 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2005-10-29 20:52
Behn mouthpiece analysis after 3 weeks use:
I have collected, discarded, hoarded, sold, destroyed, venerated, dissed, and otherwise utilized many mouthpieces.
Looking carefully at the new Behn offerings--and after 3 weeks of use-- I realized that I had aquired over time a few (mis)conceptions about the measurements of the "legendary mouthpieces of yesteryear." What makes these prized antiques valuable? Why are some great, and others junk?
Bore, baffle, facing, sidewalls, throat area size, rail thickness, and overall internal volume are frequently mentioned when discussing the acoutical properties of mouthpieces.
A deep baffle is said to contribute to the characteristics of one particular maker.
Another specimen has a wide bore with a different ramp. The permutations are infinite.
The material is yet another major factor.
We all have an idea of how we want a perfect mouthpiece to behave....getting there (aside from many hours of practicing, of course) is the great adventure. I wish to convey my findings at one of the stops along this journey.
I obtained 2 Behn Vintage mouthpieces. One had 3 lower ligature lines, the other had 2.
One had a wider exit bore than the other. One had narrower side rails. One had a narrower throat.
Which is which? Which is the "Chedeville" and which one is the "Kaspar?" Neither baffle looked particularly deep.
A head-scratcher for sure.
And more importantly, does characterizing the style based upon ++historical findings or conventional wisdom++ really matter?
Both played easily, held the tone, articulated well, etc. I liked the way the one sounded just a little more than the other.
What amazed me was that I ++thought++ I had reversed my preconcieved preference. What gives? And what's with the baffle?
Is there something about the material that changes what is done with the dimensions?
It turned out that I really still had the same preference (Ched vs Kaspar), but my concept of what constituted the dimensions of a great specimen was askew to some extent, at least according to the Behn schematic. There was less material taken from the baffle of one model than I would have expected based on prior literature. The throat dimensions were different between the two, and the bore depths decidedly different, some of which I expected.
I concluded that The Behn Vintage mouthpieces are best judged without the baggage of a priori conceptions. They stand on their own merits.
Do I like them? Emphatically YES.
Would I discard my Guidetti-faced Bettoney? No. Nor my Genussa, Hites, Grabners, Hill, or Krass Lelandais.
In fact, I still like and recommend these and many others. And certainly the cost of a Behn is also a factor.
All I am saying is that the Behn offerings have shown me that I should NOT use preconceptions about internal dimensions to "pidgeonhole" a mouthpiece without first sticking a reed on it and playing it.
Brad has followed in the footsteps of many fine artisans before him....I think that he has also done either some trailblazing or perhaps made a revisionist history of mouthpiece structure. This is good for all of us.
And for those who must know, he termed the 2-liner as the Ched, and the 3-liner as the Kaspar. But, as I stated, throw away these terms. I did.
Disclaimer....I have no connection with any of the makers listed. I do not make a living by playing or teaching clarinet.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
Post Edited (2005-10-29 20:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2005-10-29 21:20
Thank you for the in-depth review. I must admit I ran to the website when I saw the advertising banner just the other day - lots of info there.
I am going through another hunting phase and it's always good to add another worthy specimen to the collection.
I am not completely sold on the idea of the quality of the rubber being a huge factor, having tried the Genusa vs the Intermediate version, the difference seemed limited to some upper partials here and there.
Well, I've got to organize some car washes and bake sales before I get one of those, but they sound interesting.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2005-10-29 22:26
I remember exchanging email with Brad around 1996. It seems to me (but I think I am wrong) he was just getting started with his in-earnest refacing experiments. I searched the Klarinet archives for his messages about mouthpiece work at that time. But I realized these were private emails. I did not save copies. That's unfortunate, for they were detailed descriptions of his efforts.
I have the Chadash-Hill version of the "vintage" mouthpiece (plus three bona fide example of vintage Cheds). I can't afford Brad's new vintage stuff.
I love Brad's refacing work - nice, even, resistant facings that work well with medium reeds. Perfect! He really seems to be going for a major commercial success with the slick website and the direct mail. This seems very intelligent of him.
It's funny (and maybe a bit sad) how some clarinetists (not all) fall in love with equipment from time to time. I have been one of the worst (I think!). In the end, I wonder whether I could find just the right reed for a very ordinary mouthpiece, and then endow it with the qualities I attribute to my Kaspar, my Bettoney, my Terry-Guidetti-refaced Chedeville, my old Martin Freres, my cherished old Charles Bays. I find the stories thrilling, about great performers or recording artists who play on 5RV's and B45's. The set-up is the most sensitive and the most important aspect of the clarinet performance. But how much, really, have we been aided by these Stradivarius offerings? And how much is jsut a simple pairing of reed and mouthpiece rails? Would intelligent reed working make high-end mouthpieces unncecessary? (Probably not!)
Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
