Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Thorsten wrote:

Before I used piece of bone (cut out of beads) for a utaguchi and sanded it down to fit into a kinko style cut but I seemed to had to file and sand forever - it didn't quite feel like the way to do it. Any advice appreciated.

Thorsten,

I haven't used the ready-mades. It's relatively easy to make your own by cutting a piece with the following specs: 22mm x 6mm x 100mm or more. It's easier to work with a long piece then cut it off after it's glued into place.

The principles of wood joinery can be applied to utaguchi making. The idea is to create as much contact area between the utaguchi material and the bamboo wall. That way, it's less likely to pop out. It's helpful to think of the utaguchi as an "arrow." (perhaps someone has an illustration of this to post?) Then, you can file it a little here and there until it wedges into your angled cuts in the bamboo. Glue it in with urushi or whatever glue you are usuing, cut off the face, and file it down inside and out.

Acrylic, hardwoods, horn, ivory, vegetable ivory all work pretty well.

Tairaku wrote:

The best alternative is to not use an inlaid utaguchi. It is unnecessary. Some of the best flutes don't have any utaguchi.

Or, like Brian mentioned, don't use one. In my experience there is little, if any, functional difference in playability in flutes made with or without an utaguchi. One argument for the use of an utaguchi is that they are hard so they protect the blowing edge. A counter argument is that they chip easily and that a damaged natural blowing edge is easily repaired. It can also be strengthened by painting with urushi.

Perhaps the main function of the utaguchi is to distinguish the particular school? Any thoughts about this from anyone?

Regarding the shaping of the material which is inlaid (ie, the acrylic, bone, ivory...): I don't have a way right now to post a drawing, but perhaps this will help:

Consider the piece of inlay material to be a tapered dovetail, in which the dovetail is a triangle in cross section (the triangle has a wide base).

The opening in the flute shaft which receives this 'dovetail' is cut so that it also tapers slightly, but LESS than the inlay material. This way you get a nice tight fit between the inlay material and the cutout in the bevel.

When you do the inlay, the wide base of the inlay material goes against the wide part of the opening; you put the 'point' of the tapered dovetail (also looks like an arrowhead...) into the flute shaft, and the wide end just sticks up at a sharp angle out of the bevel.

After completing the fitting, trim off most of the 'point', and glue the piece in place, lop off the piece sticking out of the bevel, and remove what's left of the point from within the bore.

Make sense?

eB

Thorsten wrote:

Do I 'simply' cut a segment out of it, glue it into a prepared angled cut at the blowing edge and then sand down the back of it to conform to the shape of the inside bamboo curving and then adjust the crescent like shape on the blowing edge ? What are good alternatives ?

Hi Thorsten,

I dont know how many different techniques exist in making utaguchi inserts. However, I would recommend NOT to glue the thing in for the following reason. It may happen, that you damage the utaguchi and it will look like my original (I will post a few pictures over the weekend). Then it is extraordinary beneficial if you can replace it by simply pulling the damaged thing out and measure the angles, make a copy out of plastic or whatever and insert this copy into the slit. The pre shaped materials for utaguchi inserts listed in Mejiros cataloque are especially made for those non glue utaguchis.

Andre

Thanks Mujitsu - a illustration can say so more than words.

Mujitsu wrote:

The angle of the wedge placement is steep to allow for more contact between the utaguchi and the bamboo wall. If you are careful with the angles, it should wedge in tightly.

But just to doublecheck; So rather than inserting the plastic (or similar) piece vertically, ie parallel to the flute bore it is put in at an angle and protruding quite a bit over the oblique angle of the mouthpiece (side view in illustration?) and subsequently cut off and filed down. What I thought was that the plastic has to be shaped first into a shape which is more or less perfectly flush with the oblique angle before inserting it, that's why I reckon I sanded too much when I tried last time...

edosan wrote:

While it's true that, all other things being equal, there's no difference in performance between an inlaid and plain utaguchi, one pretty important consideration is that, over time, the plain utaguchi will wear, requiring reshaping from time to time. This can affect the RADIUS of the utaguchi--ie, how far it's curvature extends into the flute shaft--thus increasing the size of the 'hole' created by the utaguch and the lips; a pretty important factor in playability.
An inlaid utaguchi will keep this variable from changing.

