Klarinet Archive - Posting 000446.txt from 1999/11

From: Neil Leupold <leupold_1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Crappy mouthpieces
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 04:04:58 -0500

--- Richard Bush <rbushidioglot@-----.net> wrote:

> They may have a friend who sounds wonderful on
> Such and such, so they go out and buy it.

The fallacy here is the assumption that buying a
better mouthpiece will automatically make you sound
better. It's a common one to commit among those who
fail to recognize that there's a minimum level of pro-
ficiency that must be in evidence before the benefits
of a better mouthpiece will become manifest. I've
found among most developing players that the issue
they seek to solve, by obtaining a better mouth-
piece, is often completely unrelated to the mouth-
piece to begin. Pinching with the embouchure,
failure to fully utilize the air stream, an in-
ablity to consciously invoke physical relaxation --
these are the kinds of things that are usually at
the root of players' difficulties with tone quality,
articulation, finger dexterity, and the whole range
of elements which comprise clarinet performance.
That one or more of these elements happens to im-
prove after buying a new mouthpiece is more a happy
by-product of human psychology than a direct effect
of the mouthpiece itself. Mentally, we get into
ruts, and players can go for months and years with-
out recognizing that they're conceptually running
around in circles as they try to advance in a par-
ticular area. The underground definition of insan-
ity is to keep doing the same thing over and over
again yet expect a different result on the next try.
Sometimes, all it takes to break out of the rut is
the introduction of a new element -- ANY new ele-
ment -- and the brain begins to function creatively
again. This can include getting a new mouthpiece,
which has different qualities of resistance and so
forth, which force the player to use their air, em-
bouchure, and whole body in a way at least slight-
ly slanted from how they'd been playing for the en-
tire time thus far. With a new stimulus to focus
on -- be it physical or psychological -- they ex-
perience an immediate awakening. This can lead to
an extended period of growth and inspiration, where
the player begins to think and act creatively in
areas beyond the immediate issue (i.e.; the new
sensations in their embouchure inspire them to be-
gin thinking about how to sustain physical relaxa-
tion through increased use of the diaphragm muscles),
or it can just easily lead to a new rut, where the
player focuses only on the new and immediate sense
of improvement, but fails to recognize the potential
for growth throughout his range of playing abilities.

I wrote:

> > In either case, either the consumer acquires the
> > needed specific knowledge, or the producer contin-
> > ues to profit on their ignorance.

Richard responded:

> Both are true. The consumer is often ignorant and the
> producer continues to profit from their ignorance. The
> producer might also be ignorant.

This seems unlikely. The consumer can be genuinely ignor-
ant, but the producer is likely only to feign ignorance in
defense of continuing to produce an inferior product. There
is an inherent asymmetry of information between the producer
and the consumer, and the former is inclined to exploit this
to the greatest possible extent. It's not uncommon for a produ-
cer to market a good and assert that the good is "top quality"
-- and continue to make that assertion in spite of evidence to
the contrary. They know that there will be a segment of their
market that desperately wants to believe them so that they (the
buyer) can pay the lower price and convince themselves that they
still got a good product. Some people never learn that you get
what you pay for. The corollary fallacy is one of sunk costs.
There is a shame factor involved in admitting, even to yourself,
that you were scammed by a company hawking an inferior product,
and the incentive is to defend your purchase by continuing to
use that product, feeling that you must somehow get full invest-
ment value out of it. Rationally, one would consider the lemon
a sunk cost, irrelevant to future decisions, and immediately
spend the additional money necessary to obtain the genuinely
high-quality counterpart to what was originally purchased.

I wrote:

> > The more discriminating the consumer becomes about
> > mouthpieces relative to his budget constraint, the
> > closer he will come to approximating the best mouth-
> > piece he can buy within that constraint.

Richard responded:

> There are several people who realize that there needs
> to be a mouthpiece of modest price that the ignorant
> mother will pop for when she goes into the store.
> Ridenour, Hite, Morgan, and the person you are arguing
> with all realize this need.

The ignorant mother will pop for the mouthpiece that comes
with the clarinet, which is either free or baked into the
cost of the instrument. The wisdom of obtaining one of the
better-quality student mouthpieces comes only with increased
specific knowledge, i.e.; typically either the mother, the
child, or the child's teacher will have (or acquire) an in-
creased sophistication about what constitutes a decent mouth-
piece, at which point subsequent purchases will reflect a bet-
ter-informed decision making process.

I wrote:

> > Until that approximation begins to occur, mouthpiece
> > companies will continue to have an incentive to refrain
> > from spending the extra money necessary to make their
> > mouthpieces more consistent.

Richard responded:

> Most big companies have failed to produce over a long
> period of time mouthpieces with any consistency. Elmer
> died. Tom left.

Consistency would be nice, but it is not requisite to
finding a good mouthpiece on the mass produced market.
Again, it becomes an issue of relevant specific know-
ledge. If you know better, you'll return the crummy
mouthpiece on trial and get a different one. It is
these transaction costs which make the mouthpiece
search so costly -- for amateurs and professionals
alike -- not the cost of the mouthpiece itself. Once
you've found the mouthpiece you like, its long-term
utility is likely to far exceed what you paid for it.
The virtue of custom makers is the higher likelihood
of predictable quality across their product line, which
is does not mean that their mouthpieces are necessarily
"better" than a mass produced one for any given individ-
ual. But by developing a reputation for consistent qual-
ity standards -- whatever those standards may be --
search and transaction costs are dramatically reduced
for those who choose these makers from the get-go, as-
suming that the mouthpiece is within range of the buyer's
own standards for quality.

Richard wrote:

> What is your relevant specific knowledge? You have a
> mouthpiece you like. Go practice and enjoy.

Relevant specific knowledge in my case pertains to my
understanding of the fact that there are mouthpieces on
the market that are better than what I currently own,
and I have the sophistication to recognize one if I
come across it, whereas somebody else in a similar
situation might not.

Richard wrote:

> As far as budget restraints go, I will pay whatever
> to have the best mouthpiece I can find. If my sound
> will make me $2500 in two weeks, I'll buy the mouth-
> piece. If having the best sound will get me a gig
> that makes me $10,000 in two months, I'll consider
> any price for a mouthpiece to be a bargain.

This is a good demonstration of the trade-offs that
people make in their lives. Despite the implications
of your statement, you do have budget constraints rel-
ative to how much you would pay for a mouthpiece -- you
just haven't approached them yet. Personally, I won't
trade off too much money or time for a mouthpiece, at
risk of not having enough money to pay rent and buy
groceries.

Richard wrote:

> To each his own. If you like what you're playing,
> it isn't crappie, its wonderful.

Relatively speaking, it's just sufficient. I won't
know a 'wonderful' mouthpiece until my skills are
again well-developed enough to exploit the full qual-
ities that any mouthpiece has to offer, at which point
I will also be in a position to immediately recognize
all of its deficiencies. At this point, all I can
do is continue to step up to better mouthpieces as
my ability to recognize their virtues and faults
alike grows over time. There comes a point, for
the major-gig professionals, where their ability
to adapt to the equipment transcends any weaknesses
that might be evident to them. Then it becomes an-
other issue of trade-offs. How much time, energy,
and money am I willing to spend in the search for
a better mouthpiece when the marginal gains to the
ease of my playing experience move steadily downward?
Rationally, each player reaches a point where the
search and transaction costs of finding that 'mag-
ical' mouthpiece cease to exceed the potential util-
ity of that time and money when spent on other areas
of their lives and careers. But clarinetists are no-
torious for lacking rationality when it comes to
mouthpieces, so there goes my whole argument.

-- Neil
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org