 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Aures22
Date: 2007-05-16 02:45
Hello, I am looking for mouthpieces with special qualities. It must have the most round, resonant, room filling sound qualities. I emphasize round versus thin, pointy, directional or saturated sound. I also do not want it to have much high overtones in the sound and stay close and balanced to the fundamental tone. It must also have an easy sound production and response, nuance, focus, freedom and flexibility in dynamic shifts and changes, appropriate response to voicing, nice character to the sound, etc.
Very few in my experience fulfill these and other qualities. What mouthpiece in your experience do you think can do some or most of these things? Please name the brand and model. Also, I must say that mouthpieces tend to vary in the same model. Thank you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2007-05-16 02:51
I think you've answered your own question in your post!
In case you missed it; try as many as you can until you find those qualities. As you're trying them out, try different reeds, too, as a new mouthpiece will take different reeds to your current one.
By the way; it's all in your head. A mouthpiece can only HELP you achieve the sound you want, it can never do it for you.
FWIW, I play on a Gregory Smith 1++, recently moved from his 'K' model.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2007-05-16 02:59
I have to agree with Morrigan,
I also play a Greg Smith...and before that one of Walter Grabner's (I still love his bass mouthpiece).
But...I don't leave the sound up the mouthpiece! Sound is too important for that. Instead you must place your sound into the clarinet.
For those that know how this is done then you find you will create your sound with (almost) any mouthpiece. The question is how each mouthpiece facilitates or hinders your expression.
If you want round...why not send Jon Manasse an email and ask him what he uses? (I'm sure others will have opinions for "round" mouthpieces and "round" performers.)
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2007-05-16 03:07
I see you live in NJ.
Get thee to NYC or Weiner in Long Island and trial a bunch of MPC's. Everyones oral cavity is different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: susieray
Date: 2007-05-16 03:28
Jon Manasse uses a Vandoren M30 but that doesn't mean that everyone who plays that mouthpiece is going to sound like him......
![[happy]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley12.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CK
Date: 2007-05-16 03:49
Try Clark Fobe's Cicero Mouthpieces, Grabners, Brad Behn, or Greg
Smiths or Backuns mpcs.
They all make excellent mouthpieces!
CK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2007-05-16 11:06
Of course achieving a good sound depends mainly on how you focus your air column. Though I ALWAYS get heat for this, I will reiterate that one needs to generate the thinnest, SWIFTEST, coolest column of air to achieve the above objective. The opposite is to try and shape your oral cavity (tongue position) in such a way as if you were sayin AHHHH. The problem with this is that this shoves your tongue into your throat and countervenes the very intent of a "big" sound.
Naturally some mouthpieces will aid your individual style more than others and only you can be the judge of that. I have much success with both Vandoren M15/M13 models as well as Greg Smith (K series.....but I like the 1++ as well).
If you really want some confusing advice on equipment, my latest discovery was how well the addition of Rovner's Eddie Daniels ligature can aid overall fullness and control of the altissimo.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2007-05-16 14:09
I've collected a lot of sop cl mps over the years of buying, repairing, selling relatively inexpensive cls to more students than pros, [like many of us?]. Now and then I go on a quest for "dark" and presently favor a Mitchell Lurie M4 with an M L lig and med soft reed. Also another fav is a [WHITEY !] Claude Lakey [Bruno] M with a Gigliotti lig [similar "reed-grip" to a Bonade, but plastic], partic. for my OLD Winged Selmer A, or an old wood Signet 100. Inheriting old mps, I usually "touch-up-polish" the lay-curve on newsprint, or lightly on fine carbide paper [first] which prob. opens-up the tip slightly. I suggest asking to dig into your repairer's old mp box looking for the "Silver Lining", my fav tune to play for fellow elders here. Early AM thots !! Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DaveF
Date: 2007-05-16 18:33
As already mentioned, one has to trial many different mpc's to find what seems to work best for you. That being said........a few months ago I did just that, trying many mpc's from well known names mentioned frequently on this BB, and for me I ended up with a number of great choices from Greg Smith. Many with that full, "round" sound you mentioned. My choice was his Chedeville 1+.
Dave F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: swkeess
Date: 2007-05-16 21:31
I bought Walter Grabner's "Chicago" mouthpiece and found that it fulfills (for me) all the qualities you mentioned. Two more clarinet players in our community band tried it and ordered it for themselves. Walter also has a cocobolo mouthpiece that reviews have said has a very warm, dark sound. I'll probably give in to my G.A.S. pains and order one of those in the near future, as well.
Susan Keess
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2007-05-16 22:30
Aures22,
The sound you're after is indeed very attractive to the player HIMSELF and it blends quite well with the other instruments. The problem with this type of sound is that it doesn't project well and gets lost in bigger halls. To project means to have high overtones in the sound. Usually the most beautiful sound at the end of the hall is not that attractive in the close proximity to the player himself.
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-05-16 23:06
I agree 100% with Vytas. It has been my experience that what you hear from where you stand is very different than what is heard where the audience is. For a long time, I would get a mouthpiece that sounded wonderful and near perfect at home or a music room but in a hall or auditorium, they became duds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aures22
Date: 2007-05-17 00:19
Vytas,
Please don't reply with criticism of what I want to hear in a particular mouthpiece. I don't need a lesson in what your preferences are and what can't get heard in a large music auditorium or certain musical situaitons. That is not the point of my discussion. If you can't tell me what mouthpiece(s) fulfill the characteristics I describe, then don't reply. Why do you think there are variety of sounds available?
