Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Justin wrote:

Justin wrote:
No, I wasn't, though now you point it out, from what I know of you and Brian I think Brian does have a broader range of playing styles and instruments.

We'll have to agree to disagree there, I'm fine with that.

Justin wrote:

It's not a competition though!

I never implied that it was, that's a word you're using.

Peter Kororo wrote:

I have three 1.8s alone that I use for different types of music. MyYamazaki Chikuin is in tune perfectly,

Justin wrote:

Peter, what did you do to it? This surely means that you altered it, and that it is therefore not in its original condition.

Yes and no--this should answer what you write below as well. And I'll take the opportunity to restate some things from above as it's related to my response to what you just wrote.

I don't consider all vintage shakuhachi to be better than all modern shakuhachi, which one could certainly read into what I've written. But I think that's a matter of not being specific, for one, and also reacting--rather than responding--to certain things about older shakuhachi that you and others have written on this forum, namely saying that many/most are not good flutes/shakuhachi, they're being sold for too much money, which I know for a fact someone said quite openly in Sydney, that I should not have a space allowed to me to sell my overpriced flutes with those by contemporary makers. That was hearsay but I have little reason to doubt it considering the source. What I heard first hand from a few Japanese sensei, on the other hand, was that they were happy to have the chance to play some excellent vintage shakuhachi, and though only one did speak explicitly about the value, his opinion was that they were in fact "far and away the best flutes there." This is someone, to paraphrase Kees above, highly regarded by all in the shakuahchi world. I truly don't like writing things like that but it seems I have to in response to misstatements about my shakuhachi, intentional or not.

I have however indeed focused more in my comments on the really special old flutes, and of course not all are like that. I think in fact that I've claimed less than others have claimed I've claimed.

I'd still say that--of the flutes I've sold to people--even the least expensive were often very good value compared to more expensive modern flutes available, and I've heard the same from many buyers. Just a week or two ago, someone I know quite well emailed me about the vintage 2.1 he acquired from me recently. After having the chance to play some $4-5000 modern flutes, he wrote to say that he now understood how nice the 2.1 was in comparison, and it was half that. I really don't care to put these stories out there, but as long as you, Justin, or others continue to make the statements about these older flutes you have, the more stories like this one I'll tell--I have many.

Then, as to these less-expensive shakuhachi--no stamp flutes or those by competent but not truly master makers, if they had certain weaknesses, those were compensated for by relative strengths, and in most cases those advantages/disadvantages are for all practical purposes mirrored by those of modern shakuhachi, the main one being playing 1-2 notes easily. I've written above about this trade-off.

As to the repair point, with no-stamp flutes that aren't extraordinary, I haven't felt that having any small amount of bore work done that improves the stability, playability, etc, is a problem as to the things you mention. Only once have I had a flute extensively redone, so that it looks old but plays like a new one, and I've advertised it exactly as such. When I've had any other bore work done, or myself slanted a hole down to retune (almost always chi), I've made that clear to the buyer. Most of the time I don't even do the least invasive of these alterations, retuning chi, even if buyers want that--and I've often gotten as the one or first question whether the flute's "in tune," i.e. perfectly in tune. That seems to be a top priority, but I disagree and leave moving holes up to the buyer. I've heard and it seems to be not uncommonly said that moving holes too much up or down can really affect one or more other notes, like ro, but I've rarely seen any 20th century shakuhachi made by a serious maker that need the holes moved that much. Nevertheless I've rarely done it.

With any stamped flute, even less. Only when I decided to go ahead with letting my maker in Tokyo stabilize the otsu ro, or re, on a good stamped flute a couple of times, and saw that he could do just enough of the work to affect the desired change without making any really noticeable, change in the tone or character of the flute, at most--sometimes much less--did I consent to to it a couple of more times. A hand-full over the course of the years I've been doing this.

The Shoudo shakuhachi I played in Sydney sounds fantastic, stabilizing the difficult otsu ro that jumps easily to kan ro muffles the tone a bit, noticeably so, so I put vinyl tape in the bore but  take it out if I don't need to play otsu ro, like for Koden Sugomori.

As to this Chikuin, or any master Shakuhachi, I would never make an alteration that couldn't be undone at least to an extent where any effect of it would only matter to a collector concerned about it being in absolute original condition. That was a decision I made with, for example, the Chikuin, after many years of considering it. The Chikuin 1.8 you're referring to, I retuned the chi without angling the hole done, only adding a little wood putty that I can remove, the worst-case scenario would be needing to do a slight bit of retouching of the urushi in the hole.

