 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: won kim
Date: 2003-09-26 23:32
Hello,
I have not used this Board for a while but I hope some of you remember me. =)
I am now studying with my new teacher and he have suggested me to try other mouthpiece at some point. I am playing Pyne Sig. MP with his 1+ barrel. I fell in love with the dark and beautiful tone. However, both I and my teacher agreed that the combination of such high resistance in my set up and my relatively new instrument cuases some reluctance in my sound. We figured that reducing the resistance in my set up might help to ease the tention in my mouth. I have constantly read discussions about Gergory Smith MP and few others in this BB. Would anyone who have used both Pyne and other MP tell me your opinions? I will discuss this with my teacher too. Thanks a lot!
-Won Kim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-09-27 02:02
I ordered a Pyne mpc a few years ago with Russ Dagon's--then, Principal with the Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra and current Professor of Clarinet at Northwestern Univeristy, Evanston, IL--personal facing. It had a good sound, but was "stuffy" and harder to project with than my old custom Charles Bay. Later, I discussed this issue with Russ, and he said he could not play on Bays. Another example of mouthpieces being very personal preferences--kind of like "one-size-does-not-fit-all". My mpc of choice is now an old Chicago Kaspar #14, but I also find the Smith Cicero model to play very nicely, although it is quite "reed sensitive"--not reed friendly like my Kaspar or old Ithica Bays are. I could, however, learn to play on the Smith Cicero--it is just now that I am used to the Kaspar. At last Tues eves orchestra rehearsal, I did switch to the Smith during the last hour with a Legere 3.5 reed, with good results. However, IMHO, it would definately sound better with a good cane reed--just have to take more time to find one. More reeds seem to work for my Kaspar. Hope this rambl'n answer is of some help.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-09-27 19:13
I know nothing of the Pyne mps and barrels, I am sure they are/can be very good, but take "getting used to", introducing them into your set-up. I mentioned in our discussion of "crystal mps " above, a substantial and welcome reduction of resistance by, what I believe is, a careful matching of mp bore with that of the barrel. Perhaps even a slight "step" as detectable by a little-finger test can cause problems. Just my thots. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: denner22
Date: 2003-09-28 03:26
I have used a Greg Smith for some time. When I purchased a Pyne mouthpiece, I found it stuffy and resistant in comparison. Living out of USA, I was not able to sit and try several, however I would not consider the purchase of a Pyne again because of this.
My one gripe with the Greg Smith is that it is fussy with reeds, but then many good mouthpieces are....
If you are considering a change to a less resistant mouthpiece, you might try a Gigliotti. It is my back-up mouthpiece, but I find the P34 very similar to my Greg Smith (and yes I tested about 20 of them!)
Such is life as a clarinetist.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2003-09-28 07:13
the Greg Smilth mouthpiece that david adlam mentions ("denner22") was picked out of a bunch of 20 by me at Clarinetfest 98, so it's hardly suprising that he likes it more than a randomly selected Pyne.
"it is fussy with reeds"- given that it has a facing much closer than most mouthpieces available in nz (but not by international standards) it probably does seem "fussy". With a closer tip opening the balance of the tip region of the reed has a more significant impact, and requires skill to test and adjust. It pays to remember that if a reed has too little material you can't do anything about it, and you are better off not wasting time on this reed. The same skills/process with have positive dividends on more open mouthpieces as well, only the negative effects (of imbalance) will be less obvious (or, the mouthpiece seems less "fussy" depending on what/who you want to blame). Regardless of the players ability to detect the detrimental influence of an imbalanced reed, it will still be having an impact on their performance.
donald.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2003-09-28 12:28
Because of the style of facing on many Pynes, they often have some built in resistance. Some people like them, some don't. You may consider contacting Pyne and seeing what he can do to help you. He may be able to make you something slightly different that will fit your bill.
"it is fussy with reeds, but then many good mouthpieces are...."
That's funny, because one of my qualifications of a good mouthpiece is that it has to be reed friendly. If it sounds great, but is murder to get reeds for, I spend too much time trying to get reeds for it and it is probably rarely working at peak.
You may want to contact Clark Fobes. He makes a variety of mouthpieces and is very helpful and knowledgeable. He also makes some from Zinner blanks, as Smith and many others do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2003-10-01 02:32
The mouthpieces that I make are by any standard that I know of, medium styled in every respect and are, as one might expect, most compatible with many of the medium strength reeds that are available.
Facing numbers mean very little when comparing them to differing blanks. What measures "close" on a Gigliotti P facing for instance would feel rather "medium" on the custom Zinner blank that I use. The interior dimensions of the chamber and most importantly, the "swoop" of the baffle have to be taken into account as well as the configuration of the table, the width of the rails, the symmetry (or lack thereof) of the facing measurements, etc.
A mouthpiece that is less "reed friendly" for one does not necessarily make it so for others. That would be extrapolating for others based on one's individual experience - a flaw in logic commonly made.
Essentially, the balanced, symmetrical nature of the facings I make tend to show by contrast, imbalance in the reed (irrespective of a facing's opening). This actually makes the balancing of the reed much easier.
I have found that the balancing of the reed to a symmetrical facing (easily done with a small amount of consistent practice), will produce the most desireable results in a substantial majority of cases. Reed balancing is an essential art one perfects in the same way that one approaches all other aspects of clarinetistry. Fortunately it is a skill easily and quickly learned.
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-10-01 12:55
I have found the Gigliotti to be a piece of epic failure on some levels because of the fact they tend to be bright without warmth, and yet play consistently too low for my personal needs.
One error with the Gigliotti facings I note is the interior baffling is extremely small and narrow in width.....
Many students tend to get them refaced in order to free up the way they sound.
As to projection they are a little more narrow in sound, yet have a resistant feel around the break area, which as an orchestal player I think is a real factor that undermines their performance.
I have tested many P and P34's and used the P facing for a while, only to conclude it to be lacking the depth and flexibility. I also tend to play toward 1.10 tips and these are more towards 1.06....so it depends on the muscles and embouchure of the player greatly.
As to reeds they also are more 3 1/2 Vandoren oriented than hard set up type pieces in the same tip opening category.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