Post Edited (2007-05-17 00:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Scotti
Date: 2007-05-17 00:52
Frankly, if Vytas and Dano's VERY informative replies don't belong here, then neither does this entire thread that presupposes that a mouthpiece imparts sound. Sound is inherent to the player, and your original question is an utterly absurd one to begin with.
Furthermore, what they said has some bearing here, since you have a contradiction between "room-filling," "round," and "resonant." Vytas's commant then, is an important one because it discusses projection. Room-filling? What size of the room??? You've written so many positive adjectives into your search for a mouthpiece that none of them have any concrete meaning.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2007-05-17 00:53
And gosh, here I was gonna recommend any mouthpiece worked on by Vytas Krass!
Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-05-17 01:31
To answer your question directly and without drama: A mouthpiece like my Portnoy BPO2, that has been worked on by Vytas Krass. Plenty of high overtones and wonderful projection. By the way, I feel slighted. You capitalized Vytas name but not mine. ![[right]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie8.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2007-05-17 01:36
My experience with sound up close versus from a distance (within a concert hall) has been wildly varied. Some players (clarinet of course) can also sound really airy and stuffy up close and have the most amazing, room filling sound from any sort of distance. The presence of many overtones does not always dictate projection.
For the most part though I would say.....if you sound good, it's gonna sound good out there. Naturally the converse is also true.
...........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SVClarinet09
Date: 2007-05-17 01:39
I went to contest this year playing molly on the shore as one of the pieces. i projected well into the back of the auditorium as i heard the tape of the judges, but when I audition at say all state in a small classroom, my sound gets drained and it projects across the classroom instead of giving me a nice tone. im trying to find a happy medium right now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2007-05-17 01:55
Friends: I have been reading all of these entries concerning the sound of a mouthpiece and I know you will understand that I do not mean to criticize, however it is my very strong feeling that these inanimate objects do not have sounds, per say. They do have response and resistance, and play certain reeds, but I do believe that we make all of the sound. If resistance is difficult or too little, or the thing will only accept a few kinds of reed, trouble is usually on the way, however I have found that I have learned from the following:
Over the years, I have always recording everything I performed, literally everything,and I have for several years been converting all of the tapes to CDs .
Yes, I do listen, and I wonder over and over again,how in the world did I make such a great sound on that B45, or whatever Van Doren I played for years, and , my gosh that was really horrible, or buzzy or yes, sharp, or whatever. Once, I couldn't find a reed prior to a recital with both Brahms , and the only thing that played was a German mouthpiece that I happened to pick up. I played the concert , and it was OK, but those things play sharp and there is nothing you can do....but I thought the sound was nice, and it played that reed.
So now, I play a different more selective kind of mouthpiece which actually plays more reeds and seems consistant. This is for me what a mouthpiece can do. But it is we, who make the sound. ( I leave you with one name: Richard Hawkins)
respectfully,
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2007-05-17 02:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2007-05-17 02:07
Dear Sherman,
This IS the gospel........thank you. Another proof is having a group of clarinetist all play each other's set up and they all still sound like themselves.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aures22
Date: 2007-05-17 05:35
Scotti,
Please think a bit before you write. This is not an "utterly absurd" discussion. Such strong meaning adjectives can be reserved for some other things. This is not even close. Pro clarinet players know what I mean when I am discussing a sound from a particular mouthpiece. Why do mouthpiece manufacturers, and craftsmen describe their products in such a fashion? Because there is some truth to their description.
A mouthpiece is unique in its sound, feel, response, etc and it is described in a way as if it was the clarinet player's sound qualities. Otherwise, it would be difficult to know approximately what this mouthpiece's characteristics are. Of course it is the player who makes the sound and players usually have their own unique sound and it is this combination that makes a huge difference. The mouthpiece is very critical as players know.
Me personally, I usually tend to agree with the description makers make of their mouthpieces. Of course the mouthpiece cannot do anything on its own, but it has playing characteristics that are fixed and that is why I say it must have a certain sound. Of course the reed and the ligature also play an important part in the production of the sound. I usually cannot get a very bright and thin sounding mouthpiece to have a dark and round sound to it. It does not work that way for me.
Post Edited (2007-05-17 05:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Scotti
Date: 2007-05-17 06:22
"Pro clarinet players know what I mean when I am discussing a sound from a particular mouthpiece."
Do they? I have only ever heard them discuss things such as feel and response.
"Why do mouthpiece manufacturers, and craftsmen describe their products in such a fashion?"
Because it is ad copy and the best way to generate interest, as well as to differentiate between models in terms that a player hopefully understands. In essence, they are taking subjective sound qualities and attributing them to the mouthpiece, which is never, ever quantifiable. If you put their claims to the test, you would get wildly different opinions on character.
"The mouthpiece is very critical as players know."
Yes, but only insofar as it allows them to more easily achieve their sound goals. The sound itself, however, is dependent on the player, and can never be attributed to a particular mouthpiece. That players are particular with their mouthpieces only means what I have described here, not your claim that mouthpieces have inherent sounds.
In your last paragraph, you say that mouthpieces have a character that is fixed and that is why they must have a certain sound. This is simply not true, as evidenced not only by how a player can sound exactly the same on different mouthpieces, but also how multiple players will sound nothing alike on the same mouthpiece.
