 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2007-10-14 21:18
What is the minimum/optimum tip opening for a given reed strength? It is reported Drucker and Girko use very stiff reeds, but what tip opening? Could we do better with a stiffer reed and smaller tip opening? My M13 are about 100 on the Morgan scale. I am considering grinding down the table of one of my Fobes Debut, 105 on the Morgan, to produce a 95, checking the performances with the same and stiffer reeds. Any encouragement, or otherwise??
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2007-10-14 21:53
Stanley has used the same Lelandais mouthpiece (1.05mm) for the past 50+ years...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RodRubber
Date: 2007-10-14 22:38
rtmyth
the depth and/or shape of the baffle also is a major contributor to reed strength most suitable for the mouthpiece. The length of the facing will also have a very powerful effect. The best mouthpieces have a balanced working relationship between curve length, tip opening, and baffle shape.
If you grind down the fobes as you mention, you will also definately shorten the curve. I would not encourage you to "grind" anything. Plenty of people play size 5 v12 on m13, m13L, m15 mouthpieces.
I have one vintage mouthpiece with a 1.06 tip opening mouthpiece that takes a 5 v12 with excellent playability. On a Kaspar i have with a 1.02, i have to use 4.5 to get the same resistance. So tip isn't everything.
Gigliotti P facing as an extremely close tip if you wish to try something extremely close.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-10-15 13:27
Hello,
An oversimplification of my theory is that serious students should probably play closer facings, then, as they progress, a more open facing is desired. From my experience, a close facing with a hard reed does produce a nice, "dark" sound. It is also easier for the student to control and to be successful in their embouchure.
My take on the close facing and hard reed is that because of the increased resistance, one has to use a proper amount of air to create the desired sound. Then, when one matures, a more open facing with a softer reed actually allows one's sound to "blossom" and project further than the close/hard combination.
This open facing is a bit harder to control, but after you have progressed this far, you should be able to control it.
Rod is correct (hello Evan) in that differences in facing lengths and interior work in the mouthpiece can also affect resistance and feel, so one "fix" does not fit all.
Unless you know what you are doing, I wouldn't change the facing of any mouthpiece that you use on a regular basis. If what you want to work on is something that is lying in one of your desk drawers, then go for it. See how the work you do affects the mouthpiece. I say this with the caveat that I think if you do it, you should have the measuring tools so you know what you actually did. It's very easy to change some numbers drastically without much effort. If you make a big mistake, someone will probably be able to repair it, but I wouldn't experiment with a mouthpiece that I wanted to use. It's also much easier to open a mouthpiece up than to close one down. So, it might be more interesting for the novice refacer to get a very close mouthpiece and slowly open it up while testing your reeds.
I'll be glad to consult if you have specific questions. Good luck!
Also, keep in mind that while I've never measured Mr. Drucker's mouthpiece, a 1.05 tip opening is considered "medium" to most. Iggy Gennusa always told me that Everett Matson preferred 1.02 - 1.06 for a tip opening. Also, the older mouthpieces (in my experience) actually have a bit of a "brighter" sound than most of those that are being produced today. So, when comparing your mouthpiece and facing, etc., to what Mr. Girko or Mr. Drucker are playing, be sure you are comparing "apples to apples", as the paraphrase goes.
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2007-10-15 15:55
In Vandoren-land, 1.05 is very close. Their flagship B45 weighs in at 1.20. The Selmer Paris ones also gravitate to this end of the scale. Maybe it's a French thing.
Some personal experiences of mucking around with mouthpiece facings, fwiw:
1. Measuring mouthpiece parameters is tricky and requires patience. A flat plate (glass will do), a vernier caliper and a set of feeler gauges helps.
2. Look twice, cut once, as the saying goes.
3. If you work the tip, you're also working the tip rail and baffle.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-10-15 19:14
Hello Bassie,
I apologize, all of my above ranting was specifically from the US perspective. Every single mouthpiece I've measured in Europe is considerably more open than the ones here that I deal with every day. For my personal playing, I tend to fall into the European style in regards to mouthpiece tip openings and facings. There are, however, many great players that play with closer facings than what I prefer. To each his/her own...
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Mills
Date: 2007-10-15 23:25
The statement from RodRubber is exactly correct -- the baffle. My Selmer CP100 has a 1.20mm and long facing with a severely deep baffle. So I use a number 2 Vandoren which is soft for the moderately open and gradual facing curve. This way the response is great so that rapid articulation is easy--do the Drucker staccato. And the sound is big. The highest notes are not favored of course.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2007-10-16 00:34
Ben says:
Quote:
Iggy Gennusa always told me that Everett Matson preferred 1.02 - 1.06 for a tip opening.
Although Matson would put on whatever facing you liked, his standard tip was a 102 with a 34 length. The numbers could end up slightly different as long as the playing result was good. This was also as indicated by his tip gauge. Sometimes these can vary some.
I have found the Matson style facing to work very well for me. I feel that I get some additional focus and ring from the closer tip which aids in projection, in contrast to the larger tip openings. At the same time, I hear lots of people who get great results on different set ups. There are lots of ways to get the job done.
Thanks to Ben for his great posting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2007-10-16 15:12
Thanks everyone.( Matson worked his magic on my mpcs years ago. I miss him. )
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
