Klarinet Archive - Posting 000477.txt from 1997/01

From: "Fogle, Bill" <bill.fogle@-----.com>
Subj: Re: McCaw;Boosey;Buffet
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 12:29:44 -0500

You wrote:

-->As a former pupil of McCaw, I'm happy to take up the challenge. All Robert'
s
-->observations are correct. However, at the time of the Nielsen/Mozart
recording
-->John was using a Boosey 926 mouthpiece on his Buffets. Is the mouthpiece
not
-->more significant than the instrument? In my opinion, certainly so. The
Boosey
-->mouthpieces have a much larger tone chamber than French or American ones.
The
-->bore of the 926 mouthpiece is a cone measuring about 15 mm at the bottom
-->(instrument) end, thus possibly too large to play narrow bore French
instruments
-->in tune.

I'd be interested to hear more about B&H mouthpieces. I have two 1010
mouthpieces. I have not identified any characteristics which I would
definately associate with them. Then, of course, I have only played them on
my 1010 instrument which needs some pad work. I am not able to play in tune
when interchanging British mouthpieces with French-bore instruments.

-->The distinctly British mouthpiece allows a player to
-->develop an individual sound (Brymer has some interesting comments in his
book).
Are you saying that the larger chamber permits more flexibility? Or, are you
saying that these mouthpieces have a distinct sound (possibly, both)?

-->Boosey 1010s were certainly pervasive among the principals of the London
-->orchestras from Thurston and Kell through to the 70s.
I read that Kell used French instruments. I have never understood that he
played an English-made instrument. In keeping with your remarks about McKaw,
I have read that Kell used shellac on his instrument to personalize his
tuning. That I find remarkable. To have such an ear like that in the first
place is enviable.

I enjoyed reading your remarks about the British school and their equipment.
I love my 1010 instrument and find it to have an open, rich sound with
infinite possibilities. ------Bill Fogle