Klarinet Archive - Posting 000777.txt from 1996/02

From: Everett J Austin <BrendaA624@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: Mouthpieces: Tonal concept, etc.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 00:44:29 -0500

Clark Fobes wrote:

<It is interesting to me how far afield we cam get discussing
mouthpieces. As a mouthpiece maker I find much of the discussion pretty
estoric and not very well grounded in what mouthpieces are really
about.

I encourage anyone who is interested in mouthpiece design to measure,
observe, try and reflect on mouthpiece design. AND after you have made
about 200 mouthpieces you may start to understand how difficult it is
to make a good mouthpiece consistently. You will also begin to
understand the problems of putting into exact terms what it is that
makes a mouthpiece "special".

I think as a convention, we should completely drop terms like "bright,
dark, hollow, glassy" etc. I can only evaluate mouthpieces as to
degrees of INTONATION, RESONANCE (EFFICIENCY as a quality of resonance)
and ARTICULATION. Both Brad Behn and Jeff Carwile made statements to
the effect that one must find a mouthpiece that allows you to express
the tonal concept that you carry in your head. I will take that one
step further. If you do not have a good, clear concept of resonance AND
pitch you will never play with a
resonant or correctly pitched tone.

I have been very lucky to have always had good models of sound. One of
my earliest teachers, Dennis Layne, had one of the most beautiful
clarinet sounds I have ever heard. In High School he pointed me to some
excellent recordings. I listened and emulated. In college I
"discovered" Harold Wright and that is the model that I hear and try to
emulate in my playing, but with about 95% Clark Fobes thrown in.

But, I am digressing from the discussion of mouthpiece design.

I have always maintained that INTONATION is the most important aspect
of mouthpiece design and tone. I have made well over 1,000 mouthpieces
(probably a drop in the bucket compared to Mr. Pyne, et al.) and it is
becoming even more clear that intonation is inextricably tied to
RESONANCE. Resonance enhances EFFICIENT vibration. The more efficient
the entire acoustical system the easier it is to set it in motion-
ARTICULATION.

At this point in time I have no scientific data to back up my theories,
but I have a host of empirical information from the 10 years of work I
have been doing in this area and from 30 years of performance
experience. However, Dr. Jim Pyne gave a very interesting lecture at
the Clarinet Conference this past summer in Tempe, AZ. Jim is doing
some extremely interesting work with the aid of sound spectrum
analyzers. The most salient part of his lecture for me was his theory
of resonance. His studies indicate that RESONANCE may be a function of
enhanced overtones in the third octave of the natural harmonic series.
These being #,s 4, 5 , 6, 7 and (8). Transposed down two octaves these
can be correlated as fundamental, third, fifth, dominant seventh,
octave. Considering that most of the tracking our ears do for
intonation probably occurs in this range (The third octave of the
overtone series) I suspect that our recognition of RESONANCE is due in
part to the adequate projection of these overtones.

The dynamics of mouthpiece design and the creation of RESONANCE is so
complicated and has so many variables that different designs will work.
BUT, there are limiting parameters.

1. There seems to be a very limited range of minimum and maximum
volumetric values to achieve proper intonation.

2. The volume of the chamber has an inverese relationship to the
volume of the bore.

3. I believe that the pressure value at the tip of the reed for
a given tone is probably a constant value regardless of tip opening.
This is what I term "the plane of resistance". In other words, given a
close facing the tip baffle must be slightly lower than on an open
facing.

4. Most of the really good mouthpieces I have ever played seem to
share very similar measurement along the facing in one crucial area.
(This may also be a funtion of mouthpieces that work for me, although
the high number of mouthpieces that exhibit these #'s indicates that
there is a portion of the facing curve that is widely accepted
by many players)

5. The shape of the side walls and the amount of compression have
an inverse correlation to the height of the chamber baffle at any given
cross section.

6. The "throat" (where the bore meets the chamber) has a direct
relation ship to the diameter at the top of the bore.

Given all that, one ONLY has to learn to put a beautifully smooth
facing on the mouthpiece.

SIMPLE!!

Obviously the vast majority of clarinet players are not going to
make their own mouthpieces, so I want to bring the discussion back to a
final point about mouthpiece selection.

First, with a VARIETY of reeds and with a well centered sound does
your clarinet play reasonably well in tune at about A= 441 with a 66mm
barrel. If not, can you arrive there with either a 65mm or 67mm
barrel?INTONATION.

Second, can you hear your pitch easily in ensemble and can you
match other instruments with relative ease. RESONANCE

Third, can you play an "infinite" pianissimo. EFFICIENCY
(RESONANCE)

Fourth, does the tone speak immediately. ARTICULATION

If the mouthpiece can pass all those tests it is a winner. If it
can do all those things you will be able to get to your "ideal" sound.

Clark W Fobes

Copyright Clark W Fobes 1996>

As some one who has dabbled in mouthpiece work enough to gan a great deal of
respect for artisans who are successful in it , I would just like say that
Clark's comments should be scrutinised carefully by those contemplating this
sort of thing, because there is a lot more to mouthpieces than just applying
a facing. So many if not all of the design features of mouthpieces are
interrelated and interdependent that a deficiency or inappropriate
measurement in any area can "sink" the mouthpiece in question. (For example
if the facing and baffle are mismatched the results will be very bad.)

I hope Clark is not advocating a ban on the use of the more poetic terms in
the English language in reference to clarinet tones by scowling at the use of
"hollow, glassy, etc" (cf, wine taster's terminology vs enological
scientists). I think he just wants to remind us of the fundamental
acoustical requirements a mouthpiece needs to fulfill (intonation, resonance,
articulation,...) BEFORE we start worrying about whether we can somehow sound
like Harold Wright, or whoever might represent our ideal sound. Bernard
Portnoy, when have spoken with him was categorical in this matter. He feels
the role of a mouthpiece is to allow the player to do what he wants
musically, but that the individual sound is always peculiar to that person:
"you sit down and play the clarinet and that's how you sound. Two people can
play the same instrument and will sound quite different"

Everett Austin
Fairfax, California