I keep reading reference to "Traditional" sushi. I believe I
understand that in most cases, it refers to sushi as it is prepared in
Japan, using only those ingredients that are locally available and
have been used for sushi prior to it's becoming popular within western
countries.

Because of the actual history and evolution of sushi to it's present
form as prepared in Japan in the last hundred years, I believe the
word "Traditional" may be a description that is not entirely correct.

As seen in the below article from Wikipedia, sushi has been in
existence in Japan since the time period of year 718 AD.

It has evolved from the fermentation of fish and rice which was
naturally developed to lengthen the edible longevity of the food, to
today's sushi as prepared and eaten in Japan.

Sushi has come a long way. Through the centuries, the preparation and
methods of displaying and eating sushi have changed dramatically.

Perhaps the longest period of uniformity in preparation of sushi was
the 800, or so, years between the 10th century and the 18th century.
Because of the length of this period when sushi virtually remained
unchanged, the popular style of sushi during this period would be
accurately described as "Traditional" sushi.

The changes that have taken place in the last 20 years, mostly in
western countries, in regards to the preparation, display and eating
of sushi are what I believe are referred to as "Non-Traditional" forms
of sushi. This is perhaps because of the rapid addition of many items
that are now used in the preparation, and the newly accepted manner in
which sushi is now eaten in many countries.

Instead of using the word "Traditional", I believe that referencing
Japanese style of sushi that has been popular for the period up to 20
years ago may be best described as "Traditional Japanese sushi of the
early 1900's".

This, I can relate to perfectly. However, I stagger a bit when I see
someone use the term "Traditional" when referring to sushi. Because of
it's history, it really has no traditional methods. It has evolved
tremendously over hundreds of years.

"Traditional Japanese sushi" may be a little better description, but
it also isn't really accurate.

I'm very interested in what others in this group feel about this
terminology.


****

Sushi in Japan

The earliest reference to sushi in Japan appeared in 718 in the set of
laws called Yororitsuryo.

For almost the next 800 years, until the early 19th century, sushi
slowly changed and the Japanese cuisine changed as well. The Japanese
started eating three meals a day, rice was boiled instead of steamed,
and most important of all, rice vinegar was invented. While sushi
continued to be produced by fermentation of fish with rice, the time
of fermentation was gradually decreased and the rice used began to be
eaten along with the fish. In the Muromachi Period (1336 to 1573), the
process of producing Oshizushi was gradually developed where in the
fermentation process was abandoned and vinegar was used. In the Azuchi-
Momoyama period (1573 - 1603), namanari was invented. A 1603 Japanese-
Portuguese dictionary has an entry for namanrina sushi, literally half-
made sushi. The namanari was fermented for a shorter period than the
narezushi and possibly marinated with rice vinegar. It still had the
distinctive smell of narezushi.

The smell of narezushi was likely one of the reasons for shortening
and eventually skipping the fermentation process. It is commonly
described as "a cross between blue cheese, fish, and rice vinegar". A
story from Konjaku Monogatarishū written in early 12th century makes
it clear that it was not an attractive smell, even if it tasted good:
A man who had been visiting a friend in Kyoto got on a horse to go
home. A drunken female street vendor sleeping nearby woke up, became
dizzy, and vomited on a bowl of narezushi she had been selling.
Instead of throwing it away or trying to scoop out the vomit, she
quickly mixed it into the narezushi. Seeing this, the man pointed out
that narezushi was like a pile of spit to begin with, and those who
bought it often had probably often eaten other unintended ingredients.
From this point on, the man would tell any one who would listen to him
to not buy narezushi from anyone or any store.

In the early 18th century, oshizushi was perfected in Osaka and it
came to Edo by the middle of 18th century. These sushi were sold to
customers, but because they still required a little fermentation time,
stores hung a notice and posters to customers on when to come for a
sushi. Sushi was also sold near a park during a hanami period and a
theater as a type of Bento. Inarizushi was sold along oshizushi.
Makizushi and Chirasizushi also became popular in Edo period.

