 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Trevor M
Date: 2011-11-02 21:35
The other day somebody linked to a Vandoren mouthpiece chart that listed suggested reed strengths for different models- I was very surprised to see that the hardest reed suggested for a B45 was a 3.5, since I'd used 4s and 4.5s when I used a B45 in junior high (my first teacher was a 'hard reed' guy). Fast articulation was always hard for me, though... at the time I attributed it to having been started with anchor tonguing (ugh), but perhaps it was a mouthpiece issue as well. Nowadays I play on a Pyne Clarion Jx, sold to me by David Breeden, who was also a 'hard reed' guy. I use Vandoren bluebox 5s on it, probably at the softer edge of the 5 spectrum.
So, I've never actually seen this explained in straightforward terms: what is the relationship between mouthpiece dimensions and reed strength, and what effect can one expect different combinations to have on articulation and resistance? I assume that most American symphony players play on reed strengths approaching a Vandoren 5, but I see some outliers, such as Michael Corner, play on reeds as soft as 3.5. (I expect that would get you more of that Reginald Kell 'soft reed' sound.)
Can somebody (who knows what they're talking about) explain this?
Trevor
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2011-11-02 21:47
I don't personally know of any professional players playing a Boehm system on anything harder than a 4, and I'll wager most I know are playing on the hard side of a 3 1/2.
The tip opening, curve, and lay length are but three determinates of what reed will play well on a mouthpiece. A small tip opening, long lay, and/or shallow curve might typify a mouthpiece that can take a stiffer reed than on with an opposite characteristic, but this is far from a hard and fast rule.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-11-02 22:14
There is no true reason for anyone to follow these recommendations. Perhaps it may be a starting point but there are many factors that determine what strength reed anyone uses on a given MP. How much mouthpiece one takes in, do they have an over bite or under bite, do they have a strong jaw or a weak jaw, do they tend to bite on the reed, do they use a lot of air pressure or not, the placement of their tongue, the thickness of their lips and I'm sure there are other factors involved as well. Of course it also depends on the quality one is looking for too, brighter, darker, mellower, harsher etc. It's what feels and sounds comfortable that counts and that's different for every player. ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-11-02 23:05
I know of a FEW of professional players personally and secondhand (literally SECOND in that the person I spoke with was their student, or assistant principle, or something like that) that play/played very hard reeds, but most on a very close-faced mouthpiece (small tip, long lay). I do think a WHOLE lot more probably play around a 3.5. I couldn't see vandoren taking the steps to manufacture and sell size 3.75 reeds unless they KNEW there was a big market out there for them or they did NOT do their research correctly and made a big money mistake with the wrong size.
I say just play what works. But don't be AFRAID of trying something light. But understand that some mouthpieces will gravitate to sounding better and easier to control with harder reeds than others. I do think that the close tip/long lay is almost a hard and fast rule for needing a harder reed. But that's just my personal experience and what I seem to gravitate towards.
On the other hand, I've played some beautiful mouthpieces with a lighter reed than what might be recommended.
And even better, look at the recommended reeds for a vandoren M15. It's a close-tip, long lay mouthpiece, but supposedly is recommended for anywhere from a 3.5 to a 5!
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Trevor M
Date: 2011-11-03 00:16
Based on just a little casual looking around: Gary Gray said he uses 5s, Eddie Daniels said 4s, Stoltzman said White Master 3s (!), Michael Corner said 3.5s, Stanley Drucker plays V12 4s, Mark Nuccio uses Rico 4.25s, and towards the end Breeden was making his own reeds which I found extremely hard, probably a 5+.
Your responses are interesting- maybe my use of hard reeds is just 'macho' posturing that is making my life harder... although I do like a sound as dark and rich and possible, and the timbre I like does seem easier to achieve with a harder reed. I'm-a buy me some 4.5s, though, and start rethinking my approach.
But, taking into account the fact that most mouthpieces will accept a range of reed strengths, what's the actual acoustic theory behind the tip aperture/lay length vs. reed strength? Do softer reeds vibrate too widely and 'close off' on a close tip?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-03 01:25
If YOU are mismatched in reed/mouthpiece combination to the soft side, your dynamics would be restricted at best and yes, the sound as you get in the upper octave would be thin and be likely to choke off.
The opposite affect is to have more the sound of 'air rushing out' rather tone, you'd not be able to get through nearly as much phrase without running out of breath, and yes, articulation would be less distinct and slower.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-11-03 03:34
But as paul states, It's what YOU do with a mouthpiece and reed. I might take a mouthpiece and slap a 3.5 on there and sound pretty good. Someone else might need a 3, but still sound good. Someone else may need a 4 or even 4.5 on there to sound good. And someone else may just not sound good on that mouthpiece at all cause it disagrees with them. Part of the fun (or HORROR) of mouthpiece hunting.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Trevor M
Date: 2011-11-03 05:14
"It's what YOU do with a mouthpiece and reed..."
Yeah, I get that. The shape of an individual's mouth cavity I'm sure makes a big difference in what they stick into it, and 'just try a bunch' seems to be the prevailing approach to selecting a mouthpiece. According to a Fobes article, it's impossible to even compare the same tip openings across makers since the gauges used by different makers are never in agreement with each other.
However, the major mouthpiece company does make reed hardness recommendations based on its models, mainly based on the tip opening from what I can tell- so what's the acoustic theory behind those suggestions? Why does a smaller tip opening favor a harder reed?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-03 09:59
It's NOT a basic theory, it's a bunch of French guys putting reeds on mouthpieces and play testing them. My results are MUCH different from Vandoren's.
Yes, the smaller tip opening favors a harder reed in terms of BALANCING a difference. The closer the vibrator is to the static surface, the less air it will take to make the same vibration. You must have had experience with buzzing a blade of grass between your thumbs or having the blinds in the window buzz if the wind kicks up............ all the same stuff......just without hard rubber.