I suspect you are confusing the feel of the mouthpiece and the feedback you receive from that with actual sound production.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: OpusII
Date: 2007-05-17 06:46
First of all,,, I don’t see criticism in Vytas answer, but much of useful information. He is absolutely right to warning you to keep in mind that a mouthpiece needs to project well.
A manufacturer will always describe his/her mouthpiece as the beautiful sound, I’ve never seen somebody praise a new mouthpiece as thin or airy sounding mouthpiece. (and would never buy one if they did)
Bottom line, try as many mouthpieces as they all will function differently for each player. Many pro players that I’ve encountered use standard Vandoren mouthpieces. They had the most round, resonant, room filling sound qualities and still they had overtones. Many craftsman use Zinner blanks which are still my favorites (I use the Viotto B3 and get only positive reactions with it, from close and far distance. But I had to learn to project on it.. it was all the matter of finding the right amount of mouthpiece in the mouth and learning to use the overtones the right way.)
PS Paul was absolutely right.. I use the Eddie Daniels Ligature and it can really aid overall fullness and control of the altissimo. But I’ve tried this with friends, It only worked for 2 out of 3.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: b.roke
Date: 2007-05-17 09:07
Scotti - i understood from your last post that you are saying every mouthpiece sounds the same when played by the same player, and that the only variance is in ease of playing.
I have personal experience of variation in ease of playing. I also think i sound a bit different on different mpc's.
can you please clarify this for me? thanks
steadfastness stands higher than any success
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: musiciandave
Date: 2007-05-17 11:41
Mouthpieces sound different. Each Mouthpiece played by the same player will sound different. The sound concept of the player makes the biggest difference, but still there is a variance.
And it's the same for Clarinets. But you have to find what works best for you. I personally dislike Vandoren Mouthpieces, but there are many great players who swear by them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2007-05-17 12:57
I agree and disagree, and here's where:
Some mouthpieces do have "general" sound characteristics. I think that given the proper reed combination for a player and mouthpiece X that most would find that their sound gravitated or was altered in a "general" direction.
The clearer the clarinetist's sound concept (and practice putting it to use) the more any mouthpiece will sound like them (they are putting their sound into the horn).
b.roke: it appear that I have disagreed with Scotti but ultimately I haven't. After an extended amount of time on any mouthpiece you will learn that mouthpiece's qualities and create your sound. And different mouthpieces can be brought to this end.
Musiciandave: different mouthpieces do sound different. But after extended play I will achieve the same sound from a mouthpiece regardless.
The question is which mouthpiece facilitates my concept and expression?
I wish I still remembered the context and the clarinetists who were in the story! Two great clarinetists playing their own mouthpieces with two different sounds: Sitting around at a convention they were talking and switched mouthpieces...and still sounded exactly as they normally did.
James
PS...I will add that what I think is obvious: I haven't tried every mouthpiece that exists, and that I believe what I've written is true that I haven't the experience to state it absolutely. Thanks!
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2007-05-17 13:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-17 14:24
I have to support Aures22 to some degree. His question was pretty clear although it was stated with the usual prickly adjectives such as " round "etc. . Stating that this type of sound doesn't project is somewhat off topic or not precisely what Aures requested. Unfortunately Aures was less than diplomatic in his response. Paul states an interesting conundrum....just because it sounds bad up close doesn't make it sound great at the back of the hall. My take is that it is like observing the finish of a clarinet with a magnifying glass....there will be lots of imperfections...if you look at it with binoculars...less so. To the point....dark, round sounding mouthpieces........Pyne, Gigliotti, some crystal mouthpieces....they tend to sound like highs are missing to me eg Obrien's I've played. I do think (off topic) that most of us want the foldback of our playing to sound beautiful. Now if you want to project in a football stadium you might have to alter things. To sum up here I would say every response should list a few mouthpieces along with the free advice.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-17 14:47
Arnoldstang wrote:
> To sum up here I would say every response
> should list a few mouthpieces along with the free advice.
The list should probably include almost every mouthpiece ever made, since there is probably at least one person who made a "round" sound on it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2007-05-17 15:03
It's a partnership. Somewhere there's a mouthpiece that lets you play your instrument. I'm coming to the conclusion that the 'right' one is the one that lets me play bright / dark / clean / jazzy / brassy as and when I want to. It might respond poorly to some of my mistakes, but hey, it'll teach me something. There are a number of manufacturers who have had success over the years filling this need for the mass market with a range of standard designs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-17 15:13
Mark, I was suggesting that the respondents actually answer the question. Aures asked for mouthpieces that fit his criteria. The fact that you think this is a fruitless question is not addressing his question directly. eg. question....I am looking for a clarinet mouthpiece that is pink. Can you recommend any sources? Response.... Joe Blow makes pink mouthpieces. Response #2 Why do you want a pink mouthpiece? Response #2 is fine but not what is required specifically by the poster. It may be a correct and immensely instructive response but in a way not to the point. I understand your point of view but think you are overstating the case in my opinion. There you have it....your thoughts and mine.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-17 15:26
Arnoldstang wrote:
> question....I am
> looking for a clarinet mouthpiece that is pink.
THAT question I could answer. There's a definition of pink (yes, there really is an agreed upon definition).
There is NO agreed upon definition of "round". It's whatever I want it to mean. Any manufacturer of mouthpieces is allowed to say their mouthpiece makes a "round" sound and I can't disagree with them. If they say it's pink but it's not - I can.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-05-17 15:31
Arnoldstang,
If we are to answer the question, how would we go about doing it?
