Klarinet Archive - Posting 000298.txt from 1996/06

From: Dennis Nord <nordden@-----.COM>
Subj: [Fwd: Mouthpiece Report]
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 15:39:33 -0400

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------2781446B794B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Here's a message I sent to the saxophone list. It might be of interest
to KLARINET. The discussion had to do with using identical setups on
different members of the sax family.

--------------2781446B794B
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Message-ID: <31C7123B.2781@-----.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 16:31:55 -0400
From: Dennis Nord <nordden@-----.com>
Organization: Military Technical Publications
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; OSF1 V3.2 alpha)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: saxophone <rccarter_saxophone@-----.edu>
Subject: Mouthpiece Report
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Regarding setups for doubling, yeah, you probably want your horns to
feel at least similar. Although I don't think you can get a soprano and
bari to blow the same :). If you can find the "ideal" setup on all of
your horns, then they would all play the same, that is to say optimally.

HOWEVER, the chances of the same make and model mouthpiece working well
on all of the sax family are pretty slim. For example, if you find that
a Selmer S80 C* is great on your alto, it's unlikely that an S80 (any
tip opening) will also be ideal on your tenor. Horns vary, reeds vary,
embouchures vary, etc. The right setup seems to be a unique combination
for each horn.

And speaking of "The Great Search," here's a report on the second batch
of mouthpieces I've taken on trial from The Woodwind/Brasswind. The
horn is a 1960 Martin tenor.

Selmer S90 180. A very different design. The beak angle (between the
reed and the top surface that touches the upper teeth) is greater than
most, making the mouthpiece feel "taller" in the mouth. Not a problem,
in fact, this feature helps to keep the throat open. Inside, the
chamber is square with an indentation ground out of each of the four
sides. Most striking is the baffle--it's not straight or rolled over,
but concave! The table is slightly concave. I don't know if this is by
design or by flaw. Craftsmanship is excellent. So, how does it play?
It wouldn't. No reed worked. It was extremely resistant with a foggy
honk--like playing a #6 reed on a leaky horn.

Morgan 3C. Superbly handcrafted. Baffle is dead straight going into a
round polished chamber. The beak angle is slightly less than average,
making this mouthpiece feel small. The table is slightly narrow,
requiring reeds to be trimmed on their side rails. Surprisingly bright
sounding for a classical design. Great intonation and very responsive,
especially the low notes. This is a very fine piece.

Rousseau 5R. Also very well made. Straight baffle, square opening into
a round chamber. Beak angle is average. This mouthpiece feels wider in
the mouth than some others. Tone was just a little darker than the
Morgan, but it was even more responsive.

Both the Morgan and Rousseau produced beautiful sounds on this horn that
I've never heard before. They're both excellent classical pieces. BTW
I'm playing in a big band, and they worked very well in this setting.

Dennis Nord
nordden@-----.com

--------------2781446B794B--