Klarinet Archive - Posting 000989.txt from 2000/01

From: alevin@-----. Levin)
Subj: Re: [kl] Mouthpiece FAQ was... Re: [kl] Greg Smith mouthpieces
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:06:39 -0500

Walter:

A well crafted answer. What is needed is a standard set of parameters
for the mouthpiece, barrel and body bore. Then we can establish an
understanding of what variations in those parameters do. Once that is
done, it may be possible to determine the effect of the reed and the
individual embouchure - but not before - except by instinct and experience
- which is the problem we're trying to eliminate.

I once had what I thought was a perfect mouthpiece (an HS*) on a near
perfect horn (a Selmer Centered Tone*). I had serious variations in timbre
and response until a teacher lent me a custom barrel. Everything cleared
up. I took the measurements of the barrel; but could not find a duplicate.
I finally gave up and found a wonderful Buffet R13 (which I still have)
and a new round of mouthpieces. I sold the Selmer to another member of my
group. She had it reconditioned, but - out of ignorance - kept her old
mouthpiece - and the problems cleared up again!

There simply has to be a universal way to quantify the parameters.

Allen Levin
At 04:42 PM 1/28/00 EST, you wrote:
>Dan Leeson writes:
>
><< What I am trying to say (and probably not very well), is that there
doesn't seem to be much real value in such postings. They may make the one
who posts them happy and they may make the mouthpiece maker very happy, but
if I were looking for a mouthpiece (which I am not), there is not enough
meat here to point me in that direction.
>
>Somehow, I come out of this feeling guitly and I have no idea why.>>
>
>Dan, I believe the problem here is that the "answer" is NOT quantifiable.
There simply is no one given set of numbers that produces the "best"
mouthpiece.
>
>The the number of variables in mouthpiece construction is truely amazing,
and they are in most cases interdependent.
>
>Facings vary: Long, short, medium
>Tip openings vary: Open, medium, close
>You can have straight wall windway of angled wall
>Different lengths of windway
>Different depths of widway
>Mouthpiece length can vary 10 mm or more
>You can have a flat baffle, concave, or even convex
>The internal bore can be long and narrow
> or shorter and wider
>The internal bore can be more or less conical...
>
>Now match this up with different barrel shapes and types. Cylindrical,
reverse taper, degree of taper...
>
>For example, last summer spring, I tried out 17 different Moennig barrels,
hoping to "concentrate" my tone, which I believed had become to diffuse,
and to help control intonation on throat tones and upper clarion. I found
one I really liked, and have been using it ever since.
>
>I've been working with a specific blank (reputed to be very similar to
that used by a legendary mp maker). I worked with several of these for a
week or more, and never really got the results I wanted. Many good points,
but always a bit "cold" or brittle.
>
>Well, I was measuring various barrels the other day to compare amount of
taper (checking out a statement from the old Stubbins book) when, for no
specific reason, I tried my old Buffet cylindrical barrel with this
"promising" but "cold" mouthpiece. BINGO! Something happened....
>
>Getting back to your main point.....The measurements said that the
mouthpiece should work. The measurements said that it should work well with
the Moennig type barrel. Then...poof......all my logic went out the window.
>
>Another problem is that the basic thing we evaluate our mouthpieces on -
tone - can vary from location to location. In a previous post, I described
how I loved a particular mouthpiece in my studio/workshop, had a great
experience with it in a chamber setting (reading the Mozart Quintet with
some talented local players), ....and, in the hall in which I often
play...had a very negative experience......
>
>Now we come to different models of clarinet, different bore sizes (whether
on purpose or by wear or by poor quality control).....
>
>We come to level of player........5th grade Johnny Jones playing is
REMARKABLY improved, by switching to a mouthpiece which his music major
brother is discarding...
>
>To the different uses to which a clarinet is put.....Chamber, Dixieland,
Marching Band, Polka Band, Symphony orchestra...
>
>We come to a range of acceptable products...either very narrowly focused
for a specific use.....or having a certain amout of internal conflict or
ambiguity.......for more general use...
>
>Compound this with the fact that most clarinetists haven't a clue as to
what really hapens within their mouthpiece, for good or bad, and don't even
have a vocabulary to discuss it.
>
>(See Clark Fobes' excellent info page on Sneezy.....a big part of it is
just explaining parts/areas of the mouthpiece and agreeing on specific
terminology.)
>
>As, I mentioned before, I will be studying acoustics and clarinet design
to begin to understand some of these issues.
>
>I have Benade's two books arriving from Amazon, as well as Lee Gibson's
text "clarinet Acoustics"
>
>Maybe after I read these and absorb some of the information, I can give
more coherent answers to some of these questions...until then.....
>
>Let's not feel guilty. We are all born ignorant....but, we can do
something about it.
>
>Walter Grabner......pant, pant
>
>P.S. No Neil...this was not an advertisement
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
>
>

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