 The Doublers BBoard
|
Author: afmdoclaw
Date: 2013-12-29 03:52
POSTED THIS ELSEWHERE BUT SAX PLAYERS MAY BENIFIT FROM THIS
ased upon comments on this wonderful board I ordered and now have tried a Rico Reserve mpc and I am so impressed that I felt compelled to comment again but from a different perspective (I think). I know that this has been discussed thoroughly in this forum but I would like to present more “food for thought” so to speak. I recently posted elsewhere on this board comments concerning the interrelationships amongst mouthpiece parameters such as tip size, lay, baffle shape and design, and chamber size and shape between saxophone mouthpieces of old (1930-1940’s etc) and modern mouthpieces and the demands created by “competing” for volume in the age of electronic amplification etc. (really changed mpc design). So I thought -- “Frank why don’t you apply your experience to clarinet mouthpieces” (no I am not schizo -- I think-- maybe).
Assumption/observation# 1-- the classic French clarinet mpcs of the 1930-40’s appear to me to be characterized by premium hard rubber, deep baffles (less high partials/overtones and projection), small chambers/throats to focus the air and provide a centered focus (ping but somewhat muted).
Assumption/observation # 2-- the classic French saxophone mpcs of the 1950’s (my current preferred choice) appear to me to be characterized by premium hard rubber, flat baffles (less high partials/overtones and projection), small chambers/throats/straight sidewalls to focus the air and provide a centered focus (ping but somewhat muted). THESE MPCS PLAY WELL WITH A SMALL TIP OPENING.
Assumption/observation # 3-- the classic American metal saxophone mpcs of the 1940-1950’s such as an Otto LInk or a Dukoff appear to me to be characterized by, flat baffles with at most a small rollover at the tip(less high partials/overtones and projection), large chambers/throats/rounded sidewalls that require more air and in turn maybe more volume but less focus (a trait that some prefer-- the “foo foo” boys). THESE MPCS PLAY WELL WITH A SMALL TIP OPENING. As an aside for this discussion--compensating for the baffle and chamber design by using a hard reed with a small tip and a long lay the high partials and overtones can be enhanced by TAKING A LOT of mouthpiece into your mouth. (ala Trane)
Thus the reason for this post:
If you want to play a classic Chedeville designed mouthpiece (as opposed to a "KASPER" style ) of old you need one with a smaller tip and longer lay.
So I had my “da-- why didn’t I think of that before” moment and ordered the xo (100) tip Rico Reserve. It is THE smallest tip clarinet mpc I have ever played. Slapped on a harder reed and it is FUN and easy to play. Now it won’t replace my 70’s Borbeck or Fobes 4L for the majority of the type gigs I usually play, but the RR will be on my clarinet in my practice room.
BTW- I have bought, tried and sold (at a loss) many (too many) mpcs in the Chedeville design by many great contemporary mouthpiece makers (names redacted to protect the innocent-- me!) and I have never been as pleased. Wish I could remember the tip size on the rejected mpcs (but I know not as small as the RR) but with this less the $100.00 invested in this “winner” I am not ready to go back and try the others again ($$).
I look forward to your learned replies.
Reply To Message
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
