Peter,
> I agree that Isaac's question was perhaps not well-conceived, but why
> the needlessly flippant answer?
Because the question is so hopelessly rhetorical as to require a literal
answer. That Isaac doesn't seek anything other than support for his position
is what makes a literal answer stand out.
> I really don't think a bunch of
> numbers, no matter how thoroughly crunched, will make a flute that sounds
> like my Gesshu 1.8.
I'm curious as to why you hold such an opinion. Are you saying that you
can't imagine it or that there is some fundamental reason it can't be done?
Is you opinion based on something you know or don't know?
> Perhaps
> someone in the "science can do it" camp would like to take my Meiji-era 1.8
> that has a sound to die for, and make me a perfect copy?
This can be easily done at the present. Replicated down to a thousandth of
an inch, both inside and out. The replica would be a little heavier as the
material would be different. It would also be waterproof and in about any
color you want. You could keep the cracks or not--up to you.
In any event, I doubt whether any information or process will have
noticeable impact on the manufacture of the shakuhachi. The idiosyncrasy of
the whole affair is what attracts most people anyway. Players like to feel
their personal instruments unique--which is reasonable, I suppose. If the
instrument is unique, the same can be said of the player. If not? .....well.
It's a simple proposition.
Nelson
List subscription information is at:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:34 PST