This flute had an unusual problem in that the ros were sharp. At first I merely took a piece of root and stuck it on the bottom with tape. That not only tuned the ro but toned down the very intense tonality of this flute, in line with what I've written elsewhere. But it still had plenty to spare and I considered it a worthy trade-off. I decided to make it more permanent by gluing that root piece on with four tiny dabs of wood glue, then covering all of it with ji, and lacquering all of the ji and a small part of the lowest node. So the whole alteration can be removed, though it would certainly take quite a bit of careful work, leaving only a light sanding with 1000-2000 sandpaper and a bit of rubbed in ki-urushi as a mark on the flute. Because doing this made the flute so much easier to play, and again would be removable, I went for it.

With my Kindo 1.9, I only put putty in the chi hole, removable like that on the Chikuin. With any other master flute I have, I haven't and don't intend to make any alterations even to re-tune holes. I've seen such flutes with putty in the holes, but not the holes moved.

So I think that should answer most of your questions above and below--though they're suppositions as much as questions aren't they?

As to where I draw the line? Bore work. None of the alterations I've done to any of these important vintage instruments has involved bore work (I've discussed the others above). I even own a couple of great old flutes that had holes altered by others and I'm not happy with it.

Justin wrote:

Is this something you usually do to your vintage instruments?"

At what point in your re-making/re-working (by you or other makers you commission to do the work) do you consider the instrument no longer vintage? And, do you make sure that the customers and future generations are all aware that these instruments are not as the original makers had made them? For example, by having the modern maker put his stamp on the instrument as a sign of his later work? And how do you deal with the traditional Japanese view that vintage shakuhachi should not be altered, such as the appeals recently by Shimura Satoshi at the World Shakuhachi Festival?

I've already answered most of this to at least my satisfaction, hope that will suffice.

But I'll have to comment on the last line above. "Shimura's appeals" is a good example of how much of what you've written above is assuming I've done work that is deleteriously altering "vintage shakuhachi" (i.e. all of them) and that Shimura has pleaded what others all feel, that this is very wrong. I will add that IMO  many things you've written in reference to me the loaded words and the insinuations couched in neutral or vague language are intellectually dishonest and don't contribute to a healthy debate about  this or any other topic for that matter. I'm happy to explain about the work I've done because it's been the result of a long process of my own, has IMO been succesfull, is interesting to me, and I feel may be of interest to others who read this forum. But if I didn't take that pleasure in explaining it I would merely be defending my actions against what you're saying or implying.

So, at this juncture because I'm afraid I don't have much more time to contribute to this, and apologize for my own lack of clarity and occasional mis-statements and/or overstatements, I'll try to make a succinct restatement of the main points this discussion has evloved into being about: there are all kinds of old and modern shakuhachi.  Makers who put care into their flutes have and do make great shakuhachi. But vintage shakuhachi are not as weak in ways as people think, and have some strengths which are under-appreciated, and another, tone, which is to me at least more important than what constitute the principle strengths of modern shakuhachi; and since there aren't yet enough people with enough experience playing all sorts of good vintage flutes, I'm advocating that more people play them.

I'm not making any absolutist claims, though I can see how my reacting to the wholesale dismissal of their quality, or incorrect equivocations about them, or for that matter marginalization of important qualities as trifles, has made it seem that way. I encourage you and others who have made these statements to exercise some of the same reconsideration, not in terms of your language, which is often filled with qualifiers, but in what you are saying as a whole, which often isn't.

Last, before I get back to other pressing things for a bit, I was a bit put-off by my title being change to "über sensei," not only because I don't consider myself that, of course, and would consider it a misapplication by Brian or whoever changed it from (more or less) what I have returned it to, but because along with other things--like to what the title of this thread has been changed to--it appears to be sarcastic or provocative in an unhelpful way. I certainly feel strongly about many things re shakuhachi, consider myself to have some expertise in what I post about here, but I'm not at all opposed to debating these things as long as I'm responding to intellectually honest and well-informed opinons. I don't want to entangle myself in discussions where I'm confronted with aspersions, inflamatory remarks or empty provocations, and so on.

I feel fortunate that 17-18 years of the 20 I've been playing have involved, well, playing, as well as interacting with many devoted players, some of them great, others with much wisdom to share, and that by far the lesser part has been on the internet. I would hope that aside from the valid exchanges of information--and the completely unschooled opinions that can at times open everyone's eyes up to new ideas or ways of looking at things re shakuhachi--the debates would stick to the same forthrightness of intentions as in those experiences, comments and communications just described.

My last reference to reading my take on vintage/modern shakuhachi on my website was written in haste and some distaste, so I'll restate it more coolly: I've been working on presenting this on my website and may actually have it up before too long, at that time perhaps I'll put a note up here to check it out--if that's okay--and those interested are welcome to not only have a read but respond personally to me via email or any public forum they wish, though in the latter case I may be slower to respond.