There were three famous sushi restaurants in Edo, Matsugasushi, Koube,
and Kenukisushi but there were thousands more sushi restaurants. They
were established in a span of barely twenty years at the start of the
19th century. Nigirizushi was an instant hit and it spread through Edo
like wildfire. In the book Morisadamanko published in 1852, the author
writes that for a cho (100 meters by 100 meters or 10,000 square
meters) section of Edo there were twelve sushi restaurants, but that
only one soba restaurant could be found in 12 cho. This means that
there were nearly 150 sushi restaurants for every soba restaurant.

These early nigirizushi were not identical to today's varieties. Fish
meat was marinated in soy sauce or vinegar or heavily salted so there
was no need to dip into soy sauce. Some fish was cooked before it was
put onto a sushi. This was partly out of necessity as there were no
refrigerators. Each piece was also larger, almost the size of two
pieces of today's sushi.

"John Doe" wrote in message
ups.com...
I keep reading reference to "Traditional" sushi. I believe I
understand that in most cases, it refers to sushi as it is prepared in
Japan, using only those ingredients that are locally available and
have been used for sushi prior to it's becoming popular within western
countries.

Because of the actual history and evolution of sushi to it's present
form as prepared in Japan in the last hundred years, I believe the
word "Traditional" may be a description that is not entirely correct.

As seen in the below article from Wikipedia, sushi has been in
existence in Japan since the time period of year 718 AD.

It has evolved from the fermentation of fish and rice which was
naturally developed to lengthen the edible longevity of the food, to
today's sushi as prepared and eaten in Japan.

Sushi has come a long way. Through the centuries, the preparation and
methods of displaying and eating sushi have changed dramatically.

Perhaps the longest period of uniformity in preparation of sushi was
the 800, or so, years between the 10th century and the 18th century.
Because of the length of this period when sushi virtually remained
unchanged, the popular style of sushi during this period would be
accurately described as "Traditional" sushi.

The changes that have taken place in the last 20 years, mostly in
western countries, in regards to the preparation, display and eating
of sushi are what I believe are referred to as "Non-Traditional" forms
of sushi. This is perhaps because of the rapid addition of many items
that are now used in the preparation, and the newly accepted manner in
which sushi is now eaten in many countries.

Instead of using the word "Traditional", I believe that referencing
Japanese style of sushi that has been popular for the period up to 20
years ago may be best described as "Traditional Japanese sushi of the
early 1900's".

This, I can relate to perfectly. However, I stagger a bit when I see
someone use the term "Traditional" when referring to sushi. Because of
it's history, it really has no traditional methods. It has evolved
tremendously over hundreds of years.

"Traditional Japanese sushi" may be a little better description, but
it also isn't really accurate.

I'm very interested in what others in this group feel about this
terminology.
***

What you say technically is absolutely correct. But from a practical point
of view,
absolute correctness would be quite cumbersome in the west, where even the
fact that "sushi" has a long history, that the older forms of sushi bear
little resemblance to
what is now known as "sushi", or that the word "sushi" in Japanese covers a
wide range
of dishes all using vingered rice as a common denominator is not widely
known at all.

"20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct term
but simply
too long for common use. I think we are using "Traditional" to cover this
category.
We are also using "Traditional" in the sense of "versus non-traditional",
the latter being
the sushi developed outside of Japan and those with a fusion approach.

By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around 40 and
50 years ago.
Essentially same types of fish, same size nigiri. I remember as a little kid
seeing Nigirizushi available
(and Americans eating it) at the Japan Pavillion at the New York Worlds Fair
(1964).
There were already "Sushi Restaurants" in Manhattan in the 1970s. (Hatsuhana
opened in 1976).
But it was the 1980s when "sushi" really boomed here.

Musashi

On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi" wrote:

"20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct term

Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what is meant by
"Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th century style Edomae
nigirizushi". That does explain it very well. From now on when I read
a post from you that refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct
in assuming that this is what you mean?

By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around 40 and
50 years ago.

