Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

airin wrote:

I often read descriptions of certain shakuhachi, sometimes the really fat ones, that mention it being a good instrument for playing in the first octave.  Then typically the writer goes on to give Kyorei as an example of a piece that the flute would suited for but they never name any other pieces that are played totally in otsu.  Today, as I play only in otsu due to the limitations imposed by some recent peridontal surgery, I wondered if there are other pieces that are comprised of notes all in the first octave and if so, what are they and where would I find them?

thanks,
Erin

Looky here:

     http://www.shakuhachiforum.com/viewtopi … d=522#p522

I searched until my knuckles were raw......

To add some information about Kyorei and Hifumi-no-shirabe:
Kyorei is one of Fudaiji's honkyoku, and in its Fudaiji version has plenty of both kan and otsu in it. The version you are referring to is I expect Jin Nyodo's arrangement of Kyorei, which indeed is only in otsu.

Hifumi-no-Shirabe is a Kinko-ryu piece, and is mainly though not entirely in otsu. Higuchi Taizan studied Kinko-ryu and made an arrangement of Hifumi-no-Shirabe, which is entirely in otsu.

So neither of these as Edo period honkyoku were entirely in otsu.
I don't know the piece Garyoken Takeshirabe, and the only reference I can find for it is that Tokuyama Takashi plays it on his CD. Does anyone know who he learned it from?

Another pieces, although a an extremely short one, is Uke Take which consists of only two phrases.

Cheers,

Marek

Lorka wrote:

Hi Justin,

I was a little confused on what you were saying about Kyorei.  Perhaps you can expand on that more.  I was under the impression that the kyorei that I have been hearing and playing was in its orginal form. 

I may have misunderstood, but I got the impression you were saying that the ostu kyorei is a modern invention on the part of Jin Nyodo, which differs from the "original".  In what ways do they dramatically differ?

Hi Lorka
There is no original form of any honkyoku really, except the versions as they were originally composed. For a few pieces we may have the notation or even a recording by the composer of the piece, for example we have notation written by Araki CHikuo for Tsuki no Kyoku, or notation and even recordings of Ajikan by Miyagawa Nyozan. However many of the pieces we play are hundreds of years old, and the pieces take on lives of their own, so to speak, as the exist in a contiually changing form, sometimes branching off through the lineages to create many "offspring", different versions which may even become very different pieces.

They change over time; sometimes just naturally even when the student tries to play as the teacher, changing either immediately (if the student never learns to play the piece as the teacher does), or over the decades the player might play the piece, gradually evolving; and sometimes deliberately, in the case of someone consciously rearranging the piece. With Jin Nyodo, he seems at times to have consciously rearranged pieces. And also the style in which he plays pieces, even if the melody is the same, is sometimes different from the style he received the pieces in. For example, Takiochi. The Takiochi Jin plays is basically Fudaiji's version of Takiochi. So one might expect it to sound as it does in Seien-ryu (the school which continues the Fudaiji lineage). However Jin seems to have learned it from Taizan-ryu, from the way he plays it. [Higuchi Taizan was a student of Kanetomo Seien, but studied also Kinko-ryu and went to Kyoto and formed his own school, with his own arrangements and style.] Jin also seems to put his Kimpu-ryu influence into Takiochi (Jin was originally a Kimpu-ryu player) and indeed when he played it in Nagoya, the Seien-ryu people there found it strange that he was playing a Fudaiji honkyoku in Kimpu-ryu style. Whether this was a conscious change or not, I don't know.

As for Kyorei it seems that he also arranged his version not directly from the Seien-ryu version but from the Taizan-ryu version. The Taizan-ryu version is nearer the Seien-ryu version with differences mainly in breaths and ornamentation - both have a long otsu section and a long kan section. Jin's arrangement seems to be the Taizan-ryu version, but with the kan section changed to otsu so that the whole piece is in otsu.

This is all from my own deduction and there may be missing pieces to the puzzle. If anyone has any corrections or further information I would be happy to hear it.

Justin wrote:

Hifumi-no-Shirabe is a Kinko-ryu piece, and is mainly though not entirely in otsu. Higuchi Taizan studied Kinko-ryu and made an arrangement of Hifumi-no-Shirabe, which is entirely in otsu.

Called Hi Fu Mi Cho.

There is notation available for this in the ISS Annals Vol. 1. Along with complete instructions.

