 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sam caviezel
Date: 2008-11-12 20:17
This is my first posting to this board, to help out and encourage a fine new mouthpiece craftsman, Brad Behn. I have recently switched to one of his models (a "vintage D" series), and am quite happy with the results. Previously, I played a Van Doren M13 Lyre for many seasons, and I still think that the M series, designed with the help of my former teacher, Donald Montanaro, is excellent, and some of the M mouthpieces quite special; indeed, it is the mouthpiece on which I won my first major audition, and it is what I encourage my students to play. But I am posting this because Brad has found, in my opinion, the most resonant material for a clarinet mouthpiece in the modern era, and, coupled with his considerable skill and care as a craftsman, has created something unique and exciting. He is also quite willing to work with an individual customer, which of course is a welcome blessing. For me, at least, it has been something very worthwhile to explore, and a special thanks goes to Ron Reuben for bringing Brad's skills to my attention.
On a personal note, I do not spend a great deal of time online, and, as I mentioned, this is my first posting to this board, or any board of any sort! If contacting Brad for further information at his website (easy to Google) is not enough, I can be reached at samuelcaviezel@yahoo.com. I am not a regular emailer, but I will get back to you eventually, although again I would recommend Brad's site as the primarly point for further information.
Sincerely,
Sam Caviezel
Associate Principal and E-flat clarinet,
Philadelphia Orchestra
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2008-11-13 13:01
Sam,
Great to know. I know Brad from NU and have also studied in Phil with Gigliotti (many years ago) so currently (and always have) play on close face, small tip opening, narrow tip rails.
Currently on a Hawkins but have been impressed with M13/15 Vandoren line.
If a player like you has switched to one of Brad's mouthpieces, this is worth investigating!
Thanks for posting and hope to hear more from you regarding all things clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-11-13 13:07
FWIW Brad's "Ouverture" line is also very good, considering price and material. (I have two sop and one bass mpc and love 'em both)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-11-13 13:34
Just a reminder that along with Brads high quality mouthpieces there are a great many other signature mouthpieces on the market today as well as good commercial ones like Vandoren's. That's the reason that so many great players, even not so great, play on a hugh variety of different mouthpieces. As always, my suggestion is to try as many different makes and models you can if you're not completely satisfied with what you have now, or if you're just plain curious. ESP
www.peabody.jhu.edu/457 Listen to a little Mozart, live performance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2008-11-13 16:07
I've been using a M13 with some satisfaction for a while. I think it was in Pam Weston that I read about Lazarus having something like 80 mouth pieces he sometimes rotated!
I don't believe that stuff about Brad's material being more resonant etc. Mouth pieces and reeds posts seem to run to unrestrained puffery. I havn't tried one because Brad's mouth pieces are wildly expensive...still, next time I have a good day at the track I think I'll try a couple.
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan25
Date: 2008-11-13 16:14
Well Geezer,
If you have never tried one, then how can you dismiss it? Maybe you should reserve your opinion until you actually try one. Do you base all of your opinions on word of mouth and rumor? IS that why every young musician that gains national attention is destined to have a "historical career"?
It's a very dangerous and misinformed way of thinking if you ask me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-11-13 16:31
As a side note, with regards to price, material, or whatever. Here is a parallel study completely unrelated to clarinetistery, but oh so relevant.
The study basically says that if you pay $1 for a placebo drug (read sugar) or $10 for the exact same fake drug. You will get better faster with the $10 pill.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20080204181613data_trunc_sys.shtml
Never underestimate the human factor in interacting with the environment, two identical mouthpieces may well feel different to you if you paid $500 for one and $5 for the other.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-11-13 16:51
> Never underestimate the human factor in interacting with the environment,
> two identical mouthpieces may well feel different to you if you paid $500 for
> one and $5 for the other.
Understandably so. Whoever had to justify a new acquisition before his/her partner knows what I'm talking about. ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ebclarinet1
Date: 2008-11-13 17:49
Finding a great mouthpiece is SO subjective and I probably have 50 different ones for members of the clarinet family around the house. I found it especially difficult to find a really great alto clarinet/ basset horn mouthpiece but I keep going back to a relatively less expensive Hite as my go to mouthpiece there. The Eefer seems to be the next worse. At the moment I like a Greg Smith mouthpiece best but have been very pleased with Behn, Grabner and Fobes mouthpieces and I use a Fobes on my Bb and contra alto and a Grabner on my bass. Am definitely not tied to one maker. Just want to play what makes the horn sound best.