Were there nigirizushi that were different 20 years ago from that
which was widely accepted 50 years ago? Perhaps the people in Japan 20
years ago told their children that they preferred "Traditional" sushi
rather than the "new stuff"....

"John Doe" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi" wrote:

"20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct
term

Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what is meant by
"Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th century style Edomae
nigirizushi". That does explain it very well. From now on when I read
a post from you that refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct
in assuming that this is what you mean?


Yes, absolutely.

By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around 40
and
50 years ago.

Were there nigirizushi that were different 20 years ago from that
which was widely accepted 50 years ago? Perhaps the people in Japan 20
years ago told their children that they preferred "Traditional" sushi
rather than the "new stuff"....


Actually, you may be on to something.
Salmon was never a "traditional" nigiri ingredient. You'll find it in Japan
now, but
I believe it first became popular in the US coinciding with the advent of
salmon farming
in the 1980s. The California Roll also is an invention from the 80s.
It's very possible that some people did stick to the "traditional" stuff.
Musashi

On 2007-04-30 10:29:10 -0700, John Doe said:

On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi" wrote:

"20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct term

Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what is meant by
"Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th century style Edomae
nigirizushi". That does explain it very well. From now on when I read
a post from you that refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct
in assuming that this is what you mean?

By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around 40 and
50 years ago.

Were there nigirizushi that were different 20 years ago from that
which was widely accepted 50 years ago? Perhaps the people in Japan 20
years ago told their children that they preferred "Traditional" sushi
rather than the "new stuff"....

I was under the impression that nigirizushi was a relatively
more-recent innovation in sushi, that is it came to be around the
mid-1800's. I know that there was "raw fish" particularly in such
guises as bozushi that were around long long ago.

In anycase I'm not sure what whittling on the word "traditional" is
suposed to accomplish whether it works or it doesn't. In common
activity is this suppose to exclude soething with a balsamic vinegar
drizzle on the plate or something? Or California rolls.

I'm not sure I'm following the intent.
--
///---

On 2007-04-30 11:25:35 -0700, "Musashi" said:


"John Doe" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi" wrote:

"20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct
term

Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what is meant by
"Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th century style Edomae
nigirizushi". That does explain it very well. From now on when I read
a post from you that refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct
in assuming that this is what you mean?


Yes, absolutely.

By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around 40
and
50 years ago.

Were there nigirizushi that were different 20 years ago from that
which was widely accepted 50 years ago? Perhaps the people in Japan 20
years ago told their children that they preferred "Traditional" sushi
rather than the "new stuff"....


Actually, you may be on to something.
Salmon was never a "traditional" nigiri ingredient. You'll find it in Japan
now, but
I believe it first became popular in the US coinciding with the advent of
salmon farming
in the 1980s. The California Roll also is an invention from the 80s.
It's very possible that some people did stick to the "traditional" stuff.
Musashi

In this case "traditional" is a reference only to ingredients, I'm assuming.
--
///---

"Gerry" wrote in message
news:2007043012030675249-somewhere@sunnycalif...
On 2007-04-30 11:25:35 -0700, "Musashi" said:


"John Doe" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi" wrote:

"20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct
term

Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what is meant by
"Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th century style Edomae
nigirizushi". That does explain it very well. From now on when I read
a post from you that refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct
in assuming that this is what you mean?


Yes, absolutely.

By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around
40
and
50 years ago.

Were there nigirizushi that were different 20 years ago from that
which was widely accepted 50 years ago? Perhaps the people in Japan 20
years ago told their children that they preferred "Traditional" sushi
rather than the "new stuff"....


Actually, you may be on to something.
Salmon was never a "traditional" nigiri ingredient. You'll find it in
Japan
now, but
I believe it first became popular in the US coinciding with the advent
of
salmon farming
in the 1980s. The California Roll also is an invention from the 80s.
It's very possible that some people did stick to the "traditional"
stuff.
Musashi

In this case "traditional" is a reference only to ingredients, I'm
assuming.
--

Yes and no. Salmon, Avocado....yes.
But I've searched all over looking for a "reverse-roll"
hosomaki and have yet to find it, therefore that style of
rolling with the rice on the outside may also be
"non-traditional".