Another advantage I thought an inlaid utaguchi may provide, if I visualise correctly, is the problem of the radius in case the bamboo has rather thin walls ( This may be one of the reasons makers use thick-walled bamboo to make Shakuhachi ?). I would have thought one is restricted in relation to the oblique angle of the mouth piece in the first place if the bamboo is too thin-walled ??
If that really matters for playing the thing in the end I do not know and as also mentioned maybe the whole utaguchi thing has more to do with a kind of tradition than with the overall playability of the Shaku.
Personally I  think it is rather nice to have a utaguchi inlay as it gives the shaku this particular look of contrast between the rough root-end and the delicate man-made mouthpiece. Maybe not just aesthetics but kind of symbolic as well.

Anyway I better start cutting that bamboo...

edosan wrote:

Just for fun, it's possible (although a bit tricky on the hands/fingers...) to turn your shakuhachi upside down--that is, with the utaguchi against your chin--and blow on the OTHER side of the blowing opening, and get a decent sound. Forget about meri/kari, though smile

that is fun

Mujitsu wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

The best alternative is to not use an inlaid utaguchi. It is unnecessary. Some of the best flutes don't have any utaguchi.

Or, like Brian mentioned, don't use one. In my experience there is little, if any, functional difference in playability in flutes made with or without an utaguchi. One argument for the use of an utaguchi is that they are hard so they protect the blowing edge. A counter argument is that they chip easily and that a damaged natural blowing edge is easily repaired. It can also be strengthened by painting with urushi.

Perhaps the main function of the utaguchi is to distinguish the particular school? Any thoughts about this from anyone?

I have long harbored many superstitions about the different shapes of utaguchi. I used to believe that Tozan style was best designwise  because it offered the most available surface contact between breath and a nice sharp, hard blowing edge.  After the past year of getting to play many different types of flutes, my superstitions have considerably weakened.

I have a lovely two-piece 1.8 Bifu-kai (from the 1930s I think) that had a worm-eaten horn Kinko inlay which Perry Yung refurbished beautifully. If I were Koga, I would think about having Perry look at his flute.

Perry frequently uses a very nice style of inlay which he calls 'Sogawa' or 'Kinya' style after his teacher. Looks very similar to how I understand Meian (Myoan) utaguchi appear. He has a lovely 2.6 on eBay right now with an example of this utaguchi made with a gray pearl acrylic. Very nice, elegant look. Perhaps he could post a picture of that blowing edge here some time.

I had Ken LaCosse (Mujitsu Shakuhachi) re-inlay a 1.9 Meian nobekan which I went on to resell, but frankly I had a very hard time letting go of that instrument after Ken's new utaguchi -- it really increased the tonal flexibility and depth of the instrument.

I have a 1.65 hochiku which Ken made from Chinese bamboo and I marvel at the simplicity and elegance of the plain inlay-less blowing edge. I will probably have Ken paint some urushi on it some time for safety sake, but again that may be more my superstitious need than real need. I keep all of my instruments capped and in bags and don't plan on chewing on the blowing edges at any foreseeable time in the future.

Lastly, I wonder:  What determines the actual depth of the blowing edge? I have noticed some flutes have shallower edges than others. I have seen 2-4mm in depth. The shallower ones which I've played seem more repsonsive to me -- but then, that's just me.

Last edited by Chris Moran (2005-11-20 23:26:45)

I mostly side with Brian and Ken, in that most older Shakuhachi, and some amazing newer ones, dont' have any inlay, and possibly sound better. Well, they might sound a little better to me. I've also seen a few flutes out there that sseem like great flutes, up until I see that they didn't do a good job with the inly; it just seems like it's easy to mess up if you're not amazing with them. I just personally prefer a very plain, simple style; there's nothing wrong with actually blowing ON bamboo.

However, Ken had a stunning, bring-me-to-tears-because-I-couldn't-buy-it-at-the-time 1.9 that had the most beautiful inlay I've ever seen, so I guess it just depends on the maker, and how well they can integrate thier inlays.

-E

Mejiro.com sells files made specically for Kinko and Tozan insert; also template guides. The files are pricey, but hand made and well worth the money

Thanks for the quick replies!

I don't know Japanese, so it may take awhile for me to browse Mejiro.com. But it's still good to have a resource for the specific tools. Thanks for the reference, gmiller. It's been bookmarked, and I'll browse through it with Babel Fish or some similar tool.

You make a good point, Mujitsu. I'll leave the Dremel for the larger jobs and use tools with more fine control for the utaguchi. Also, if there appears to be no functional difference between the two styles (and I work up the courage to attempt this) I think I may go with Tozan. Thanks for helping me solidify my ideas a bit further.