.....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DezzaG
Date: 2011-11-03 11:32
"It's a bunch of French guys?" what does that have to do with it?...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2011-11-03 15:49
I wanted to chime in regarding David Breeden as I studied with him for 3 years right up until he passed away.
David told me he never played anything harder than a V12 4 1/2 in his career. When I studied with him, he was playing V12 3/12 on a vintage David Hite mouthpiece. I also purchased his Reed dual that he made reeds on as well as a bunch of his cane and a shoe box full of reeds that he made. They were all based off of a V12 4 1/2.
I'm not trying to say the original poster is wrong but I have a completely different experience with him. I would never classify him as a "hard reed guy". This was not the impression i got from the way he taught or the sound concept he employed.....he was very keen on flexibility and playing on a setup that allowed you to manipulate the sound with lip pressure (sort of like blending double lip and standard embouchure). It is possible that when David was young he played on very hard reeds because I didn't know him then but my experience with him was far from someone who promoted hard resistant setups.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-03 17:47
I can't resist a follow-up.........
At Zinner, it would be a bunch of German guys. Sorry, if that may have come of as a racist turn of a phrase.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2011-11-03 17:55
A very long time ago I used to use Vandoren 5s. But I did not use them for long. I look back and realize I was younger and could withstand the air pressure to make them work well. Tone was awesome but I found it very tiring. But nowadays I can't get above 4.5 and normally use 3.5 to 4s. When I try a harder reed nowadays it just hurts my eyes and gives me a headache, but then I don't use them consistently either.
Ultimately finding the right combination of reed responsiveness to the tone you are after with the selected mouthpiece is key. And that will just take some testing with various reed strength and various reeds.
Good luck
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Trevor M
Date: 2011-11-03 18:59
Wow, that's a big surprise to me Ryan- the reeds I received from David were always much harder than any 5 I'd gotten from Vandoren! Maybe when I studied with him he was still working out the kinks in his reed-making? I'm at a loss to explain it otherwise. I'm also quite surprised to hear he considered a 3.5 to be his go-to reed, but it sounds like you must have discussed this with him a lot, so I'll defer to you on that matter. (I do find it a little odd that his go-to reed was a 3.5 but that he made his reeds to resemble a 4.5, but I assume he had his reasons.)
Ed- that Ridenour article is closer to the sort of explanation I had in mind, but even that seems to have mostly generalities and very little physics. Everybody seems to agree that a longer facing and smaller tip opening will favor a harder reed- I must sound like a four-year-old, but why is that the case? Paul's explanation about the blade of grass or the blinds rattling aren't making me see the light. Can a mouthpiece with a larger window be louder just because it admits more airflow?
Are there any articles where any of this has been measured systematically? I realize that mouthpiecery is more of an art than a science at this stage in its development, but whenever I try to dig into this subject the explanations start to sound like voodoo.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2011-11-03 20:34
Trevor M wrote:
Everybody seems to agree that a longer
> facing and smaller tip opening will favor a harder reed- I must
> sound like a four-year-old, but why is that the case?
It all comes down to how much the tip of the reed deflects. The reed when clamped to a mouthpiece is essentially a cantilevered beam and the amplitude of oscillation (amount by which the tip of the reed moves) is governed by the stiffness of the reed as well as the length. A longer cantilevered "beam" will deflect more than a shorter one of the same stiffness when exposed to the same load. As a result if a soft reed is used on a mouthpiece with a long facing but close tip the reed deflection at the tip could be large enough that it completely closes off the mouthpiece. Conversely, if a very stiff reed is used on a mouthpiece with a very open tip then the reed deflection will be small compared to the opening size and huge amounts of air will be required to generate a sound.
These are generalizations of course and the actual curve of the facing has a significant effect as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2011-11-03 23:53
Interesting. I've always used my B45 with VD blue box 3 and I even had to adjust them for the correct strength. Belive me, no one ever mentioned that my sound would be thin or edgy. I like when the the mouthpiece itself has some resistance while has a great airflow, so I can vary dynamics and tone colors easily within very short time if needed. I find this thing very important especially in contemporary music. I accept if you have a different sound conception, but I imagine it's very tiresome to play on those hard reeds and your energy could be used for other things than tone production while playing.
I haven't tried any Pyne mouthpiece but I think you could benefit from trying your B45 with a blue box 3 or a V12 3.5. It can be an interesting experience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DezzaG
Date: 2011-11-04 01:55
>At Zinner, it would be a bunch of German guys. Sorry, if that may have come >of as a racist turn of a phrase.
Still comes across that way, you wouldn't say a bunch of Canadians if you were talking about Backun.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-11-04 07:53
Close tip + long curve + hard reed strength designation does not necessarily equal hard blowing or hard work. More open tip + shorter curve + medium reed strength designation doesn't necessarily equal greater comfort or ease of production. Either combination can be unplayably resistant or comfortable and productive. It depends, among other things, on the mouthpiece's internal characteristics and the selection of reeds within a given strength.
It can also depend on the particular run of reeds you're trying to use. I normally play #4 or #4-1/2 V12 reeds on most of the mouthpieces I own, all close-tipped, relatively long (18 mm) curved facings. I recently opened two boxes of new V12 #4s and couldn't play on any of them - apparently just a batch of really bad cane. I have a couple of other older #4-1/2 V12s in my current rotation that are actually a little too soft and have to be humored a little but sound good.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2011-11-04 13:35
Backun is one Canadian guy; John Weir is another Canadian guy; Paul Hogan is an Australian guy........what's YOUR point?
I was merely trying to be humorous through stating the obvious - OY !!
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