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:02:20 -0700, Gerry
wrote:

On 2007-04-30 10:29:10 -0700, John Doe said:

On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi" wrote:

"20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct term

Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what is meant by
"Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th century style Edomae
nigirizushi". That does explain it very well. From now on when I read
a post from you that refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct
in assuming that this is what you mean?

By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around 40 and
50 years ago.

Were there nigirizushi that were different 20 years ago from that
which was widely accepted 50 years ago? Perhaps the people in Japan 20
years ago told their children that they preferred "Traditional" sushi
rather than the "new stuff"....

I was under the impression that nigirizushi was a relatively
more-recent innovation in sushi, that is it came to be around the
mid-1800's. I know that there was "raw fish" particularly in such
guises as bozushi that were around long long ago.

In anycase I'm not sure what whittling on the word "traditional" is
suposed to accomplish whether it works or it doesn't. In common
activity is this suppose to exclude soething with a balsamic vinegar
drizzle on the plate or something? Or California rolls.

I'm not sure I'm following the intent.

to me, traditional also includes appreciating & observing cultural
nuances as much as the ingredients. i expect it to be difficult to
comprehend unless you have insight into asian cultures - asians who
have been imprinted with their ethnic structure of social
relationships tend to see life as a circle while westerners see life
as a straight line. an example of how this might play out would be to
show a picture of fish swimming in a pond and ask someone what they
see; a westerner is more likely to point out a fish, perhaps the
largest or most brightly colored, whereas someone from the far east is
more likely to say "a pond".

while westerners tend to emphasize individuality, asian cultures tend
to emphasize the importance of responsibilities to each other as part
of something larger than themselves. while this tends to promote
conformity, diversity is also appreicated - as long as it's kept in
balance or in harmony with everything else. so rather than eating a
series of dishes in a otherwise disjointed sequence, a traditonal meal
of sushi should result in an experience of contrasts & segues that
create a tapestry appealing to all the senses.

maybe a musical analogy would help - some musicans are great soloists,
but are not great ensemble players; collaboration is not a strength
for them, or their tone is such that it's hard for them to blend with
other musicians. that kind of sensibility should be applied when
categorizing sushi.

"i can spell. i just can't type."

barry wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:10:45 -0700:

?? On 2007-04-30 10:29:10 -0700, John Doe
said:
??
?? On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi"
wrote:
??
?? "20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably
?? be the correct term
??
?? Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what
?? is meant by "Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th
?? century style Edomae nigirizushi". That does explain it
?? very well. From now on when I read a post from you that
?? refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct in
?? assuming that this is what you mean?

These erudite discussions of sushi history are doubtless
essentially correct. My own source of sushi history is Ryuichi
Yoshii's "Sushi". He indicates that the earliest sushi methods
came from China and were a fermenting process intended to
preserve fish. The Chinese appear to have totally lost the
techniques since fish was not a Mongol food. He says that the
addition of vinegar was introduced in Edo in the 1640s to give
a fermented flavor to the rice without actually going thro the
process. The fish was usually cooked until the early 1800s when
a man called Yohei Hanaya set up a stall or yattai in the Tokyo
market. This is where the tradition of the best place having the
dirtiest curtains arose since, in the absence of utensils,
people wiped their fingers on the nearest thing: the stall
curtain! Yoshii believes that sushi began to move into a more
formal restaurant setting in 1950s.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

On 2007-04-30 15:10:45 -0700, barry said:

I was under the impression that nigirizushi was a relatively
more-recent innovation in sushi, that is it came to be around the
mid-1800's. I know that there was "raw fish" particularly in such
guizes as bo-zushi that were around long long ago.

In any case I'm not sure what whittling on the word "traditional" is
supposed to accomplish whether it works or it doesn't. In common
activity is this supposed to exclude something with a balsamic vinegar
drizzle on the plate or something? Or California rolls?