...anyone???
Answer: There is absolutely no way to answer his question with any degree of authority.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-05-17 16:19
Honestly I think it is a pointless question.
Which mouthpiece will give me a round sound?????
The practice room is my answer.
"Round" (whatever that means) is just one of many qualitys/colors we need to be able to make to express the music that we play. A mouthpiece that will only give you a "round" sound will not get you very far.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-17 16:21
All these posts are responses to the question. Answering his question directly is simple I believe. List a few mouthpieces that fit the bill. Aures might not agree with you if he buys the mouthpiece but that's his problem. I believe there is exaggeration taking place here. Even though people might think Pink is easier to locate than round....there are the grey areas in the pink where it is subtlely blending with another shade. To the point here. There are very strident, harsh, edgy mouthpieces out there. There are smooth, warm, round sounding mouthpieces also. In between there is a variety of sounds that tend one way or the other. To deny that there are polarities of tonal characteristics is just denying the obvious for argument's sake.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bufclar
Date: 2007-05-17 17:15
Ok,
Mouthpieces to try:
Vandoren
Smith
Hawkins
Grabner
Fobes
Lomax
Morgan
Borbek
Gillioti
Lurie
Backun
Genussa
Behn
kaspar
Chedeville
Portnoy
This is what some of us are trying to say(I think). The question is open to way too many options to give a good answer. The poster has to try all of these for himself and also realize that a lot of the qualitys he is looking for will not come from just the mouthpiece but also from his own playing and concept of sound production. I believe one can get the type of sound he is describing on any one of these mouthpieces.
" Hello, I am looking for mouthpieces with special qualities. It must have the most round, resonant, room filling sound qualities. I emphasize round versus thin, pointy, directional or saturated sound. I also do not want it to have much high overtones in the sound and stay close and balanced to the fundamental tone. It must also have an easy sound production and response, nuance, focus, freedom and flexibility in dynamic shifts and changes, appropriate response to voicing, nice character to the sound, etc."
To me this sounds much more like a description of a players sound quality then the quality of sound from a mouthpiece. A mouthpiece on its own will not do any of these things unless a player can do them on the mouthpiece and many players can do these things on many different kinds of mouthpieces.
Again I say it is a pointless question.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ABerry
Date: 2007-05-17 17:28
Greetings,
Aures22 has asked a question that really has no one answer. Several of you have offered him some excellent suggestions as a place to start (e.g. Walter Grabner, Greg Smith, Brad Behn, Vytas Krass, etc.), but those are just that, a staring point. Each of these great mouthpieces will probably produce those special qualities that Aures22 is looking for, for the player making the suggestion. That does not mean that Aures22 will have same results with those same mouthpieces, but again, they are a great place to start. One reoccurring suggestion, Aures22 should try many, many mouthpieces until he finds one that will have those special qualities he is looking for.
Aures22, I sincerely hope you find that mouthpiece with the qualities you’re searching for.
There are great people here on this board (both professional and amateur) and they are genuinely trying to offer suggestions and ideas that may help, to respond the way you did was disrespectful and out of line.
Best of luck in your search,
Allan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: thomas.b
Date: 2007-05-17 17:50
Aures22, could it be that you describe a Viotto G3 on Zinner? I use them both on Boehm and German clarinet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aures22
Date: 2007-05-17 20:15
bufclar,
I asked for mouthpiece(s) with the most, I emphasize the most "round" sound. If you have tried many mouthpieces, you may have heard differences. I don't want a list of mouthpieces with a little bit of round sound. Narrow it down, I want a short list please. However, if this is way too confusing for you to find and you can't understand the concept and say this is a pointless question then don't bother me.
People thanks for trying to name me some models. I am in the process of trying many now. In my experience, there aren't many that have many good qualities that I want to hear.
Post Edited (2007-05-17 20:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-17 20:24
I think Bufclar's list is pretty good. If indeed it is a pointless question then it is interesting that thomas b comes up with a very clear answer to it. If Aures tries that Viotto G3 on Zinner and loves it......then where do we stand? It just might work! If that happens then the original question produced positive results...not everyone that is searching for a mouthpiece is on an impossible quest.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Scotti
Date: 2007-05-17 20:33
b. roke,
I will try to clarify as best I can. It has been my experience that players sound te same on different mouthpieces. Tobin actually expanded upon it much better than I did, by identifying that after a small change for a short period of time, players adjust and eventually come back to their original sound and concept. Happens every time I've seen a player switch, including myself.
I appreciate you directly challenging my assertion by saying that you think you sound different on different mouthpieces, but I doubt this based on years of experiencing mouthpiece changes around me. After a while, I'd be willing to bet that those hearing you, or a recording, would reveal that you do have the same basic sound, assuming you are not still evolving rapidly as a player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-05-17 20:57
Arnoldstang,
If this is such a simple question to answer, why haven't you answered it? If you supply a mouthpiece, I guarantee someone on here would disagree with your assessment of that mouthpiece having the qualities requested. Bufclar makes a brilliant observation by pointing out that the qualities originally outlined by Aures are qualities almost exclusively attributed to a player, not a mouthpiece.
Based on the immature responses from Aures on this thread, some of which have been moderated out, it does not surprise me that this crucial concept is lost on them.
