Klarinet Archive - Posting 000235.txt from 2001/09

From: Ed Wojtowicz <ewoj@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Mouthpieces and reed longevity
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 04:43:33 -0400

> From: rgarrett@-----.edu
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
> Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 03:43:12 -0500
> To: klarinet@-----.org
> Subject: Re: [kl] Mouthpieces and reed longevity
>
>
> Ed,
>
> I was agreeing with Tony's point regarding the tip opening on a closer
> facing showing the kinds of problems with fatigue some reeds show that tend
> not to be a problem with a more open facing.

Although I would think that to some degree, as always there would be a trade
off. I speculate as to whether since a more close tip would require a
stiffer piece of cane, it may be less likely to break down or close up as
quickly as a softer one.

>
>> An old teacher of mine once told me that he felt a good mouthpiece was one
>> that would accept a lot of reeds (given that pitch, response, etc are all
>> within the accepted parameters). I guess reed friendly might be a good
>> term for it. To be clear, I think that you want a mouthpiece that can
>> allow you to do the job with a variety of reeds as opposed a mouthpiece
>> that plays well only "when I get the right reed".
>
> I agree Ed. But some people have more comfort on an asymmetrical
> mouthpiece than a symmetrical mouthpiece - primarily because of their
> playing style.
etc...

Actually, my previous statement was not necessarily connected with the
symmetrical vs. asymmetrical discussion. I thought it was an interesting
point as to an ideal in selecting a mouthpiece. I hope I did not cloud the
issue by bringing it up. Thanks Roger for your articulate posts.

Ed

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