Klarinet Archive - Posting 000581.txt from 2002/09

From: GrabnerWG@-----.com
Subj: [kl] Re-facing ramifications, was: Changing mouthpieces
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:20:48 -0400

In a message dated Thu, 26 Sep 2002 7:52:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, ewoj@-----.net writes:

> One of the things that the late Everett Matson used to tell me was that when you reface a mouthpiece, you bring the reed closer to the baffle. It is then necessary to take a little out by scraping the baffle to compensate for this change.>>

I'm don't want to go on record as disagreeing with Matson. With his death we lost a great artists of mouthpiece hand-craftsmanship.

In my view the above is correct but does not go far enough in explaining exactly what happens when you reface.

It is, of course a matter of degree. If the facing is just "sharpening-up" up a worn facing, little is done vis-a-vis the relationship of the reed to the baffle.

Many re-facings, however, involve removing enough material that the tip rail and the side rails are noticably thicker. For clarity of tone, most re-facers will then thin down the the tip rail. There are two ways of doing this. One is to file or sand it from the top.

If you file or sand from the top to adjust the tip rail, you are effectively SHORTENING the mouthpiece. This in itself is not bad, it's quite amazing when comparing different makes and models to observe the length differences that occur. However, in this kind of shortening, you have reduced the length and size of the windway. The upper baffle has been changed slightly. The uppermost part has been "comsumed" and become part of the tip rail.

This portion of the baffle is one of the most critical areas of the mouthpiece. It is where many of the tonal characteristics of the mouthpiece are shaped.

Another way to reduce the thickness of the tip rail, is to file, inside the mouthpiece windway, lengthing the baffle into the newly thickeden tip rail. This is done with very gentle filing, re-creating the extreme end of the baffle which was just flattened by the re-facing. (Usually, after the filing, some polishing takes place, I use my Dremel tool with its felt polishing disks.)

This is what I believe Matson was referring to above, assuming he was quoyed accurately and completely.

This takes an extreme amount of care but, in my view more effective than filing down the tip rail.

(Before we get comments here, I want to add that some mouthpieces can be improved by some added thickness to the tip rail.)

In the most extreme case of re-facing, where the table is warped or has hollow spots, the table must be flattened before significant improvements can be made.

This is a place where many will hesitate, I know I do. With significant removal of material the entire relationship of the reed to the mouthpiece has been changed. Think of it as drawing the reed INTO the dimesion of the mouthpiece. The relationship of the reed to the baffle has been altered along the entire length (and breadth) of the baffle, significantly altering the playing characteristics of the mouthpiece.

Even if you could, using manual methods, exactly re-create the complex baffle curve, you have changed the relationship of the lower baffle to the the chamber of the mouthpiece.

Believe me, I have ruined several mouthpieces where the table was so warped that it required substantial flattening. Of course, they were unplayable in the condition they were in, so what did it matter?

Floyd Williams, remember your bass mouthpiece?

Well, I didn't mean to write a dissertation, these are thoughts that have been rattling about in my haed for several years. It's nice to get them down on paper.

Enough....

Walter Grabner
www.clarinetXpress.com
...and yes, I do re-face mouthpieces, and enjoy the challenge....
copyright Clarinetxpress 2002

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