Last edited by Peter Kororo (2009-12-24 02:38:16)

Peter Kororo wrote:

As to where I draw the line? Bore work. None of the alterations I've done to any of these important vintage instruments has involved bore work (I've discussed the others above). I even own a couple of great old flutes that had holes altered by others and I'm not happy with it.

That's interesting. There are many other alterations, but that's not an unreasonable place to draw the line. So, you only have bore work done on those vintage shakuhachi you feel are not within the group of "these important" ones. I may sound like I'm picking nits, but I couldn't help noticing that you qualified what you said here quite carefully. In my personal opinion I may agree that is there is a really junk shakuhachi with no musical or historic value, then why not have it worked on to breath some life in it. But really I was more interested to hear how you yourself deal with these issues and questions, as it is certainly a tricky area. Difficult to draw a clear line between what instrument you will alter or not, and how much. And also when to consider a shakuhachi to be "one of these important" ones, or one OK to alter the bore of.

Peter Kororo wrote:

But I'll have to comment on the last line above. "Shimura's appeals" is a good example of how much of what you've written above is assuming I've done work that is deleteriously altering "vintage shakuhachi" (i.e. all of them)

No. I was not assuming that the work you get done is "deleteriously altering". However since you mention it, what one person considers an "improvement" can indeed be considered by others as harmful. So it really depends who is judging. For example the work you have done on the Chikuin is seen as helpful by you but harmful by Brian, let alone the more permanent/irreversible changes to other instruments. That is the point Shimura was making.

Peter Kororo wrote:

and that Shimura has pleaded what others all feel, that this is very wrong.

You are assuming that I was assuming that everyone feels the same as Shimura about this?? No. Many people do but not everyone of course. Evidently some people do favour altering them, and you are certainly not the only one to alter vintage instruments. I was curious how you deal with that issue.

Peter Kororo wrote:

I'm not making any absolutist claims, though I can see how my reacting to the wholesale dismissal of their quality, or incorrect equivocations about them, or for that matter marginalization of important qualities as trifles, has made it seem that way.

I have searched through this thread [N.B. this thread was split but originally started here:
http://www.shakuhachiforum.com/viewtopi … 81&p=1  ] and been unable to find anyone giving any "wholesale dismissal of their quality". I hope you're not referring to me. If you are, you had better go and re-read my comments. Perhaps you thought when I talked about tuning issues I was making such a dismissal? I will write more about that below to clarify that.

I try to give fair and honest views in general, and particularly when writing on this forum, as I think it would be wrong to do otherwise. I have no intention of hiding the troubles of vintage shakuhachi, nor their benefits, and in response to Bas's questions of the differences between vintage and modern, I believe I have given a fair representation of the spectrum of views held by my various teachers and friends, which includes some of the top performers and collectors in Japan. I love great shakuhachi whenever they were made, and I regularly play vintage shakuhachi. So I am aware of the pros and cons. I regularly play fine vintage shakuhachi made by such master as Kurosawa Kinko, Araki Kodo II and III for example. And I play these instruments with the genres they were made for. But I would not use these for Yokoyama's school of honkyoku, because they would not suit it, due to tuning. However for Kinko-ryu music these are outstanding. For this they are perfectly in tune (part of their excellence) except for chi which we still have to control the pitch of, as it is generally still sharper on these older instruments compared to the shamisen (though Araki Kodo II and onwards are closer than those before then). This adjustment becomes habitual for players in for example Araki Kodo's school, using vintage Araki-ha instruments. As they always play the same genre (indeed the same genre these were made for) they learn to control the pitch of chi to be in tune with the teacher/shamisen.

I know that you yourself have also had problems playing in tune when playing Yokoyama's school's music with vintage instruments. So I can fully understand why you would want to change the tuning of vintage shakuhachi (and I assume not all of those alterations have been temporary/reversible). This may be why you have a dedicated page to your website entitled "Retuning Shakuhachi". An extract:

Peter Kororo's website wrote:

The vast majority of shakuhachi are not in tune with the western diatonic scale. The note "chi" is usually the sharpest, and often "re" and even "tsu" are sharp as well; however, it is not rare for "tsu" to be flat, and "ri" is sometimes sharp or flat too. Furthermore, the upper, or "kan" octave is often sharp in relation to the lower, "otsu" register. Thus, when I retune a shakuhachi, I often do not lower at least the chi hole all the way so that it is exactly it tune, and I generally do not raise the pitch of a note by moving or opening up the hole, as it is necessary, I believe, for any player to become used to making adjustments in pitch while playing.

I don't think anyone in this thread has been against vintage shakuhachi. So I don't think you have anything to defend. There are pros and cons. In fact there are pros and cons to every shakuhachi.