Klarinet Archive - Posting 001003.txt from 2000/01

From: "redcedar" <redcedar@-----.au>
Subj: [kl] Mouthpiece FAQ
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:06:53 -0500

Given the uncertainties being expressed about the Mouthpiece FAQ exercise, I
wonder if what is required at this point is some structure to arrange and
interpret the inputs. I've outlined one such approach below which I am
presently adopting for my own purposes, although I recognise that this
approach will not be everyone's cup-of-tea.

A former corporate colleague used to drive me nuts with his homespun
aphorisms, one being: "if it can't be measured, it can't be managed", which
is of course, trite nonsense, but does serve to make the point that as with
mouthpieces, there are measurables and immeasurables, or perhaps more
cogently, there are quantitative and qualitative factors which need to be
sensibly considered and influenced.

The "dismal scientists" of the economic's fraternity, typically handle this
problem of structure by assembling known variables in a convenient
formulation, and theorising a standard/equilibrium/perfect state, then one
by one relaxing the assumptions with respect to the dependent variables on
the basis of a notion of ceteris paribus (all other things being equal -
which they never are - but it's great fun anyway), so as to test the effect
of the variations on the standard state, and if you are lucky, a
good-looking Gestalt may emerge. [I've never understood how they relaxed
the dubious assumption that "man is a rational being", but that's another
topic.]

Using this analogy, it seems to me that you could determine the
principal/critical measurable dimensions of the mouthpiece (bore/facing/tip
opening etc), establish the bipolar extents of those dimensions
(wide/narrow, long/short, angled/parallel, material of construction etc.),
and hypothesise on the basis of qualified experience, what a significant
change to each dimension will typically yield in the way of final sound
(tone/pitch/volume etc.). I realise that these variations typically occur
in composite rather than in isolation, but for the measurable
characteristics, it at least provides a quantitative means by which to
formulate a viewpoint about the mouthpiece(s) being/to be tested. Thi
resultant becomes a sort of peg-in-the-sand by which you can then evaluate
the various immeasurable or qualitative elements such as the relationship of
different reed strengths, relative playing experience (strength of
embouchure/formation of oral cavity etc), style of playing anticipated
(heavy/light classical, jazz, modern, marching band etc.), climatic
conditions and altitude, and whatever other things are considered relevant.
Price, availability, and compatibility with different styles/brand of
clarinet need also to be factored.

Dee Hays has provided a useful framework, and it may be enough. I have
tabled another approach, which may yet lead to a similar position to that
proposed by Dee. I will add though, that I am presently assessing four
different mouthpieces, and have been frustrated in trying to make a choice,
for the outputs vary markedly, and I've not understood why. The approach
I've outlined above, I am putting into practice as much as I can, and it
seems to be usefully aiding my systematic investigation to determine "the
best" mouthpiece for "me" at "this point in time" from "the selection
available".

Michael

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