Furthermore, if we were to change the topic to evaluating the "roundness" of sound of famous clarinetists, we would get shockingly different opinions. This would illustrate that nobody can define what a "round" sound is, let alone the more vague descriptions in Aures's original post.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SVClarinet09
Date: 2007-05-17 21:07
I have a round sound on a Selmer HS* or even on a Yamaha 4C. It's even round on the one I used from 6th grade. It's all about the player. That's the reason I haven't updated to a hand finished mpc yet because i wanna get as much possible out of what I have now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2007-05-17 21:15
ok
in MY OPINION the mouthpieces with the most round sound are Pyne and Johnstone.
From what you have written, i believe these mouthpieces may help you gain the qualities you are looking for, to a greater extent than some of the other options.
that being said....
over the years i have heard a number of players use these mouthpieces and in every case make an individual sound that covered all the bases from "dark" to "round" to "thin" to "clear" to "bright" etc... But i believe that the design of these mouthpieces will help you achieve the sound you seem to desire.
donald
Post Edited (2007-05-17 22:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-18 00:07
Aures22 wrote:
> However, if this is way too confusing for you to find
> and you can't understand the concept and say this is a
> pointless question then don't bother me.
It is better to ignore the posts you don't think are worthwhile than be rude.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-05-18 00:57
This is one of those questions that makes for long posts with thousands of opinions. I suspect that if you can make that wonderful round sound ( and I think I know what you mean ) on your current mouthpiece, you will be able to make it on most other mouthpieces. If you can't, it is not the mouthpiece that lacks the round sound. You can learn to make that "round" sound on most mouthpieces. Also, doesn't the typical sound of the clarinet include that "round" sound you are talking about? Shermans comments that the clarinetist makes the sound, not the mouthpiece makes a lot of sense after reading all the posts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ABerry
Date: 2007-05-18 05:07
Aures22,
Your question is very subjective to the player, my ideal "round" sound my not be yours and it won't matter what mouthpiece you or I use. The sound is a combination of several factors, the mouthpiece being only one. There’s also the ligature, reed, embouchure, etc.
Think of a clarinet player that has that perfect “round” sound you’re seeking, even if that player were to give their mouthpiece to you, more than likely you would not be able to produce the same “round” sound, but now you have a place to start. You can now go out and try several of that type of mouthpiece and maybe you’ll find one.
I could tell you I get that “round sound from my Grabner K11, my Lelandais, my Kaspar 13, or any other mouthpiece, but that does not mean you’ll get the same results. What you need to do (as stated many times in this post) is, to try and try and try more mouthpieces… You may have to try 30 of the same type of mouthpiece to find two that gives you what you’re looking for.
One other thing, the people here are trying to help; there is no reason to be rude.
Best regards,
Allan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bawa
Date: 2007-05-18 07:10
Daughter is currently trying out several Greg Smith's.
!Its a miracle! she said after the first practice session. Asked to reason, she said, "it does everything I want to it do "so easily", and after 2 hours of playing I am not tired at all." And many other specific things all towards the same end.
Yesterday I heard her play a concert with the new mouthpiece and she sounded like she always sounds (its very distinctive to me).
Model: 1++, G. Smith
One of the older students also tried out them out. He picked on exactly the same one as being the "best". But he also sounds like he always does (very good!). They both agreed they liked this particular one because it was less open than the other 1++ on trial. But they have both only learned from the same teacher all their lives so that might account for similar tastes in playing.
A new substitute teacher was also present, who plays in a professional city band. She thought the mouthpieces were great, especially the 1+ es! And she sounded very good too.
So I think I understand the point so many people have been trying to make, that mouthpiece is in the end more about response, ease of playing for a particular player, rather than any miraculous change in the quality of the sound that player makes
By the way, I might add Aures that if people like Prof Sherman, Vytas K, J.J. and so many others who have taken the time to respond in such detail are "not professionals" who can understand you, you are a bit lost.
I for one cherish this board for allowing me to get direct advice from the horse's mouth!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-18 13:14
In response to JJ. Why haven't I answered the simple question? I did in fact answer the question. I responded....Pyne, Gigliotti and some crystal mouthpieces...say Obrien. That was my answer and what I think. That is what Aures asked for. As I stated earlier I had to interpret his question and get past "prickly" adjectives that many people get upset at. My response is MY response.... ...In no way do I feel my opinion on this matter is the objective truth but it is what I think and that is what Aures asked for. I use a Fobes CF+ mouthpiece. After many years of trying different brands I have settled on this. As much as I like this mouthpiece I don't feel it has the characteristics that Aures is looking for. That is why I didn't include it in my list.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2007-05-18 13:26
The mouthpiece I have played that fits the initial qualifications of this thread is actually an old David Hite, with no facing info but the name DAVID HITE in capital letters at the bottom of the tenon. I have two. I hoard them.
Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: doublej
Date: 2007-05-18 16:51
I would recomend to you a mouthpiece made from a zinner blank. They represented to me while playing, some of the characteristics you describe in your initial post.
There is no right or wrong answer which has been discussed throughout this post. There is no given answer because different things mean different things to all of us. I will give you an example you stated in your initial post that you wanted "focus" and not a "pointy" sound. To me focus means that there is a point and then there is a strong fundamental which is also what you asked for. However, you also said that you did not want many high overtones. To me that is impossible to have while still having focus and and a strong fundamental. Having a strong fundamental, in my mind, means that that you are playing in tune and thus creating overtones. Don't forget that not including the fundamental the next 2 out of 3 overtones are the fundamental placed an octave and then two octaves apart. This in my opinion strengthens the fundamental or the root of what becomes the overtone series.
