Having been away from email for a week, I didn't get right in on the=20
thread regarding the hitoyogiri, but I'll pop in now for an addendum.
The hitoyogiri is referred to as a 1.1 shakuhachi in most of the=20
general literature on the subject, but a fascinating article on=20
shakuhachi history in the substantial booklet that comes with Jin=20
Nyodo's collected performances -- I think it's by Prof. Kamisang=F4,=20
although I don't have it here before me, and could be mistaken --=20
points out that "hitoyogiri" and "shakuhachi" are synonymous in=20
medieval and early modern references. It's more or less reasonable to=20=
call a 1.1 hitoyogiri a "shakuhachi" because it can be considered 1=20
shaku and 8 bu long, more or less. (A bu is the next unit of linear=20
measure below a sun, so the informal name "shakuhachi" would in this=20
case mean 1.08 shaku rather than the 1.8 shaku more familiar to us.) =20
That said, though, the name "shakuhachi" doesn't specify length very=20
reliably, whether 1.8 or 1.08, and there are, as we know, "shakuhachi"=20=
measuring 1.6, 1.8, 2.1, 2.4, etc. etc. So also, there were=20
"hitoyogiri no shakuhachi" of various lengths. The instruments to=20
which Ikky=FB and others refer would not necessarily have been as short=20=
as 1.08 or 1.1.
Significant differences would all the same remain between a 1.8 komus=F4=20=
shakuhachi and a 1.8 hitoyogiri, in that the latter, as Karl points=20
out, would be less amenable to bending notes and altering their pitch. =20=
One reason for that is that hitoyogiri were made not from root stock=20
but higher up, and I believe Riley points out that they were also made=20=
with the mouthpiece cut from the lower end of the stalk rather than the=20=
higher (as is the case with komus=F4 shakuhachi) This would mean there=20=
was less thickness in the cylinder, and less to use for the bevel and=20
mouthpiece in order to alter the pitch of a given note, although it=20
might be going too far to say that the hitoyogiri is unable to bend the=20=
notes at all.
Best,
Tom Hare
On Saturday, January 24, 2004, at 06:24 AM, Karl Signell wrote:
> At 01:41 PM 1/24/04 +0000, you wrote:
>> The precurser to the komuso shakuhachi is called hitoyogiri.
>
> I find it confusing to call the hitoyogiri a "shakuhachi." As Riley=20=
> Lee explains in his dissertation, the shakuhachi's radically different=20=
> mouthpiece cut at a slant enabled the player to adapt to the new=20
> half-tone intervals (meri) of the Edo period *in* scale popularized by=20=
> urban samisen music played by geishas. The hitoyogiri's notched=20
> mouthpiece was unable to bend the notes, lead to the eclipse of the=20
> hitoyogiri by the shakuhachi.
>
> http://tls.il.proquest.com/hp/Products/DisExpress.html
>
> Karl
>
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> List subscription information is at:
> http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
_____________________________________________
List subscription information is at:
http://communication.ucsd.edu/shaku/listsub.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2005 - 15:42:31 PST