I'm not sure I'm following the intent.

to me, traditional also includes appreciating & observing cultural
nuances as much as the ingredients.

Sure. Okay--I can go with that concept of "traditional" in
relationship to a Japanese restaurant. But I'm not sure that means
much relative to the actual food. I certainly feel different in a
quiet traditional ryokan than I would in a noisy international hotel.
I'm not really sure what the corellary is there in *sushi* proper.

i expect it to be difficult to comprehend unless you have insight into
asian cultures -

[snip]

I don't think so. We don't really need vast study or "insight" to pick
up on something a sense of tradition. What we pickup in ambience is
certainly limited by our understanding of the traditions. But as
somebody with a pretty good chunk of knowledge in that regard, I see
little opportunity for distinction in a serving of sushi. Clearly spam
sushi has never struck me as remotely "tradition". Beyond a few of
these sillier things the rest of it is what it is. The fact that
history says we didn't have salmon (as mentioned upstream) as a sushi
ingredient doesn't really change the experience for me.

maybe a musical analogy would help - some musicans are great soloists,
but are not great ensemble players; collaboration is not a strength
for them, or their tone is such that it's hard for them to blend with
other musicians. that kind of sensibility should be applied when
categorizing sushi.

That's an interesting analogy. As a musician and lover of Japanese food
I'm sure that when well-made sushi hits the plate the familial and
community ethics of the sushi-chef are not sharing the plate.

I don't think that a certain invisible zen frequency vibrating in the
brain is a valid way of categorizing "traditional". I've known
Japanese oafs, believe it or not, that weren't capable of extracting
the myriad magical Japanese elements that Westerners are apparently
blind to.

I understand what you're saying above, and believe it is part of the
way Westerners view Easterners viewing Westerners. At the end of the
day their cigarette-dulled palettes can't tell the difference between
Guiness and Budweiser. I'm not sure how any of this effects what we
eat, communally or individually.

I'm reminded and amused by a discussion in Tokyo during my last visit
where Nancy and I discussed the cultural layers of Bunraku theatre we
have seen in our travels. Our Japanese guests, all 5 or 6 of them, had
never seen Bunraku and listened at rapt attention and said later they
felt highly informed and even curious about attending the theatre
themselves. Curious indeed.
--
///---

On 2007-04-30 15:43:27 -0700, "James Silverton"
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not said:

The fish was usually cooked until the early 1800s when a man called
Yohei Hanaya set up a stall or yattai in the Tokyo market. This is
where the tradition of the best place having the dirtiest curtains
arose since, in the absence of utensils, people wiped their fingers on
the nearest thing: the stall curtain! Yoshii believes that sushi began
to move into a more formal restaurant setting in 1950s.

Oh goodie. I'm glad to seem my memory of history in this regard was
fairly close to right.
--
///---

Gerry wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:01:18 -0700:

G "traditional". I've known Japanese oafs, believe it or
not,
G that weren't capable of extracting the myriad magical
G Japanese elements that Westerners are apparently blind to.

G I understand what you're saying above, and believe it is
G part of the way Westerners view Easterners viewing
G Westerners. At the end of the day their cigarette-dulled
G palettes can't tell the difference between Guiness and
G Budweiser. I'm not sure how any of this effects what we
G eat, communally or individually.

Just for the record, whose are the cigarette-dulled palates?
These days I would have thought they would be more likely to be
Japanese than Western. On the other hand, I have a number of
Japanese friends and aquaintances who are scientific
professionals and none of them smoke.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

On 2007-04-30 16:41:44 -0700, "James Silverton"
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not said:

Gerry wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:01:18 -0700:

G "traditional". I've known Japanese oafs, believe it or not,
G that weren't capable of extracting the myriad magical
G Japanese elements that Westerners are apparently blind to.

G I understand what you're saying above, and believe it is
G part of the way Westerners view Easterners viewing
G Westerners. At the end of the day their cigarette-dulled
G palettes can't tell the difference between Guiness and
G Budweiser. I'm not sure how any of this effects what we
G eat, communally or individually.