I wish you luck in finding what you are looking for in a mouthpiece but do take into consideration the other aspects that contribute to your sound.
best of luck ,
jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-05-18 17:58
Not to stray too far a field, but hey we have we gone there already, but the notes heard from a clarinet are characterized by more of the odd series frequencies than even. The primary note frequency as displayed on a spectrogram has very little of the second and third even harmonic frequency amplitudes - compared to the combined amplitudes of the combined even and odd harmonic frequencies below the second harmonic.
True, even harmonic frequencies, especially the second and third octave counterparts are greatly responsible for the projection (or the perceived sound amplitude at a distance) because the human ear and brain process these frequencies more efficiently than odd harmonic components of a note spectrum. This is the basis of the Doctor's Products Power Barrel.
The "color" or "roundness" - both subjective terms - which are not quantifiable are probably the result of the interplay of lower (below one octave), but with higher amplitude, even and odd harmonic series of the primary frequency. What we have subjective terms for are somewhat measurable and interpretable with mathematical algorithms comparing the sequence, frequency, and amplitude of even and odd harmonic frequencies below the third fundamental harmonic (my own research and collaborative algorithms with others).
The mouthpiece is a complex conduit of the fluctuating air column produced by the player modulated by the reed. Since the input of air from each player is different because of their nasal pharyngeal architecture (resonant hollow chamber), diaphragm movements and pressure, and lets not forget the brain orchestrating everything, then the mouthpiece conduit (and not to minimize the material and internal characteristics of different mouthpieces), will emit a different fluctuating air column for each individual playing the same mouthpiece. It therefore is congruent with the many opinions already given about mouthpieces in this post and the overriding consensus that YMMV with any given mouthpiece.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
(Disclaimer - I am the designer of the Power Barrel)
P.S. Please excuse the long complicated sentences - not good lecture form.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jmcgann
Date: 2007-05-18 18:26
Quote:
It therefore is congruent with the many opinions already given about mouthpieces in this post and the overriding consensus that YMMV with any given mouthpiece.(snip)
P.S. Please excuse the long complicated sentences - not good lecture form.
Au contraire- very well put!
www.johnmcgann.com
Post Edited (2007-05-18 18:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-18 20:29
Well, I'm not sure.........a different fluctuating air column for each individual.... Well how different is it? Do no two people sound similar on a Behn mouthpiece? If that's the case Brad is in big trouble.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-05-18 21:36
If it is assumed that a mature player will produce his or her own sound after a while on any mouthpiece (it may not be their choice for comfort or ease at producing their sound) then, yes, on the same mouthpiece they will sound different because they are producing a fluctuating air column that is synonymous with their concept of their own sound on the same mouthpiece. If people copy or have a similar concept of their sound then they will sound similar by modifying any or all of the elements that make up the fluctuating air flow to achieve that concept. If you have the ear you could probably tell the differences even in the latter group.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2007-05-18 21:40
"Do no two people sound similar on a Behn mouthpiece? If that's the case Brad is in big trouble."
Since it is all about the eqipment, of course everyone sounds the same on their Buffet clarinets :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2007-05-18 22:02
Almost any mouthpiece will exhibit those qualities if:
A. you use a reed matched to the facing curve and balanced for that mouthpiece
B. you let the reed vibrate freely (don't use alot of pressure)
C. put enough of it in your mouth as to not be on the tip side of the nodal point.
D. most importanly, know what it is you really want it to sound like.
Tom Puwaslki
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2007-05-19 01:39
Why do I feel like this entire thread was started to sarcastically mock clarinet players?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom A
Date: 2007-05-19 02:18
I was waiting for someone to suggest that. The perfection sought in the equipment reminded me of a number of send-ups (notably by GBK and Tony Pay) mocking the "What's the best combination ever" type of post.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-05-19 02:41
Tom A wrote:
> I was waiting for someone to suggest that.
Would that it be so simple ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-05-19 02:50
It is important to wade into G.A.S. with your eyes wide open armed with the knowledge that this is merely a quest for the Holy Grail and knowing that there is no rational reason for your G.A.S. but still doing it anyway.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
P.S. But you must do it joyfully, gleefully, with a smile on your face and never feel remorse for the whole experience of clarinet G.A.S. to be meaningful.
Post Edited (2007-05-19 03:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2007-05-19 04:52
Parts of this thread remind me of a famous story, perhaps apocryphal, about Heiftz.
In the green room backstage after one of his recitals at Carnegie Hall, a line of admirers waited to greet and praise Heiftz for his inspiring performance.
The very last young person in line greeted the famous violinist and exclaimed "What beautiful music your violin makes!"...at which point Heiftz slowly walked over to his violin case, opened it, put one ear to his violin, lifted his head and replied with a puzzled look, "That's funny. I don't hear anything."
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-19 05:42
Omar, You have said "on the same mouthpiece they will sound different" I still am confused with your use of "different". How different? Are the tones totally unique. My point still remains.....there will be tonal characteristics that are similar when many people play the same mouthpiece. This is why band directors will sometimes have their clarinet section use the same brand of mouthpiece. There is a better chance of a good blend when the same mouthpiece is used. They won't be carbon copies but similar. Do you agree with any of this?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-19 06:42
J.J. Does it ever happen that the clarinet section of an orchestra uses the same brand of mouthpiece? If so, why?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-05-19 07:27
I am not personally aware of any section doing such a thing, except for the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra, at least not in such specific terms. Yet, you can find a section like the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, playing very different mouthpieces and clarinets and blending exceptionally well.
