--- Nelson Zink <zink@newmex.com> wrote:
> 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.
Neslon, how do you know what Isaac seeks? It seems to me you're
claiming as much insight into his psychology as into shakuhachi making.
> > 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?
All I was saying, as Bill Fletcher and I beleive Ed Beaty pointed out,
was that I'd like to see an actual flute, not just pronouncements that
it can be done. I think it's overly cheeky to state unequivocally that
it can before it is actually done.
Take Monty's cast-bore flutes. He has hi-tech machines to replicate the
bore, but then says he charges extra for the pro models because he
works the bore after casting. So after more than a decade of, I would
assume, working on the copying process, he still has to do extra bore
work, just like a traditional maker. Not to say you or someone else
can't fabricate a great-sounding shakuhachi without the extra tuning
(by eye and hand I assume), but I will remain doubtful until I see it
done.
> > 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.
>
I can lay out 100 old flutes for you and they will all sound noticeably
different. I can lay out 100 modern, but traditionally-made flutes for
you, and they will also sound different, but less so. I can lay out 100
cast-bore flutes for you, and they will sound very close. Having
listened to many many of them, I can tell you they sound 2D compared to
the traditionally made ones.
Moreover, I find that shakuhachis with an optomized bore are lacking in
character--hence my double entendre in the subject line (and thanks to
Phil and Ed--and Oscar!--for the rejoinders). That was my point about
the "non-tuning" points, those areas that may have more room to play
with to affect tone color. Only by working a bore, not popping it out
in one go, can you discover what possibilities are there.
I'll accept that this could depend mostly on the shape of the bore, but
that misses the point--since the proces is different the result is
necessarily different. And I will maintain until shown otherwise that
the material matters; just don't assume that I've decided it can't be
done.
Any of them will also vary according to the player, of course. Nothing
happens with shakuhachi except when it's played, so there is really
just a single entity, the player and the flute combined.
As for me or others jumping on you, I think you invite it by being so
cocky about what you write here. This is why I wonder about your
breathing techniques as well--how rooted in practice and experience are
they? I do appreciate your input, but I find the 100% confidence
off-putting when it seems to be the product of theory rather than
practice.
I'm as irreverent about most things as the next guy, probably moreso as
I like to challenge people's assumptions. I like to tell Westerners who
are captivated by the Zen aspect of shakuhachi that it isn't a Zen
instrument, just to shock them out of their complacency. As Hisamatsu
Fuyo would say, it is and it isn't. Get it?
There is a certain arrogance to the attitude that these traditional
makers were/are just mucking around in the dark and that anyone with
the $$$ and the equipment can match or outdo them. Since Tom Deaver
subscribes to this list I didn't mention him before as I don't want to
make a misstatement about his making, but I think the fact that he can
make as good a flute as any maker out there is inseparable from his
30-plus years of experience, and all the ineffable bits of
understanding he's acquired in that time. He makes cast-bore flutes
too, but they're not anywhere near as good as the others he makes.
Perhaps he needs more machinery and longer algorythms, but, again, I
doubt it.
> 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.
If you really thought is was reasonable you wouldn't follow up with the
next statement. Again, it's a symbiosis.
I don't like to be labeled as anti-science; in fact, I wanted to be an
astrophysicist, specifically a cosmologist, from the time I was 7,
though in the end I went into literature and music. But I have faith in
the collected wisdom of my elders, and why I'm more than willing to go
along with improvements to it (one reason I like my teachers' style of
teaching, which differs importantly from the traditional way), I'm not
going to assume the science can always (or frankly, often) improve
traditional things. In America one is propagandized into believing that
science will save the day (along with good 'ole rampant capitalism, of
course); but look around you and see how often the net result is
positive. What good is a 56" plasma TV when you're dead from stomach
cancer because you lived too close to the TV factory? FOr the same
reason, I would never play a PVC shakuhachi, no matter how good it
sounds. To me ideologies are not sacred, but there is a sacred quality
to the natural world, including bamboo and instruments made from it,
that is lacking in man-made objects. Also, I think that over time they
are imbued with the spirit of players who used them, which gives old
flutes a special quality; and again, this is a conclusion reached
through experience, not theory or religion.
Has anyone noticed that sampled pianos etc sound great, but flutes and
shakuhachis just don't cut it? Why do you think this is--the waveform
is actually simpler, isn't it?
If I wanted to improve my tennis playing, given the choice I'd go to
Pete Sampras rather than to a professor who knows everything there is
to know about the physics of tennis. Shakuhachi is something you do,
first and last, not something you talk and theorize about.
I've been a bit surprised at my own sarcasm recently. Normally I try to
be introspective, self-doubting, open to differing opinions; I really
do. But I've kind of lost my patience recently. Since I started playing
in '88 I've seen much more talk than walk, I have to say especially
from the foreign player community, and now that I've put about 6000
hours in behind shakuhachis I do feel somewhat qualified to be adamant
about certain things, and, likewise, I put my doubts aside when told
things by Riley or my main teacher, Kakizakai, who've probably got over
20,000 hours in, even when my first reaction is to disagree. I think
it's the height of arrogance to discount all the time, effort, and
experience these players have if what they say sounds "too"
traditional.
Anyway, I'll try to keep an open mind. Pardon this long post which
would no doubt benefit from a couple of rewrites....
In gassho,
Peter
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_____________________________________________
List subscription information is at:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 14:09:35 PST