One trick I do is to play the same passages on each mouthpiece but also vary reeds and ligature to get a best sound on any mouthoiece and then do a comparison terst while playing into a tape recorder. Some times that tells you more than while you're playing. Make sure you play the most difficut notes and some extended jumps. The smootness of these seems to be a good indicator of whether the mouthpiece is a keeper for me or not. Lack of stuffiness is another.
Eefer guy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2008-11-18 14:52
I wish I could have actually heard the material! Brad was kind enough to send me some of his new mouthpiece to try but the tip rail was so thin, I really couldn't get a handle on getting it to play well enough to really test it.
I think for a material to get accepted as the best or "most resonant" out there, more people need access to it for
A. Different blank designs
B. Different styles of facings by different makers
then a consensus can become evident.
Zinner blanks have achieve this consensus by mouthpiece makers . I've heard various makers talk lovingly the "zinner rubber" but we really don't know for sure if it's the rubber or the dimensions. Zinner rubber is proprietary, if Babbit made blanks out of it would they be as good?
I just picked up a few of Clark Fobes Nova mouthpiece, a mouthpiece made on a Babbit blank, and in my opinion it was a very playable mouthpiece, more playable than the Behn and damn I really wanted the Behn to be really awesome. If $500 bucks will make a huge difference I'll spend it gladly, what's the money from one Bar Mitzvah anyway in the cosmic scheme of things.
Tom Puwalski
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-11-18 15:21
Tom:
I believe that if Brad finds the time he will do whatever you wish to make the mouthpiece work. I spent an hour or so in a hotel room with him and a lot of mouthpieces and he was very good at asking what I liked and did not like about a mouthpiece and made adjustments to make it work for me. I mostly tried his Zinners (could not afford his vintage).
As a disclaimer, I started my musical life on a bad Buffet mouthpiece, then a Selmer C85 115, then back to a bad Buffet (why??), back to a B45, then an M15. A few years back (it's probably documented in the archive shame on me) I went on a mouthpiece quest, purchased M13Lyre, Redwine Gennusa, Livengood Zinner blank, Behn Zinner blank, but finally settled on a Chadash-Hill faced by Chris Hill after a few back and forth adjustment.
All of the aforementioned mouthpieces worked very well for me. Most importantly, I discovered a few things about my playing along the way (that I liked playing a softer reed and getting a more open feel) and Chris was able to craft a mouthpiece that grew on me.
I must admit, that love at first sight did not really work, as many mouthpieces I first tried in the shop and loved I grew tired of it. The Chadash Hill took some getting used to, but it now feels just right, and unlike more closed set ups I feel I have more flexibility to produce a wider palette of timbres and dynamics.
Lesson learned?
Maybe more than finding the ideal mouthpiece, I learned to find what *I* wanted in a mouthpiece, what kind of sounds I was seeking, and what type of feel fit my playing. It surely was an expensive lesson, but I don't regret it.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-11-18 23:06
Many years ago, while searching for mouthpieces, I came across a Vito mouthpiece and on a whim I tried it. It had a great sound, full and rich but I just couldn't get myself to buy a cheap plastic Vito stock mouthpiece that probably came with a student clarinet. I've regretted that decision ever since. Yes, the material a mouthpiece is made from is very important; the tip opening is very important but just as important to most of us are the rails, the bore, the inners and a whole host of things. It's a package deal and is very individual to each player. As I always say, try before you buy. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457 Listen to a little Mozart, live performance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2008-11-19 01:36
Many good stories and opinions above...
Everybody likes something different, it's true, that's one reason Vandoren have such a good hold on the market- a wide variety of product (both design and quality).
