 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: deepriver27
Date: 2003-10-19 15:27
OK - I know I'll get some of the usual "if it works for you..." but -
I've asked two clarinetists already who I talked to after I heard them and they both said they use a Morgan mpc - I think Jazz or Symphonic series instead of their student model. Does anyone else here use or have played on them? Would be inteested in what you thought of them. Thanks alot.
Bill
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2003-10-19 19:09
I haven't played them, but they are very highly regarded on a saxophone forum I frequent. The players there love them for clarinet as well as sax, though some prefer to play the legit mouthpiece even when playing jazz.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David
Date: 2003-10-19 20:38
Not tried the Jazz types, but for classical, I love my RM10s on Imperials. Nice big sound, loads of control.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Small
Date: 2003-10-19 20:49
I use a Morgan jazz model. Good response and free-blowing. Good for doubling as it feels more like a sax mouthpiece than small tip legit clarinet pieces which feel weak and stuffy when played immediately after playing a sax.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-10-20 01:55
I am very familiar with all the Morgan mouthpiece facings and models.
Ralph Morgan is one of the most respected and knowlegable people in the area of instrument design and handcrafted mouthpieces. His credentials and work in these areas speak volumes. His mouthpieces are played world wide by professionals in all genres of music.
From my talkings with Ralph, he is a firm believer of having the correct interior cubic chamber volume for each particular style of mouthpiece.
Ralph, himself, explains his theories in these 2 rare bulletin board postings:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=84150&t=83423
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=79415&t=78931
I use both an Eb clarinet Morgan mouthpiece and a C clarinet Morgan mouthpiece. Both mouthpieces are free blowing with lots of coloration and produce large volume of sound when needed.
Morgan mouthpieces are symmetrical facings with a duckbill profile.
Normally I do not find the duckbill shape to my liking on Bb clarinet, but it is much less pronounced on the Eb and C clarinet mouthpieces, thus they both feel quite comfortable to me. Ralph is also one of the few makers that produces an authentic C clarinet mouthpiece (not just a cut down Bb mouthpiece).
When auditioning mouthpieces, I would certainly give Morgan mouthpieces a serious trial.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: studioline
Date: 2003-10-20 10:10
I've got a morgan mouthpiece RM15. I don't play on it, as I haven't really had time yet to consider it properly.
When I have played around a bit with it, it has produced a very focussed sound with a huge volume capacity. I think, for me, there would be lots of potential for such a mouthpiece, however the one thing I did notice was that it seemed to play sharper than my others, which is maybe be something I would need to adjust with my blowing or mouth position with regards to the beak shape. I have heard that the sharp thing is fairly common in morgan mouthpieces, though this is only from a few players I know have had experience of morgan mouthpieces, certainly don't want to pre concieve anyones future interest in them. I'll certainly consider more seriously my morgan in the future, especially for orchestral playing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger Aldridge
Date: 2003-10-20 12:24
Bill,
I use Ralph Morgan mouthpieces on all of my clarinets and saxophones. On clarinet I've used the RM15 (1.15 mm), RM28 (1.28 mm), and J5 (1.25 mm, short facing, jazz model). My favorite is the RM15 hands down. I use it for all of my clarinet work -- jazz and classical. It's been my experience that the RM15 is richer sounding and has more "presence" than the J5. I've not had any problems with it when I'm doubling.
In conversations with Ralph Morgan about the clarinet I've gotten the impression that he most often recommends the RM15.
Frankly, I've wondered why Morgan clarinet mouthpieces are not discussed more often on this Forum. They are exceptional mouthpieces. For example, I'm curious if many clarinetists know that the European hard rubber used by Ralph Morgan is purer than Zinner. The formula that Ralph uses contains no filler. It's also fascinating to learn about some of design features that are a part of his clarinet mouthpieces. For example, a considerable amount of research when into the design of the mouthpiece beak. Ralph once described to me how he experimented in scrapping the inside roof of the beak to arrive at an optimal sound. He described how there are 23 points on just the beak that have to be exact in order for the mouthpiece to play correctly. There are many very subtle features in the Morgan mouthpieces. For me, the most important thing is how they play. That's why I use them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-20 14:06
Roger Aldridge wrote:
> For example, I'm curious if many clarinetists
> know that the European hard rubber used by Ralph Morgan is
> purer than Zinner. The formula that Ralph uses contains no
> filler.
And that means exactly what?
> For
> example, a considerable amount of research when into the design
> of the mouthpiece beak.
All the mouthpiece manufacturers research and experiment.
> For me, the most important thing is how
> they play. That's why I use them.
That's the right idea ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tim K
Date: 2003-10-20 14:21
I have not seen any tendency to play sharp with my RM15.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2003-10-20 16:11
The Morgan M15 is fairly open -- about the same as the Selmer HS**, and perhaps a bit less open than the Vandoren B45. The Morgan M14 is closer to the "standard" medium facing.
I played a Morgan M15 for about two years. It was very easy to play, with a fairly low resistance, which I like. However, I listened to a tape of the quintet I was playing in, and realized that the sound lacked vibrancy. I think it was because of the duckbill shape, which created a smaller space inside my mouth. At any rate, I went to a more vibrant setup, which sounds bright to me as I play, but better to listeners.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger Aldridge
Date: 2003-10-21 12:14
Mark,
These days almost anything can be called hard rubber. It's my understanding that if a mouthpiece contains only 10% or 15% rubber it can be marketed as hard rubber. It's also my understanding that there are only a handful of mouthpiece makers who use what can be considered to be a pure formula for their hard rubber. Ralph Morgan is one of them.
I was simply trying to point out the high level of quality material and attention to fine detail that goes into these mouthpieces. Whether they do anything for us or not is a matter of personal preference as a player
Post Edited (2003-10-21 12:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-21 12:21
Roger Aldridge wrote:
> These days almost anything can be called hard rubber. It's my
> understanding that if a mouthpiece contains only 10% or 15%
> rubber it can be marketed as hard rubber. It's my
> understanding that there are only a handful of mouthpiece
> makers who use what can be considered to be a pure formula for
> their hard rubber. Ralph Morgan is one of them.
And I'm still left wondering if a "pure" formula is better ... or what it really means, or who has "impure" formulae. There's many threads here saying that the best material for mouthpiece blanks can't even be manufactured anymore.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2003-10-21 12:34
i think everything can be manufactured. dpeneds how much people are willing to pay. i persoanlly like my wood mouthpiece the best. it's a matter of taste.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-10-21 13:26
clarnibass wrote:
> i think everything can be manufactured.
In this case the rumor is the materials used are carcinogens or something similar, and the use of the materials is banned. Or so the rumor goes. I've read it often, but I don't know if it's the truth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-10-21 15:37
It would be advisable to take some caution in digesting the writings of any maker as gospel, particularly when they have something to sell.
I play a machine-made Vandoren M30.
It tunes well, has a decent sound, and is no struggle to play.
I chose it because it made things easier.
Must be the 30% extra material they included.
********
If it plays well, who cares how it was made or the material composition?
Some of my favorite players use glass mouthpieces, and those are inert.
The important thing is to consider it as a tool, rather than magic charm.
We search for shoes that fit best, same with your mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