Just for the record, whose are the cigarette-dulled palates? These
days I would have thought they would be more likely to be Japanese than
Western.

Yeah, that's who I was referring to. Sitting in "traditional" Japanese
restaurants in Japan is great except not-infrequently there is a
stunning level of cigarette smoke stinking up everything. At that point
anyway, I tend to defer to my own ability make distinctions in sake and
sushi, despite the fact that I can never really ascend to their heights
of "true" understanding. :-)

On the other hand, I have a number of Japanese friends and aquaintances
who are scientific professionals and none of them smoke.
--
///---

"James Silverton" not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not wrote in message
. ..
barry wrote on Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:10:45 -0700:

?? On 2007-04-30 10:29:10 -0700, John Doe
said:
??
?? On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi"
wrote:
??
?? "20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably
?? be the correct term
??
?? Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what
?? is meant by "Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th
?? century style Edomae nigirizushi". That does explain it
?? very well. From now on when I read a post from you that
?? refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct in
?? assuming that this is what you mean?

These erudite discussions of sushi history are doubtless
essentially correct. My own source of sushi history is Ryuichi
Yoshii's "Sushi". He indicates that the earliest sushi methods
came from China and were a fermenting process intended to
preserve fish. The Chinese appear to have totally lost the
techniques since fish was not a Mongol food.

Current thinking in Japan is that the practice of fermenting fish together
with rice
is Southeast Asian in origin as examples of it still exist in Thailand,
Burma, Cambodia.
Of course Southeast Asia under the name of Annam was part of China thousands
of
years ago. This fermented fish and rice method did spread through China but
disappeared
sometime in the 1800s.

M

On Apr 30, 3:02 pm, Gerry wrote:
On 2007-04-30 10:29:10 -0700, John Doe said:





On Apr 30, 12:55 pm, "Musashi" wrote:

"20th century style Edomae nigirizushi" would probably be the correct term

Yes, I agree, it would be a perfect way to express what is meant by
"Traditional" if it were referred to as "20th century style Edomae
nigirizushi". That does explain it very well. From now on when I read
a post from you that refers to "Traditional" sushi, would I be correct
in assuming that this is what you mean?

By the way, nigirizushi that was around 20 years ago was also around 40 and
50 years ago.

Were there nigirizushi that were different 20 years ago from that
which was widely accepted 50 years ago? Perhaps the people in Japan 20
years ago told their children that they preferred "Traditional" sushi
rather than the "new stuff"....

I was under the impression that nigirizushi was a relatively
more-recent innovation in sushi, that is it came to be around the
mid-1800's. I know that there was "raw fish" particularly in such
guises as bozushi that were around long long ago.

In anycase I'm not sure what whittling on the word "traditional" is
suposed to accomplish whether it works or it doesn't. In common
activity is this suppose to exclude soething with a balsamic vinegar
drizzle on the plate or something? Or California rolls.

I'm not sure I'm following the intent.

The intent on my part was to gain an understanding of what is meant by
"Traditional" in the sense of sushi. Many times on this group, I've
read reference to "Traditional" sushi.

I was attempting to show that the word isn't really an accurate
expression. It could mean almost anything.

In the case of Mr. Musashi, he has clarified his particular meaning
when using the expression.

It's a matter of when and where a person would consider something as
being traditional.

To use the expression and expect it to be understood, it must be at
least similar in meaning to a large group of people. When I've asked
others what they mean by this expression, I keep getting different
answers.

I don't wish to ignore what someone says. I would rather understand
what it is that they mean.

"Traditional" and "Sushi" can both mean very many different things as
Mr. Musashi has shown. I now understand precisely what he means when
*he* uses the expression.

If you or perhaps Dan were to use it, I have no idea what it is that
you mean until you explain it. That is because the expression if far
from being accurate in it's usage across cultures.

No biggie. As I said, I would like to understand what is meant when
someone I respect says something. I respect each of the members here
and I would consider myself as being rude to ignore the true meaning
of what is said if it indeed was something other than what I think is
meant.