Klarinet Archive - Posting 000418.txt from 2000/10

From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Changes to Elite and other Buffets
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 13:05:54 -0400

A shortie, again:
It seems to me that the differences in reed properties smudge over an
awful lot of these
differences between mouthpieces in the real-world situation where you
actually want to *buy* one.
Yours,
Roger S.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000 rgarrett@-----.edu wrote:

> Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 11:02:18 -0500
> From: rgarrett@-----.edu
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Changes to Elite and other Buffets
>
> At 06:00 AM 10/9/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> > <><> It is the same issue mouthpiece makers run into - a tradeoff
> >on "free blowing" vs. "edgy or non-edgy" sound.
> >
> > I assume you are saying that these two aspects of a mouthpiece are
> >mutually exclusive? That is, you can't have the "most free blowing" and
> >the "least edgy" sound simultaneously. Is there a clear-cut explanation
> >for why? Or is this just an observable fact of life?
> >
> >
> >Thank you,
> > Bill
>
> Bill,
>
> It's very difficult to describe without showing in person. But let me try
> - I'll probably make it even more confusing in the process.
>
> Let's take a for-instance - two virtually identical blanks (which is
> impossible). Let's say we make one with a tip opening of 1.12 and the
> other with a tip opening of 1.14 (not much difference, but enough). Let's
> take it a step further and make the curve on the second one ever so
> slightly longer. The result, theoretically, is that the second will feel
> more resistant (stuffy) but have greater power (volume). Here is where the
> problem in description is. What one player feels as slightly more
> resistant, another describes as stuffy. Depending on reed, embouchure,
> amount of mouthpiece taken, air use, etc., finding two players even to
> describe the SAME mouthpiece (let alone two different mouthpieces) is a
> long shot. Therefore, to answer your question:
>
> In a perfect world, when one creates a larger tip opening and a longer
> curve, the resistance of the mouthpiece can become greater in feel. When
> one deepens the baffle - more scooped, the feel can become even more
> resistant. Let's say that greater resistance can equal less responsive.
> What most players want is the comfort of the less resistant/more responsive
> mouthpiece with the tone quality of the more resistant/powerful mouthpiece.
> The trick is to get both for a player. This is precisely why there are so
> many different blanks out there - Zinner has a deep scoop in the baffle,
> and the many different kinds of Babbitts have different kinds of baffles,
> different sized interior chambers, etc. etc.......... These different
> blanks exist to try to satisfy the many different kinds of players and
> approaches out there. No wonder we have so many opinions on mouthpieces.
> Richard Hawkins can describe where he believes the "response" factor is in
> the curve of the mouthpiece - as well as the baffle. He mentioned that the
> curve has to be particular in relationship to the scoop of the baffle.
> With the variety of mouthpiece blanks out there, and even with the
> variation between supposedly identical blanks, it becomes very difficult to
> match mouthpieces.
>
> Frankly, I prefer a more open mouthpiece - 1.19-1.20. For years in fact, I
> played on David Shifrin's old Pyne that was a 1.26 tip opening! I still
> play on a 1.20 tip. I don't like the edge I get when I play on a 1.15,
> 1.12, etc. as it drops in numbers (towards a more closed facing). I also
> don't like the pitch of the more closed mouthpieces, although some would
> argue that is not so much the scoop in the baffle (I prefer a deeper scoop)
> as the bore taper. The latter would have a greater overall effect, but the
> former would most certainly drop pitch as it is deeper. This is why the
> Zinners work so nicely with a more closed facing - very scooped baffle!
> AND - the smaller the mouthpiece (Eb vs. Bass), the better that scoop is
> for the mouthpiece. This is precisely why the Zinner Eb blanks are the
> best thing I've found in a long time. (BTW Walter G., in response to a
> post a few days ago, I told you LAST YEAR when you visited that the Zinner
> Eb blank was the only one to use.......!!!!!).
>
> The 1.02 of a Greg Smith's terrific mouthpieces and the same facing in a
> Hawkins equally terrific mouthpiece are virtually unplayable for me - but
> that is just my approach to the instrument. They sound great, but down low
> I can't push the envelope in the volume (especially down low) as I would
> like. Why? The more closed tip with the dip in the table that simulates a
> more open tip (approximately 1.10 according to Richard) creates an
> instability in the reeds as I prepare them for a flat table mouthpiece.
>
> Therefore, my description of the Trade-off: in whatever form we create
> resistance in blowing to create a particular quality tone, we affect in
> terms of response.
>
> Now that I have thoroughly confused you.......let's see Walter take a stab
> at the explanation - he struggles with the issue as well!
>
> Great question by the way Bill.
>
> Sincerely,
> Roger Garrett
>
>
> Roger Garrett
> Professor of Clarinet
> Director, Symphonic Winds
> Head, Recording Studio
> Illinois Wesleyan University
> School of Music
> Bloomington, IL 61702-2900
> (309) 556-3268
>
> "A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
> another's."
> Jean Paul Richter (1763-1825)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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