 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: lee
Date: 2000-12-07 12:35
Hi, I'm thinking about buying a pyne-clarion mouthpiece(The Bel Canto model) and I would like to know some of the characteristics of the mouthpiece, and if any of you guys have one, how do you like it?and Is it worth buying it?
Thanks!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aaron
Date: 2000-12-07 15:06
Hello Lee.,
I have had many experiences with the Pyne mouthpieces. I know of many professional players that use them in orchestras. This summer I studies with Jim Meyer of the St. Louis Symphony. My mouthpiece was lacking in quality, I outgrew it in a matter of speaking. So He let me use one of his mouthpieces, I borrowed a Pyne PK, and a mouthpieces that he got from Lary Combs that Combs used to use. Anyway, the Pyne played allright for me. I was changing my playing style, embouchure, breathing. The pyne gets a a very large, full tone. Very Powerful, however it lacks cahracter. It lacks a warmth that I like in the tone. Don't get me wrong, the pyne has a dark centered tone, but I just cant get that PING out of the tone, no matter how much I tried working with Jim. I eventually ended up metting up with Greg Smith in Evanston and buying one of his mouthpieces.
Here's a side point to the previous conversation. I had tried the Pyne mouthpieces about a year before I did this past summer. I was expectiing to be able to play these mouthpieces, however I was greately dissappointed. I couldn't even get a tone out of them. We had a Bel canto, a PK, and a few others. I had strength of reeds from 3 to 4+ in the V12s. I just couldn't get them to play. So don't be expecting to use the same playing technique with the pynes that you would say a B45 or something of that nature. After my playing technique changed, I was able to play the pynes, but with some strain. That's why I ended up with the Greg Smith 1* that I have now.
Also, while testing the mouthpieces, Greg tested the Pyne to see if the rails and curverture were even, and he said that they weren't, and he checked my other mouthpieces and they just about as off as the Pyne was. This is just something else to look at when you get the Pynes.
I do know many people that do get wonderful sound with the Pyne mouthpieces, Jane Carl, assistant principal with the St Louis Symphony used a pyne the last time I took a lesson with her, and it was a wonderful tone. Expically the next night when she had a gerat solo with the orchestra. All I'm saying is that the Pynes didn't work for me, just be carefun in choosing a mouthpiece, don't spend the 180, or 200 bucks on a mouthpiece unless you feel completely comfortable with it. For a long time I was comfortable with my Hite 121-D and placing it against the best out there. But the Smiths made me change my mind. So Be open to all possibilites, don't just buy a name.
Aaron
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2000-12-07 17:10
Jim Pyne deliberately makes his mouthpieces asymmetrical. He has discussed it at considerable length on the Klarinet board. He also says that you have to change your playing style to get the best out of them. Ricardo Morales plays a Pyne, and he has plenty of color in his sound.
Like "bright vs. dark," "symmetrical vs. asymmetrical" brings clarinetists almost to blows. You have to find what works for you. I played for years on an asymmetrical Lelandais/Chedeville, but now play on a symmetrical Opperman.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aaron
Date: 2000-12-07 22:25
Ken,
Thanks about the symmetrical vs. asymmetrical thing. I never knew about that, some more info to look into. Thanks for filling me in about that.
Aaron
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2000-12-08 01:27
Aaron
Please read one of my posts from Klarinet regarding this subject:
http://www.sneezy.org/Databases/Logs/2000/10/000592.txt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith
Date: 2000-12-08 01:36
Also from Klarinet during the same discussion I posted:
>>>>Here is an excerpt from Tom Ridenour's website explaining the phenomenon. It is a somewhat controversial subject and although Tom and I differ in the
style of mouthpiece making in other areas, I personally believe that Tom has
gone a long way in enunciating the problem of asymmetry as I see it.
May I add that in every case that I have encountered, without exception,
straightening uneven rails has led to the improvement in the playing
qualities of the mouthpiece.
Gregory Smith
Tom Ridenour writes about:
ASYMMETRICAL FACINGS
Some mouthpieces have side rails which do not share the same curve. We refer
to such facings as asymmetrical or crooked facings. Makers who make such
facings are usually seeking to achieve something specific in tone color.
While this feature might achieve the timberal goal in a limited area of the
clarinet, achieving such a goal by means of facing askewity creates other
problems, especially in the area response. Further, it should be understood
that askew rails extend into the tip rail, causing the most open part of the
tip to be off center. This profoundly affects tone color in the upper
register negatively (causing a tendency towards excessive thinness and
brightness), makes upper register response unpredictable, insecure and
undependable, as well as makes properly balancing reeds much more difficult
than it ought to be.
Askew or crooked facings are not recommended for they are commonly either a
major contributing factor to, or the root cause itself of the following
playing problems:
1. Force the habit of biting (upward jaw pressure) in order to begin,
control, center, or clarify the tone, especially at softer dynamics.
2.Cause difficulty in finding good reeds, make reed balance precarious and,
depending on the degree or severity of askewity, can totally frustrate the
reed balancing process altogether.
