Klarinet Archive - Posting 000873.txt from 1999/02

From: TOM RIDENOUR <klarinet@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] mouthpiece thread response
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:59:29 -0500

I just wanted to make a few comments on some of the things I have read on
the mouthpiece thread line.
First of all, what Mssrs. Pyne and Fobes say about making mouthpieces,
regarding skill and craftsmanship I find my own self in complete accord.
When you buy a mouthpiece from a real master mouthpiece maker the material
costs are ancillary; what if someone quibbled about buying a painting by
Picasso because the materials used in the painting only amounted to about
eight bucks of expense; such quibblers would miss the whole point of the
painting in the first place.
Again, what if someone looked at a beautiful diamond and said, "Hey, that
was just a lump of coal. No way is it worth Xamount of dollars!"
The time and skill of a master maker transcends the value of the raw
material; the value of the mouthpiece lies in the eyes of the user; just
how valuable is it to him or her to make music they way they envision it?
That is the question with any piece of equipment.
When I was at Leblanc I saw clarinet players who were so tight fisted with
money and who valued their art so little that I could see that they were
angry when they saw that I might be showing them an instrument that was
better than what they had.
Further, for years I often had a lot of trouble charging for my own
mouthpiece making. It took a long time for me to realize that if people
invest little in something they, with few exceptions, give is little
regard. It was when I saw people disregard and undervalue the true quality
of my work as a result of my simply being good hearted wanting to give them
something for little cost that I saw I was, ultimately, doing both them
and myself disservice by undercharging .
I stopped.
Just a few comments on facings;
The implication here has been that it takes nothing to apply symmetrical
facings; they are straightforward, routine and so on.
In my own work, I really don't find this to be the case; I work on
symmetrically faced mouthpieces all the time that play horribly, because
the subtle shapes and blendings in the curve are not there to make the
mouthpiece play as it ought.
Further, if one just hits numbers anything might result.
It is true; anyone, with practice, can hit numbers; but any one can make
rails crooked too; that's a piece of cake to do compared with applying a
beautifully symmetrical facing.
But both types of facing are challenging and difficult to do IF their
execution has a truly purposeful, artistic goal in mind.
In my own finishing the subtle shapes of the curve at certain points,
points that measurements can't really be taken, make immense differences in
the playing. This is part of properly voicing the mouthpiece; and no
machine or mechanical proceedure is adequate for it, and it is an essential
operation; otherwise you may as well be making mouthpieces based on the I
Ching.
I can only respond here by saying it is my opnion that there are many, many
subtleties that go into making a mouthpiece really fine that only great
skill, discernment and experience can effect, the philosophy on facings
notwithstanding.
Finally, I was lucky enough to be good friends with Ethan Sloane, who let
me examine Harold Wright's favorite mouthpiece, which he had for a short
while after Mr. Wright's passing. I measured it and it was symmetrical in
every way.
Mr. Matson and Mr. Kim (who is in Korea) both did symmetrical facings, and
they were the only one's who did work for Wright that I knew of.
I played Mr. Matson's mouthpieces for a while and I did note that a few of
the mouthpieces he made for me had some accidentical asymmetry; but this
was not intended according to Mr. Matson. He always believe in symmetry as
the basis for facing work.
I make the same mistakes from time to time regarding symmetry; it is not
easy to put on a beautifully symmetrical facing and do it perfectly each
and every time. It takes a lot of discipline and concentration. It wears
you out!
I also worked with Mr. Marcellus when I was at Leblanc. At that time he
was playing a Gigliotti mouthpiece that was symmetrical. I also took his
Kaspar, the one he said was his choice, to measure in detail in an effort
to improve the Marcellus mouthpiece the Woodwind Company produced. As I
recall, that particular Kaspar was symmetrical with a tip of 1.13.
But Mr. Marcellus had a whole drawer full of Kaspar mouthpiece. I have
measure dozens over the years; some are symmetrical and some are not; and
none had as long as a curve as most of us put on mouthpieces today.
I am quick to point out here that I am not contradicting what Mr. Pyne has
said in any way. I just want to point out what I think may be a bit of
oversimplification regarding statements made about facings and also point
out that great players don't necessarily do the same thing all their life.
I am sure Mr. Marcellus and Mr. Wright played asymmetrical facings as Mr.
Pyne commented. But just because they did when he measured their
respective mouthpieces does not mean they did ever and always, or even that
is what they finally decided gave them the best results.
Ricardo, whom Mr. Pyne, mentions, is another good case in point. He is
playing asymmetrical facings now, and I thought he sounded wonderful this
summer in Columbus; but he always does, and I recall, though I may be
mistake here, but I don't think so, that he won his job at the Met on a
stock Vandoren with a symmetrical facing.
Go figure!!!! He's a genius! And the greatest clarinet player I've ever heard.
In saying these things I do not intend to create any conflict or start an
argument of any kind, or be in the least contentious. I have the greatest
respect for these other great mouthpiece makers, as well as like them very
much personally; I also know, from conversations Mr. Pyne and I have had,
that our ideals and goals regarding the results that clarinet equpment
should yield are very similar, though our methods clearly vary; Each fine
maker has strong reasons for doing what he does, and those reasons have
some validity, no doubt.

In developing my own views on the matter I have tried to be
inclusive, giving all the musical and technical elements the mouthpiece
must mediate as proper a porportionality as I possibly can, while
simlutaneously seeking to avoid what I understand to be a kind of
seductive, albeit limited, myopia; a myopia, which by its' very nature,
throws the whole out of balance , makes inordinant sacrifice and
diminishment of essentials, and establishes in the place of an harmonious,
properly portioned whole, a kind of musical and technical hegemony.
This position I have found to be both philosophically (that is,
logically in the light of the first philosophical principles ) and
technically sound; it has been indispensable in formulating a consistent
philosophy and rational mechanics upon which the _art_ and aesthetics of
my own mouthpiece making, and indeed, my whole work with the clarinet,
are based; and they yield what I understand to be the better, more
consistent result.
tom

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org