Any orchestral professional, at least here in the USA, would be offended to have someone dictate their equipment to them for such purposes. There are cases where the section will choose to play the same make and model of clarinet, but that is for tuning and timbral reasons based on the different registers and individual notes. Meanwhile, these players know exactly what is best for them, and while you can find very different individual sounds in a section, these are professionals who know how to blend well. They have enough experience to know that equipment will not do that for them.
I appreciate that you are refining what you are saying to mean tonal characteristics or tendencies of mouthpieces, but there just isn't a bit of evidence that this is the case. That band directors may have their sections play the same mouthpiece is something that is based on poor estimates of what they think they can control in a group. It's also a very easy method of music instruction to stick with one mouthpiece you feel gets good results and mandate that everyone use it.
In an earlier post, you referenced Brad Behn's mouthpieces and asked if no two people sound the same playing them. Assuming that they do not have similar sounds outside of playing a Behn, then the answer is no. I think Brad is one of the absolute best in the business, but the logic that he uses in advertising his mouthpieces, and subsequently what people start to believe, is flawed. He does say on his website that he believes that great players will sound magnificent no matter what they play, but the majority of the webpage is devoted to talking about tonal characteristics inherent in old rubber. The most egregious example is using recordings of great past artists on the site, very clearly put there as a sort of "proof" that those old mouthpieces sounded best. It is, in my view, an unethical use of their artistry to justify his mouthpiece concept. Again, I have tremendous respect for him but nonetheless have strong feeling about his advertising.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2007-05-19 08:05
I can't believe that nobody has yet given the clearly obvious answer to this question- it's the Vandoren B45 of course!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-05-19 09:11
Let's say someone doesn't know how clarinet and saxophone sound, and you try to describe to them the sound difference of those instruments by writing it on a forum. I'd guess it is close to 0% that they would be able to tell from the description (well, they have 50% guessing correct already). This is the same for the description of a "round" sound, which means nothing to anyone who doesn't know the specific meaning of what the original poster meant by it, and the difference between clarinet and saxophone is much bigger than a clarinet (or mouthpiece, etc.) with the most "round" sound and a slightly less "round" sound. Maybe he has some association, or maybe some teachers referred to some sounds as "round" and it stuck, but this doesn't make it any clearer for others.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-19 20:37
JJ. Very informative response and a little longer than your previous outing........ To clarify my Brad Behn reference.....I chose Mr Behn arbitrarily.. People seem to be interpreting me as saying that the mouthpiece will dictate the tone. I merely was trying to say the mouthpiece has some influence. When JJ takes two people with disparate tonal concepts playing Behn mouthpieces that is not my point. I'm only saying that mouthpieces will do some tonal steering. As a doubler .....yes doubler.. it is pretty obvious on saxophone that there are certain characteristics that are audible with mouthpiece brands. Phil Woods is the quintessential Meyer sound...... Older players sound different on Brilharts....Paul Desmond on Gregory ....Coltrane....Otto Link I realize JJ says there is no evidence that this connection between player and mouthpiece exists. Perhaps there is a connection with saxophone and not the clarinet. Maybe saxophone tone has a much wider gamut and as such is easier to pick out the mouthpiece being used. I would be interested in more information on what clarinet sections are using. I know in Canada there has been some uniformity with mouthpieces in clarinet sections.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-19 21:05
This will be my last post...(thunderous applauds) In reference to the Greg Smith....Heifetz story I would like to offer the following. On the surface it seems like a rather cute story. First off Heifetz probably took offense at this question. He certainly by all accounts had a sizable ego and probably wouldn't give the person the benefit of the doubt here. ie..the question was not an intentional slight on his playing. What if the person asking the question had a quick retort? What if he turned the tables on Heifetz? Here is an alternate ending to the story. After Heifetz offers his response the person says...."Well Mr Heifetz" let's hear you play without a violin! This response points out that it is in fact a joint venture. I'm sure there is a famous violinist who would have been glad to go on and on about the mystique of his or her violin..its' history and life. This would be the gracious thing to do. Finally, exaggerating or understating the importance of equipment is wrong in my opinion. It's a balance but in the end perhaps it is a (to be continued at later date)
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-05-19 21:17
The clarinet has one of the wider frequency spectrums and progressions of even and odd harmonic frequency patterns in the instrument community and therefore more opportunity to express individual tonal variations. I think that we are all hovering around a similar pivot point but absolutes are never really present in any artistic form in either total expression or total conformity.
There is no doubt that any particular mouthpiece configuration, material makeup, dimensions, reed adaptability, ad infinitum will "steer", as J.J. suggests, the ease and potential comfort level of the individual to form their tonal expression and this is perhaps why those that wish a particular tonal expression choose one mouthpiece over another because it allows them to more easily reach this particular end. Perhaps players even tend to gravitate to a particular format - e.g. Kaspar or Chedeville because these mouthpieces more easily enable them to reach their tonal expression? This could be the classic chicken or the egg controversy?
Conversely, a professional can steer a consistent tonal expression on most any mouthpiece after a while no matter what the format of the mouthpiece. My flippant comment about G.A.S. is perhaps a reflection of the quest of any player trying to acquire a mouthpiece that most easily allows them to create their particular tonal concept.
