Klarinet Archive - Posting 000060.txt from 1996/11

From: David Blumberg <reedman@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: Mouthpiece Mania
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:44:55 -0500

Stan,
I think it was William Bennett, the flutist you spoke of. A great scam. Sort
of like flute voodo.
David C. Blumberg

----------
From: Klarinet - Clarinettist's Network on behalf of Stan Geidel
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 1996 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Mouthpiece Mania

At 03:04 PM 11/2/96 -0600, you wrote:
> Anyway you can see where this is leading to (better and closer
>shaves??), nope lets take a mouthpiece instead. No need to speculated I
>already dipped the sucker in the nitro. The main fear of mine was that
>the facing or the dimentions of the mouthpiece would change (warp). The
>mouthpiece was not damaged at all, instead the darn thing plays better
>than ever. The reponse was better and the resistance was less when
>blowing. Overall the mouthpiece resonates better and because of this
>tempering I expect the mouthpiece facing to last at least 5 times more
>than the average joe mouthpiece.
==================================
No, no, no, no...sorry...I don't buy it. And no one else should, either.
This reminds me of the New York flutist--I forget his name just now--who,
for quite a high fee, would "homogenize" your flute by attaching it to a
device which vibrated the flute rapidly, so as to "align the molecules."
I'm embarrased to say that one of my good friends--a remarkable
flutist--actually did this. He spent the money, had the molecules
supposedly aligned, and proclaimed the flute sounded better. Well, he
sounded great before he fell for this scam, and sounded just as terrific
afterwards--but not better or different to anyone else's ears but his own.
As Rosario Mazzeo once said, "Thinking will make it so." I agree.
Thinking *will* make it so. And, processes such as the ones mentioned above
have merit only in so far as the purchaser, having spent the requisite $100
(or whatever the going rate is these days), now believes his or her
instrument sounds $100 better. Right again, Mr. Mazzeo...thinking has made
it so. But "homogenzing" or "freezing" ... sorry folks, it just ain't so.
"The response was better...the resistance was less." C'mon !! Please.
You are asking us to believe no other factors changed in the
reed-mouthpiece-ligature-embouchure-air production relationship, and thus
you know, quantitatively, that there was an actual, measurable difference in
how the mouthpiece responded ??
Nope...I'm not buying.

Stan Geidel