Klarinet Archive - Posting 000003.txt from 1994/06

From: Clark W Fobes <reedman@-----.COM>
Subj: Mouthpiece materials
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 09:03:09 -0400

Kirby Fong brought up some interesting thoughts regarding mouthpiece
materials while I was away so I thought I might address the subject.

One of the more interesting aspects of being involved in making
mouthpieces has been the opportunity to examine a wide variety of "odd ball"
mouthpieces, both from the standpoint of shape and materials.

I have no doubt that the material does have an effect on the sound
produced. However, I still believe that dimension and shape has a much
greater influence than material. It is likely that materials other than
wood were first explored not for their tonal qualities, but for stability
over time. I could be wrong here, but I think the first hard rubber
clarinets were developed by Boosey & Hawkes. I suspect that British
colonialism may have been important to this development. In the first
place, a new material (rubber) was imported and available for a wide
variety of products. (India rubber?) Secondly, military bands have always
been an important part of any military occupation and it seems highly
likely that wood was a very poor material when exposed to the vagaries of
tropical and subtropical sun and moisture. In some old adds Hawkes & Sons
advertised this material as "ebonite". Mouthpieces of the same material
appear in the same ads.

I have also seen some old Goldbeck mouthpieces that had a white gold lay
and table, beautifully done BTW. Again this may have been an attempt to
provide an immutable surface.

I am not certain when crystal or "glass" mouthpieces were first
developed, but I would imagine that they predate ebonite. Crystal is a
very rigid material, but refaces itself very quickly when dropped.

There is a standing contention that only the "old rubber" is any good for
superior sounding mouthpieces. I have serious doubts about this. I have
played some fine old Chedevilles and Kaspars and I have also played some
that were atrocious. I have also worked on some very old mouthpieces
where the rubber had deteriorated so much that they would not hold a
facing for more than a few weeks.

J.J. Babbitt, who makes mouthpiece blanks for Hite, Gigliotti, Gennusa,
Portnoy, Morgan, Pyne, Selmer (Bundy) , Yamaha and FOBES has been going
through a broad search for a new source of rubber for their mouthpieces.
Recently I received a batch of wonderful mouthpieces made from "german
rubber". It is soft and works beautifully, I was surprised to find that
it has about 10% plastic as part of the composite! The sound to me was as
good or better than any "old" mouthpiece I have played. But I suppose I
have a bias toward my own work. :-)

Rico now makes a mouthpiece out of a material called "graphtonite".

After 10 years of serious work in this field I can say categorically
that material has a subtle effect on the sound and "feel" (I can hear
Dan squirming in his seat) of a mouthpiece, but the dimensions interior
and exterior have the greatest effect on sound.

An area that I think is very often ignored by makers is the thickness of
the "bite". This is the tip thickness. (Not to be confused with the tip
rail).

I find that as this area is thinned to approximately .025" the mouthpiece
really comes alive. My theory is that the material here needs to vibrate
just a bit to add color to the sound.

Most of the tone color comes from the shape of the baffle which is important
in supporting the upper harmonics, particularly near the tip.

Clark W Fobes

Still on London time. These are the ravings of a jet lagged insomniac.