Klarinet Archive - Posting 000324.txt from 2003/08

From: "Don Yungkurth" <clarinet@-----.net>
Subj: [kl] Mouthpiece Patches Revisited (once more!)
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 16:32:21 -0400

Bill Hausmann quoted John J. O'Neill who wrote:

>. . . . . . . Does the fact that a patch provides a
>more secure embouchure (i.e., your teeth don't slide all over the place)
>automatically bolster your confidence that the sound is better? Isn't it
>true that using the patch only makes you think that your tone is
>better? As advised by some, I shall record with and without a patch, and
>examine the results. If I happen to do this on a day when I am really
>depressed, there's no telling what I shall experience.

Bill responded:

>I think you have misunderstood some of the posts on this. The apparent
>improvement in sound that SEEMS to be created upon REMOVING the patch is
>caused by the increase in the conduction of sound through the teeth and
>bones to your ears. The difference is unlikely to be noted by anyone else
>(or the recorder), except for the possible improvement WITH the patch due
>to the more secure embouchure. Personally, once I tried a patch, I could
>not bear the thought of playing WITHOUT one! The comfort and security they
>offer outweighs any bone conduction loss by far. I have put patches on
>mouthpieces I do not even play anymore, just in case! They are
>particularly useful on crystal mouthpieces, which have really NO grip of
>their own, and can feel cold on the teeth, too. By the way, I use the
>thin, clear vinyl type of patch, rather than the thick black rubber
>variety, although I can see those as possibly being more useful for
>marching band applications where the extra cushioning might be desirable.

Bill indicates that the apparent improvement in sound that SEEMS to be
created upon REMOVING the patch is caused by the increase in the conduction
of sound through the teeth and bones to your ears.

I think that, as in most things, there is a typical distribution curve
covering the differences in players with respect to the effect of using a
patch.

In my case, my original clarinet teacher never mentioned single and double
lip or even commented on the embouchure that I had gotten from my band
teacher (who played the 'cello, I believe). I soon settled on a double lip
embouchure by myself since I didn't like the sound I made with single lip.
About 40 years later, I started taking lessons again. The first question my
new teacher asked was, "Why do you use a double lip embouchure". I told
him my reason and he said, "Let me see your mouthpiece". He returned it in
a few minutes with a patch on it and asked me to play single lip. He asked
what I thought of the sound and I indicated it was greatly improved. He
said it sounded the same to him as my double lip. He preferred double lip
himself, but gave it up when he began to play a great deal of soprano Eb.

My point here is that, while Bill suggests a perceived improvement in sound
to the player by removing the patch, I had exactly the opposite experience.
I would have to agree with John that, "using the patch only makes you think
that your tone is better". I play mostly single lip now, but occasionally
use double, which I feel allows better (more subtle?) control.

I should add that I played double when standing, including marching. I
believe that properly adjusted reeds allow one to play double in all
circumstances without undue discomfort, i. e., without needing excessive
pressure.

Don Yungkurth

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/