guys so I'll be joining you in Kyoto. See you there!

Justin wrote:

The addition of urushi to the bore, for example, will decrease the chances of cracking. Some komuso even added urushi to the outside of their shakuhachi, and this will further decrease the chances of cracking. I would suggest that ji applied well by a skilled craftsman, then covered by urushi as is the usual way, would give greater crack resistance than a shakuhachi with no urushi at all.

In fact, I have honestly seen nothing to suggest that ji applied properly in any way increases the tendancy for the bamboo to crack. I don't see how that is obvious as you claim. I've seen plenty of cracked jinashi.
.

There are not so many flutes in circulation with no urushi at all. Even guys like Ken and Shugetsu who like to make jinashi flutes usually add a coat of urushi. It's good for a lot of reasons including hygiene.

About ji.....my experience is that jiari flutes crack more than jinashi (albeit jinashi with a coat of urushi). Other people might have a different experience, but most makers and repairmen I've talked to seem to agree with that.

I am on the phone with Herr Meister Singer and he says he agrees that flutes without utaguchi inlays or joints are more stable but said he's not sure about ji being more or less stable.

Toby wrote:

You trad guys are going to hate this, but there are expoy and other chemical putties which work quite well in shakuhachi making, are probably more durable and stable than traditional ji, can be applied in a few coats (or even one) which dry or cure within a few days, and are easier to finish than traditional ji. But of course that takes all the fun out of it for those of us who suffer from rhus allergy ;^}

Toby

This is a good point. On a personal note, I don't want to come across as a purist or to come down on other methods.

I think each maker has to weigh out the perceived or real pros and cons. I write about these kinds of things on my on shakuhachi guides page.

Last edited by Jon Kypros (2024-03-30 19:07:40)