Certainly not the definitive version, here's one we whipped up a few years back:

http://shakuhachiforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=165

Hey Justin,

Thanks for the detailed response.  Some of the things you mentioned went way over my head, as I do not, as yet, have a broad understanding of the various historical branches that the shakuhachi transmission developed in Japan.  It is interesting stuff though. 

I would like to hear a Seien-ryu version of Kyorei at some point, if only so I could compare it against the one I know (the Jin one).

marek wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

First phrase is otsu, second is kan.

Tairaku,

I'm  afraid that you are somehow mixing in Uke Take's kan twin, Yobi Take, which basically is the same two phrases in kan. (There are some minor differences in fingerings)

Or, have you encountered different version than I have?

Marek

The version I know is (from Jin Nyodo):

"Origin unknown: YOBIDAKE -UKEDAKE

2-shaku 5-sun
1 min. 4 sec.

1. About the title:

It was customary for komuso priests, when they chanced to cross paths while out collecting alms, to greet one another with this piece. One priest would first play Yobidake ("calling bamboo"). In this way, if the first priest played Yobidake three times, and the other priest could not respond with Ukedake, he was exposed as an imposter, a bogus priest (in Japanese: maisu).

The style of playing this Yobidake-Ukedake varied with the school that the komuso belonged to, so that it was possible to distinguish where a priest came from by the style of his playing.

2. Structure of the piece

The Yobidake is played in a two breath melody which rises from the lowest tone to the highest tone within KO (the second octave). The Ukedake is the same melody played in RO (the first octave). Yobidake is played three times, while Ukedake is played once."

So it may be considered two pieces, but they go together. They're the same phrase but in different octaves.

Tairaku wrote:

Justin wrote:

Hifumi-no-Shirabe is a Kinko-ryu piece, and is mainly though not entirely in otsu. Higuchi Taizan studied Kinko-ryu and made an arrangement of Hifumi-no-Shirabe, which is entirely in otsu.

Called Hi Fu Mi Cho.

Yes, in Taizan-ryu it is pronounced Hifumi Cho. The kanji (Japanese script) for the pronunciation "cho" and "shirabe" is the same, and so can be pronounced either way, so the written title is (excluding "no") the same.

Yobedaki-Ubedake by Jin Nyodo

Last edited by Chris Moran (2009-12-03 10:52:55)

Chris Moran wrote:

Yobedaki-Ubedake by Jin Nyodo

Hi Chris,

I don't know if this is supposed to be an argument that it is a single piece. If it is, then I suggest to also take into account how the piece(s) have been notated, that suggests they are two pieces indeed, although strongly connected.

Cheers,

Marek

marek wrote:

Chris Moran wrote:

Yobedaki-Ubedake by Jin Nyodo

Hi Chris,

I don't know if this is supposed to be an argument that it is a single piece...

Hi Marek,

No point or argument intended. I noticed that pieces (Yobedake-Ubedake and HiFuMi Cho) were mentioned in this thread and I thought I would post them for anyone who have not heard those specific pieces recorded by those artists. (Much of Jin Nyodo's recorded work is only available in a $250-something 6-cd set and Tanikita's work is only sold on cassette tape.)

I would have also posted Jin's Kyorei, but the file is too big.

Justin wrote:

Tairaku wrote:

Justin wrote:

Hifumi-no-Shirabe is a Kinko-ryu piece, and is mainly though not entirely in otsu. Higuchi Taizan studied Kinko-ryu and made an arrangement of Hifumi-no-Shirabe, which is entirely in otsu.

Called Hi Fu Mi Cho.

Yes, in Taizan-ryu it is pronounced Hifumi Cho. The kanji (Japanese script) for the pronunciation "cho" and "shirabe" is the same, and so can be pronounced either way, so the written title is (excluding "no") the same.

The way it is written actually more or less tells you how it is pronounced. If Hifumi-chō is only written like this with kanji only 一二三調, then usually it is pronounced Hifumi-chō - the last character pronounced in kun'yomi or Chinese way of reading (although it is Japanese Chinese). If the title is written 一二三の調, the の (no) indicates (with exceptions) that Japanese reading of the kanji should be used. One of the knotty aspects of Japanese language. But anyway Hifumi-chō and Hifumi no Shirabe readings are not exactly the same but two variations - just like the variations in shakuhachi pieces.