 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: masonmjs
Date: 2008-03-07 01:52
Hi,
I have recently bought a Woodwind-LeBlanc Legend A5 (?) mouthpiece off Evil-bay on a whim, and now am having a hard time finding any information on it online (teach me to be so rash).
Can anyone tell me anything about this mouthpiece and if I paid more than I should have ($24.38). Seller claimed that the retail was $140 !!.
Thanks
Mike
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-03-07 02:54
The "Legend" series of mouthpiecies was developed by Tom Ridenour when he was still LeBlanc's woodwind accoustition. When I was at the Kenosha facility to audition some clarinets, he had just finished making the final adjustments to the prototype which he was quite excited to show me. He wouldn't let me have it, but he did have about a hundred new Concertos for me to play. This was about 1993 and that's all the info I have. Never actually played a Legend, but the prototype sounded great when Tom played it at the factory.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: susieray
Date: 2008-03-07 05:35
No, you didn't pay too much for it. What's the matter, don't you like it????
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: masonmjs
Date: 2008-03-07 08:33
Thanks for the feedback, not played it yet (still in the post), I was just a bit jittery about not finding any information on it.
Thanks for the re-assurance.
Mike
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sbrodt54
Date: 2008-03-08 01:12
Mike,
Relax, you did all right. That line of mouthpieces (the Legend and the K series) was designed by Ridenour as mentioned by William and I think he did a good job. It is still a good mouthpiece and still made today, the list price is $130 but it sells for around $64 in this part of the state.
I played on a Legend for about two years until I found a Bay that played better for me. Please keep an open mind and continue to try other pieces, you never know when you will find something you like better. There are several folks that post to this site that make terrific pro mouthpieces so please keep them in mind when you're looking.
You won't find them on Error-Bay either.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2008-03-08 02:23
sbrodt54 wrote:
>"That line of mouthpieces (the Legend and the K series) was designed by Ridenour as mentioned by William and I think he did a good job.<
The Legend Series mouthpieces are re-creations/copies of favorite models (Chedeville, Kaspar) of the past.
Copying is not designing or is it?
Legend A5
Facing length: Medium
Tip opening: 1.05 mm
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2008-03-08 02:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-03-08 15:01
Vytas, you are correct. Tom intended to re-creat famous mouthpieces of the past, thus the name "Legend". And he spent many hours "over a hot iron" trying to get it right. Unfortunately, I can't remember which mouthpiece sound--Ched or Kaspar--he said he was trying to duplicate. I want to say Chedeville, but I would only be guessing. In any case, the mouthpiece he played for me--with his double lip embouchure on his Opus clarinet--sounded wonderful. But remember, that was the prototype--any subsequent mouthpiece may not be exactly the "same". [he would not let me buy it from him--dang!!!]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sbrodt54
Date: 2008-03-08 21:37
>>>>>The Legend Series mouthpieces are re-creations/copies of favorite models (Chedeville, Kaspar) of the past.
Copying is not designing or is it? <<<<
Vytas,
This might be a question for mouthpiece experts like you to answer. I have never spent much time learning to reface, reshape or tune a mouthpiece but as far a clarinets go I have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to fix the darn things.
If I take a Kaspar or Chedeville mouthpiece (or even a Greg Smith or Ben Redwine) and change something inside like removing material from the baffle or change the width of the rails, I could slant the side walls or change some other part of the piece so that I liked it better. Did I design something or simply modify it? If all I did was to modify the piece by these changes, does that mean there was only one designer and everyone after was just modifying his work?
I got to talk with Ben Redwine recently about making mouthpieces and I found out that there’s a world of information I’m lacking in just this small area. I’ll chime in with my opinion that when you modify a mouthpiece to the extent that it’s about 20% different, I’ll buy that you designed that piece. If you have the time please let me know what you think. I would love to learn more about making mouthpieces and how changes on the inside (let alone the material they’re made of) can affect the way they play.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2008-03-08 23:21
sbrodt54 said: ....
Hi Scott:
If I may jump in (as my name was mentioned), you've asked a very perceptive question - perhaps a question that can only be answered in a way reflective of one's own personal philosophy.
IMO, there are no hard and fast rules that are adequate enough to definitively and singularly "name" a mouthpiece's maker or designer without also acknowledging it's history.
My own philosophy is that any mouthpiece that is modified would be properly referred to as made by _______ and modified by _______ and ______ , no matter the contribution "ratio" involved.
That kind of history would differentiate it from all other mouthpieces in the most honest as well as illuminative of ways. (I know that for instance many violins have a traceable history that identify most if not all of their modifiers and exactly what those modifications have been.)
For example, to be accurate about material, one would have to identify the blank that Kaspar used when referring to his mouthpieces as either Chedville based (Chicago or Cicero vintage designed) or Buffet or Babbit based - the blanks that he used after Chedeville was acquired by the Glotin company in the late 1960's.
Even some of the Buffet or Evette Schaffer blanks that he had saved up and used from old clarinets were made by the Chedeville company although the rubber formula was not the same as the higher quality Chedeville material.
In other words I don't think it's a matter so much of one ultimately and singularly *possessing* a design but rather being accurate about it's linage.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
new model, new barrel
Post Edited (2008-03-09 00:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2008-03-09 12:21
>>In other words I don't think it's a matter so much of one ultimately and singularly *possessing* a design but rather being accurate about it's linage.
Gregory Smith
>>
An excellent point. Calling one of my mouthpieces for Eb soprano a Chedeville would be out-and-out false advertising, even though in fact I think it is an old Chedeville. Unfortunately, it got "modified" by a flea market dealer who was snapping up that clarinet from another flea market dealer just as I arrived at the booth. Aw, rats! The clarinet, a Buffet, had no case. As he started to carry it off, dangling it naked from one hand, I offered him a plastic bag, but he said no thanks, he could manage.
Apparently he only got a few more feet down the row (cussing my luck, I trundled off in the opposite direction) when the deteriorated mouthpiece tenon cork let go and the mouthpiece dropped on the asphalt. My husband deduced as much when he came along a moment later and saw the guy scrambling around on his hands and knees to pick up the pieces. A few weeks later, that dealer sold the clarinet to me, at a different flea market. (He made about $20 on the deal, I think.) He'd glued the pieces of the mouthpiece back together lopsidedly and then sanded heavily to flatten out the lumpy spots. He'd sanded the tip right down into the rails. If I ever try to sell that mouthpiece as a Chedeville, somebody come lock me up. I'm just grateful he didn't drop and "repair" the whole clarinet!
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2008-03-09 12:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sbrodt54
Date: 2008-03-09 18:54
Good afternoon Greg.
We have never met but we have talked on the phone several times so I feel comfortable asking you questions. I have learned a lot about mouthpieces from Charles Bay, Ralph Morgan and Ben Redwine but I do not know the correct names of the tools used to make a piece or to modify one. Ben showed me a strange looking object that resembled a pencil with tumors on the end, it was the tool that creates the inside chamber of a mouthpiece, the rubber is molded around this steel tool.
I would assume that this tool is copyrighted by the owner and would be different from anyone else’s, are most mouthpieces on today’s market simply minor adaptations of this tooling? Does Babbit make 20 different pieces according to that particular tool (you have yours, Bay uses one that he owns…) and then when you get that blank you work your own facings?
Are the Zinner blanks also very close in design that they are relatively few changes from let’s say an original Ann Arbor? What if that tool was significantly different from everyone else’s, would that be enough of a change to warrant the title designer?
Sorry to ask so many questions, I’m just very curious.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
