 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: moose6589
Date: 2003-09-22 09:34
I've just been comparing my two Pomarico mouthpieces, one emerald bright and one diamond bright. Seemingly, the diamond is better in almost every way. The emerald is a bit easier to control pitch-wise, but that's about it. I've just been thinking about this when I noticed that the table(is that the term?) of the emerald is wider than the table of the diamond. Compound that with the fact that I use Gonzalez, which are particularly narrow, and I have a table that is wider than my reed. Has anyone else observed this? What are some effects of having a reed that is too narrow for the mouthpiece? And also, would it be possible to reface the mouthpiece to make the table more narrow? I can't think of any conceivable way to do it. Finally, if possible, about how much would such a refacing cost?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-09-22 19:54
Dave's refacing of one of my Pom BASS cl mps is fine and very similar to the Pom [GG] 3, both being the best I've found. There is as a Yahoo "Group", Mouthpiece Work where refacing SAX mp is their forte, but they have interesting discussions. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-09-23 06:42
There are inconsistencies with Pomarico's, major ones but refacing can be done succesfully even on crystals. You will probably find that if a reed is over sized for the table you will need to go up in strength and vice versa. You may find with the Zonda/ Gonzalez that they have a narrow bottom and a wide tip compared to Vandoren and Rico products. I have tried Zonda at least on a Pomarico and found them to be the wrong size altogether, I have an older number 4 which is a diamond equivalent I think. I have not had any success with them although others rave about them. I find that with my Pomarico non file cut reeds work much better and to the great horror of most I find Lavoz reeds work the best, only on the Pomarico however.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2003-09-23 09:00
(assuming that it actually is the mouthpiece "table" that is wider, not the tip rail)
well, i've only been playing for 25 years and i know that's not long by some standards... but in all those years- at least 10 spent studying with world class teachers, and refacing mouthpieces for professional players in NZ, USA and Australia, i've never noticed (or heard mention) any theories that suggest a link between the width of the mouthpiece table and reed strength/behaviour.
in fact, one of Ben Armatos tricks was to cut the butt off a reed and demonstrate that the reed was still playable, which would suggest that the butt (and therefore the table it's stuck to) has minimal effect on overall playability.
this either goes in the "you learn something new every day" pile, or the "what a lot of baloney" one.
on the other hand- the wider table suggests that the facing may be closer (and possibly the baffle closer to the reed) which will have various influences on the playability of the mouthpiece. if it is just the sizing of the TABLE that you are worried about (the flat bit that the butt of the reed is bolted on to) then i would suggest that you would be wasting your money getting this fixed up. On the other hand, if you are unhappy with the overall performance of this mouthpiece (and money is no problem), getting it refaced may get some good results.
however, you already have a mouthpiece that you like. why not give the $30 to the local homeless shelter. Winter's comming.
donald.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: moose6589
Date: 2003-09-24 09:58
Hmm, interesting. Well, the entire facing is really quite wide. The tip of the mouthpiece seems pretty much fine, but as you go down from the tip, like perhaps half an inch, you can see and feel the edges of the mouthpiece facing stickout out of the sides a bit, and it gets worse as you go down.
On another note, about the refacing. Everyone that I've met seems to think that refacing makes the mouthpiece much better to play. However, my question is what if the refacing causes no noticeable change or if the mouthpiece gets worse? Then wouldn't it be a waste of money? Would that ever happen?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2003-09-24 12:25
I base my comments on experience and experiment. I have found that the length of the reed, providing that the vamp is long enough has little effect, hence the cutting the butt off analogy. If you put an alto sax reed on a clarinet mouthpiece it will work but I have found that it behaves softer. The same thing happens on sax mouthpieces where a tenor reed will work perfectly well on an alto mouthpiece but you need a full strength or more harder. I have also tried German sized reeds on a French style mouthpiece, therefore smaller than the table, and found the softer strengths to work. Anecdotal, I know!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-09-24 13:15
Anecdotal is good too.....and sometimes even better than quantitative.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2003-09-25 03:57
i agree, my advice was anecdotal too- however the difference between an alto sax reed and a clarinet reed is a lot more than the width of the butt! Meanwhile, the original question was regarding the width of the table, not the reed.... and Moose is worried that Gonzalez reeds are narrower than the table. I've got to confess that this either demonstrates an overactive intellect, or stupidity (depending on how grumpy one might be feeling)
Moose- don't worry about it, by all means have the mouthpiece refaced if you really want to, chances are it will improve it, but it might not.
re "rails sticking out either side of the reed"- sure this means that the rails are probably quite fat, but what matters is how much of them are in contact with the reed, and the best way to measure that is to compare the width/shape of the mouthpiece window (ie the distance between the inside of the two rails).
this, by the way, brings into moot the design of the reed- the Gonzalez shape (narrowing as it moves away from the tip) will have a different interaction with different mouthpieces depending on how rectangular the windway is..... aw, this has gone on too far.
just keep playing good tunes
donald...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-09-25 12:30
Having acquired a number of mps that don't play the way I'd like them to I finally bit the bullet and tried my hand at refacing. Oops! If you think it costs too much to have a pro do it think again......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Douglas
Date: 2003-09-25 23:03
OK, if we accept the idea that the butt of the reed against any type of mouthpiece table, wide or not, has little or no effect on how the reed plays, how then does one rationalize the effects of various ligature designs and materials which are placed on that reed butt?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2003-09-26 11:48
easy
they (ligatures) are in contact with the reed and thus have a function, whereas the EXCESS table (the flat bits that Moose can see sticking out the side of her reed, causing her to worry that the table is too big) are NOT in contact with the reed. Therefore, narrowing the table of the mouthpiece (by filing material away) is not actually going to affect the performance of the reed because the "excess" table had no function. There is i supose the possibility that the material removed may affect the performance through reduced weight, but i'd be pretty sceptical about that to be honest.
it is entirely possible that refacing this mouthpiece will improve it.
"narrowing" the table almost certainly won't. I reface mouthpieces for Principal clarinets in Symphony orchestras, i make my own reeds. i do know what i'm talking about.
donald.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Douglas
Date: 2003-09-26 14:48
Sorry, Donald, please re-read the postings. My question is not what effect the ligature has in relation to the table, but, after postings stating that the butt of the reed has not effect on reed performance, why the various types of ligatures would then have any effect on reed performance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2003-09-27 01:46
aaahhhh yes, sorry- you've got a point, i had not read your posting carefully enough.
while i stick to my statement that "excess table area" will have no effect on the mouthpieces performance (other than maybe indicating a close baffle, or that the mouthpiece has been refaced one time too many)...
.... you are right, it would be silly to say that the reed butt has no influence on tone quality/response. i think what i wanted to point out (when refering to Mr Armato) was that any influence would be subtle rather than dramatic.
good call Douglas.
donald....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: john gibson
Date: 2003-09-27 04:06
Never had a problem with Pomarico. Either their crystal or ebony. Just find a reed that works with the MPC itself. Table was never a problem with any of my MPCs. Brilhart(vintage).....Vandoren...Selmer....It's the reed, and I suggest Mitchel Lurie Premium. Srength depends on the tip opening and facing length. IMHO refacing is just done in the event the whole d**ned thing is scratched..dented...pitted....etc. Or if you want to change the opening/facing.
John Gibson
PS....Dave Speigenthal does reat things with MPCs/clarinets. Especially Booseys.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