I find myself that my tonal concept is constantly evolving and changing the more facile I become at playing. Like any artistic endeavor we are constantly practicing, refining skills (or in older folks like me, trying to maintain them), and trying to play the music and not just the notes. Part of playing the music is our interpretation (or the considered interpretations offered by other artists) of the tonal expression that we which to bring to the music. It may be hard to separate style and phrasing from pure tonal characteristics but this is the one characteristic that each player, unlike any other, brings exclusively to their playing.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2007-05-20 05:12
AS said:
"After Heifetz offers his response the person says...."Well Mr Heifetz" let's hear you play without a violin! This response points out that it is in fact a joint venture."
------------------------------------------------------------
Actually this "theoretical" proves nothing I'm afraid. You are partaking in exactly the type of exaggeration that you complain about later in the same paragraph when you wrote, namely, "Finally, exaggerating or understating the importance of equipment is wrong in my opinion....".
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2007-05-20 05:28
J. J. said:
".... but the logic that he [Behn] uses in advertising his mouthpieces, and subsequently what people start to believe, is flawed. He does say on his website that he believes that great players will sound magnificent no matter what they play, but the majority of the web page is devoted to talking about tonal characteristics inherent in old rubber. The most egregious example is using recordings of great past artists on the site, very clearly put there as a sort of "proof" that those old mouthpieces sounded best. It is, in my view, an unethical use of their artistry to justify his mouthpiece concept."
-----------------------------------------------------------
G.S.
In regard to how ad copy is used unethically to misrepresent past artists as well as re-writing some basic science of acoustics, an interesting exchange between myself and the aforementioned maker took a fascinating turn last December...especially starting with the post of December 4th, 2006 and onward.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=226822&t=226822
Gregory Smith
Post Edited (2007-05-20 05:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kevin
Date: 2007-05-20 14:26
Ahem, Liquorice,
The Vandoren B45 DOT, Profile 88!!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2007-05-20 14:48
I'm adding one more post after my very last and final post on this subject. Gregory Smith's take on my Heifetz story is not what I intended. I in no way indicated I agreed with Heifetz or the other person in the story. The final retort is just as ridiculous as Heifetz's statement. They are both exaggerations....The final retort is only given to bring Heifetz's remark into perspective.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2007-05-20 21:58
J. J. said:
"I am not personally aware of any section doing such a thing, except for the Icelandic Symphony Orchestra, at least not in such specific terms."
------------------------------------------------------
It just happens that Grabner mouthpieces are way far the most popular mouthpieces here in Iceland. Specially his Kaspar 14. I know at least 8 people here just playing his kaspar 14. I've also seen kaspar 13 and AW personal. Your endorsment here in Iceland for his mouthpieces is leading him to come and visit us in the near future. I've both heard it from him and people have also been talking about it. Just in the amature concert wind band I'm playing in 6 of 8 Bb soprano players are using his mouthpieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2007-05-21 01:10
If you must have the most round sound you should find one of those doughnut shaped clarinets.
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2007-05-21 10:17
"If you must have the most round sound you should find one of those doughnut shaped clarinets."
with frosting non-the-less !?!? what a way to get kids to play
I read this thread since it was first created and have thought of an answer but really can't come up with a specific answer. I would have the hardest time recommending a mpc especially a maker that has been around a long time. It's like clarinets .. buy a mpc made from Selmer from 1930-1945 .. too bad they aren't stamped. And O'Briens have been made by various members of the O'Brien clan ... some good some not so good.
I tend to find that you can vary your tonal characteristics per each mpc. Some ppl take in more mpc, get a more fuller tone .. etc etc If you take in less mpc you can make your tone "more round" (depending upon your definition) or more sterile, or stuffy -- pick one.
When it comes to tone the player,and players Embouchure and how much mpc they take in have profound effects on the tone. But back to the question, I have a large collections of mpc and just looking at my Selmer collection a few have more "round" of a tone than the others but i'm relatively clueless on knowing when they were manufactured to recommend them
I guess the adage of play as many as you can is the answer. The original poster said "Very few in my experience fulfill these and other qualities".
-- I would like to know which ones per their requirements the poster has tried and liked? And does the poster still have these mpcs .. if so then the answer is solved in a way .......
just my .02cents
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2007-05-21 18:00
Read the article "The Embouchure and Tone Color" by Bernard Portnoy. The mouthpiece is only one of many variables. The embouchure is one over which you have control, or at least Portnoy did.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2007-05-21 18:04
"If you must have the most round sound you should find one of those doughnut shaped clarinets."
"mmmmmmm.......doughnuts"- Homer Simpson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-05-22 03:34
Without having read the entire thread I will put my 2 cents of experience in keeping in mind that this is just my experience and yours may be different. I will answer the original question.
I have no problem understanding the adjective "round" (for some reason).
I have found that some mouthpiece refacers that use Zinner blanks as a base are rather round and have less high overtones (IMO). And I have found that Vandoren's are a bit on the bright side, IMO. I am not saying good or bad, but these are my experiences. I do not know if it is related to Zinner or the refacers, and I have only tried about 4 different makers that use Zinner blanks- NOT a broad sampling.
I know that you are probably trying to norrow down an order so that you don't have to pay so much shipping sending things to and from the wearhouse, so this is my answer- try something made from a Zinner blank and see how you like it. While you are at it, try different reeds and ligs, too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