3.Cause insecurity and unevenness in slurring or playing attacks in the third
register or upper clarion, especially at softer dynamic levels.
4. Make playing the full dynamic range of the clarinet with an even tone
color difficult, causing breathiness in the tone to be a chronic tendency,
especially at softer dynamic levels.
5. Make the tone difficult to center, especially at softer dynamic levels.
6. Cause an inordinate degree of embouchure/air pressure exchange to achieve
the full dynamic and pitch range of the clarinet.
7.Cause a tendency for brightness and edge in upper register tones.
8.Cause a perpetual feeling of stuffiness in many cases even when softer
reeds are used.
For these and other reasons asymmetry in facings ought to be avoided. In this
authors opinion, asymmetry is a Lorelei that tempts many and shipwrecks not a
few. What it seeks to create in tone color can be achieved better in other
ways without the unacceptable sacrifice of response and "reed
friendliness." No essential musical phenomenon should ever be compromised or
sacrificed for the sake of another. The greatest opportunity the player or
the mouthpiece maker has to do selective damping to darken the tone is the
reed itself. Askew rails as a solution to tonal brightness is no solution at
all because of the whole array of other problems such a "solution" creates. (END)>>>>>>>>>>
******************************************************************************************
Greg Smith wrote:
In ending my part in this discussion now, all I have to offer are the essentials of my original posts:
"Perhaps it is true that one can probably accommodate playing allot of
different things in different ways. I suppose my general question is,
rhetorically speaking, where does one draw the line in ones own best interest
about how far they - in practical terms - need to go?"
and:
"...my point is that each of these individuals have a "point
of diminishing returns" after which they become encumbered by their
mouthpiece/reed combination in terms of effort exerted regarding blowing
resistance, response, articulation and quality of sound."
and:
"I agree to the extent that even as a practical matter, I wouldn't make it
past the first half page of the Brahms 1st in the orchestra with this style
of mouthpiece - and believe from experience that it would be harmful to my
playing to learn to do so."
and in response to:
"It takes a long time to learn how to blow on a Pyne mouthpiece with an open facing,
but, in my opinion, it is well worth the effort."
I respond once again:
"It seems to me, implicit in this statement is the notion that something
extraordinary is available to one if they are willing to work extra hard at
what it takes to play a mouthpiece like this. In my opinion it is not
necessary to feel as though one needs to work hard to make a mouthpiece play
beautifully and reliably when it can be done just as well with less effort.
In fact, I would say that this extraordinary effort detracts from a players
ability to free themselves of their equipment to get to the act of actually
making music and that if the mouthpiece is right for that person, no such
correlation between extraordinary effort and result exists.
Orchestral players in North America whose playing that I know of and admire
in the last century - Bonade, Marcellus, Maclane, McGinnis, Wright - played,
as I understand it, traditionally styled mouthpieces that were to them
efficient, comfortable and reliable in their response, articulation and
timbral characteristics without needing to resort to any extraordinary
efforts to play them."
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bino
Date: 2000-12-08 18:53
Try the Bel Canto before you decide to buy it...It is an expensive mouthpiece and as Gregory Smith has said, it is not for everyone...I just switched from my Ann Arbor Kaspar to a Pyne Bel Canto...I am very pleased with all aspects of the Pyne (tone, articulation, smoothness between registers) except for my having trouble with the altissimo register, but I have a problem with all mouthpieces in the altissimo register due to voicing problems...I warn you ahead of time that balancing your reeds to the mouthpiece will take a little bit of time out of your weekly schedule, but the result is certainly worth it...It takes just as much time balancing reeds to a Kaspar, so I guess the more expensive a mouthpiece the more reed work is required...I hope you find the mouthpiece that will work for you, just remember to try numerous mouthpieces of the same model...where one bel canto may not work, another may be the greatest mouthpiece you will ever own...Good Luck!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Luanne
Date: 2000-12-09 14:50
Hi all,
I am not new to the list but haven't been here in a very long time. I have 2 Pyne mouthpieces. Both are M's. The one I use the most was custom made for me while I visited Pyne. We had tried so many different styles of his mouthpieces, the BC, PK, BN and M etc..I finally found one that I really liked but found it to be stuffy. I do not like closed mouthpices very well. He went and changed a few things on it opened it up more than he liked it to be but I loved it. It is assymetrical and so far I have not any problems with it. Some have mentioned that "zing" that they failed to produce but perhaps it is the R-13 that can lose that "zing" when playing Pyne's mouthpieces. I play an RC. While I was purchasing that Pyne mouthpiece, I already had a Pyne barrel since my instructor had studied with Pyne as well, I ended up trying a few barrels to maximize my tone color and response and bought an M 67mm. My backup mouthpiece is also a Pyne a little more closed but not by much, again assymetrical. It does better on the A clarinet for me since I can use softer reeds. The only to find out if it is right for you is to actually try it. I had been trying SOOOOO many mouthpices and never could find the right one. It is an individual preference so only you can tell if it is right for you. Perhaps going to Pyne at OSU would be better so it can be made right.
Good luck!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
