 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Gary
Date: 2002-09-11 23:23
I am wondering if during the first half of the 20th century, the attitudes toward Chedeville and Kasper were the same as they are today. Moreover, did clarinetists back then talk of those mouthpieces as we talk of Zinners now? Today there are people to absolutely swear by Zinner blanks, and an equal number of people that have absolutely no interest in them. Was it the same back then?
Just curious,
Gary
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank
Date: 2002-09-12 01:03
Hi Gary,
There is a doctoral dissertation by Shannon Thompson (U of Texas as I recall about 4 years ago) titled the Philadelphia School of Clarinet Playing that I read recently. I think this work is an outstanding piece of scholarship and a major contribution to the literature. I'd get the dissertation on inter-library loan and read the section on mouthpieces, ligatures, etc. There is much coverage on Bonade, Portnoy (some great interview comments of which many are priceless), and others.
While all the answers are not there to all your questions, I think this manuscript would be a fine start.
Hank
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2002-09-12 13:08
It's like buying shoes... one size most definitely does NOT fit all.
There was also an interesting anecdote about students of Bonade buying three or four of his required mouthpieces and reworking them into playable curves, whittling away or adding epoxy to the interior for best overall response.
AGAIN I say;
buy from living makers that use readily available materials!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gary
Date: 2002-09-12 15:21
I think my question has been misunderstood so a degree. I'm simply asking, particulary those who were around in the first part of the 20th century, if Chedevilles and Kaspers were as much of a "must have" item as they are today, or if the two makers were simply two makers that has a few clients. I am using as my guidepost the Zinner blanks of today; there's a lot of uproar regarding the Zinners--maybe it's dying down now--both pro and con. Just wondering if this is similar to the "old" days.
Gary
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2002-09-12 18:11
When I got my Chicago Kaspar in about 1960, they were known to be excellent, but were pretty much a commodity. I think I paid $25 for it, which was a substantial amount at the time but hardly bankrupted me. (Why, oh why, didn't I get a bunch of them?) (Also, Moennig was still alive and working and didn't charge any more than other repairmen.)
Kalmen Opperman says that before Chedeville and the two Kaspars became well known, most top players used Woodwind mouthpieces, which they retouched.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d dow
Date: 2002-09-13 13:09
When the markets bottom out these pieces may become valuable as gold or other commodities used in mint process. As to the blank, it is just that. It takes the skill of a competent craftsman to make or even remake the design of these splendid mouthpieces.
I also would add these facings were around more the 2cd half of the 20th century....what classical artists used in the 30s is a good question. I know Langenous made mouthpieces and there was alot of awful sounding stuff. Maybe chedville goes back that far, but that is a guess.....the Vandoren 5RV was common and this came out in 1935 or 36.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-09-13 22:28
Dern it !, I had a post about half done, and a lightning strike interrupted AOL [we do welcome the rain!] erasing it. As I recall [it], my playing cl and sax in the 1930's, the "student" affordable mps were Woodwind [G and B series facings, my Meliphone Special [alto sax]], O'Brien glass 2-5 facings and Selmers. The "more-pro" mp names might be recalled by our better cl'ists, I would suggest Clark Brody {CSO} [from Lansing, MI!! also], and K Opperman as Mark suggested. I'm sure the "big-names" were/are great, but choice is VERY individual. I still/now like some "golden oldies", some VD's, Pomaricos and others. GOOD LUCK in trying/choosing. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Just me
Date: 2002-09-14 01:23
I studied at Manhattan School of Music in the 50s, they were hardly ever mentioned. Russianoff never really said anything about them. I think they are much more of a thing today then they were in the early days. Zinners will have the same fate. In a few years they will just be another mouthpiece. Why do you think you cold never find a Kasper or the others that haven't been refaced to death. Few players really liked them as they were but they were good blanks, as the Zinners are now. Everytime someone got one they whould have it refaced again. Does anyone have a Kasper in it's orignal state? I doubt it. Just Me
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk
Date: 2002-09-14 03:56
That's not quite true. I studied with Russianoff at MSM in the 70's and I remember at least one Chedeville that he had.
Mr. Russianoff was very pragmatic concerning mouthpieces. Whatever worked was fine with him. He offered to sell me that Chedeville for about $50 but I liked what I was playing then better (he agreed). He then sold it to a very well-known NYC player for $200 (remember this was 30 years ago, that's probably more like $1,000 today).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: d dow
Date: 2002-09-16 03:56
I have two Cicero Kaspars that are in awful shape, and can honestly say that even the baffle is cracked and not appealing on one! These are not worth fixing espcially in this bad of shape..players today really have the advantage of more designs than ever...however quality may defintely be less consistent!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jess
Date: 2002-10-26 17:14
I am a high school musician and i was wondering can you explain to met what these mouthpieces are and how they differ from vandoren my B45 broke and i am looking at mouthpieces.... thank you
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