My anecdote- I played a fine mouthpiece from another maker (not BB) for some years that I was very comfortable on, and felt I was making a good tone. In mid 2008 I was in an Auckland Chamber Orchestra rehearsal and tried a Behn Zinner that he had refaced to a 1.09 tip opening. This mouthpiece took a little getting used to, but two months later (after a tour of NZ as principal clarinet for NZ Opera) i had had more positive comments on my tone than in the past 10 years...
This mouthpiece has moderate thickness in the rails, and slightly more "back-pressure" that makes for a very compact tone that doesn't spread as I increase in dynamic. This mouthpiece does work better with thinner blank reeds.
dn
Post Edited (2008-12-04 09:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2008-11-19 02:58
Tom Puwalski wrote....
Quote:
Zinner blanks have achieve this consensus by mouthpiece makers . I've heard various makers talk lovingly the "zinner rubber" but we really don't know for sure if it's the rubber or the dimensions. Zinner rubber is proprietary, if Babbit made blanks out of it would they be as good?
I just picked up a few of Clark Fobes Nova mouthpiece, a mouthpiece made on a Babbit blank, and in my opinion it was a very playable mouthpiece, more playable than the Behn and damn I really wanted the Behn to be really awesome. If $500 bucks will make a huge difference I'll spend it gladly, what's the money from one Bar Mitzvah anyway in the cosmic scheme of things. Well, maybe not the BEST way to tell, and a little bit of a spinoff from the topic, but I have tried a few mouthpieces from Tom Ridenour. On his website he offers two different blanks for most of his mouthpieces. One is a zinner, one is not. I had the fortune to visit him and take some lessons with him, and I played a few mouthpieces. Also, I had purchased some in the past. Now the craftsmanship in the mouthpieces is equal, as they are all faced by him. And he's shown me with a piece of glass and feeler gauges how all his mouthpieces are symmetrical and open evenly. And I MUCH prefer the zinner mouthpiece over the four other mouthpieces I've tried.
So to wrap it nicely back into the main topic, I do believe that material (at least in mouthpiece) makes a difference in sound.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-11-19 03:09
sfalexi wrote:
> So to wrap it nicely back into the main topic, I do believe
> that material (at least in mouthpiece) makes a difference in
> sound.
The internal dimensions are not the same, so while you might be right about material, you haven't proved anything yet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2008-11-19 03:36
I'm not saying that the Behn isn't a great mouthpiece, or that Sam is wrong in thinking that it's a big improvement for him over what he up to this point has played. It might be a great mouthpiece but at this point neither He, nor any of us really know exactly why.
Matson didn't like refacing Zinner blanks, in his opinion when he put the popsicle sticks in, too much of the rubber was gone to make the fabricate the baffle to his liking. Was he wrong? Depends what you like. I've sliced zinners in half along with babbits and vandorens, and measured them as carefully a I could. I can tell you they are very different animals. I have many types of mouthpieces with the same facing by the same person. No two play anything alike. Whose to say that the next big improvement in mouthpieces won't be a "space age" material. I've played some of the "plastic/acrylic" student mouthpieces by morgan, Fobes, Hite, and I've played the "real" mouthpiece facing equivalent, In just about all cases the low end synthetic had some really nice sonic qualities. Any of the guys that make that will tell you that it's easier to get the dimensions in spec with that material than the "hard" rubber versions. I heard the new leblanc Bliss model is made out of a new ,to instrument making, material. Maybe that will be a great mouthpiece material.
Tom Puwalski
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2008-11-19 03:48
Mark wrote.....
Quote:
sfalexi wrote:
> So to wrap it nicely back into the main topic, I do believe
> that material (at least in mouthpiece) makes a difference in
> sound.
The internal dimensions are not the same, so while you might be right about material, you haven't proved anything yet. I know. Sigh. I guess the answer to whether a material TRULY makes a difference is the same answer as "how many licks to the center of a tootsie pop?"
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2008-11-19 12:18
In my years of experimentation with mouthpieces, I've come up with equally fine clarinet mouthpieces out of various formulations of hard rubber, and from plastics, wood, glass/crystal, and a few different metals. I strongly believe that, regardless of material, the facing curve and interior shape/dimensions are by far the strongest influences on how a mouthpiece sounds and responds.
A "hidden" influence on mouthpiece design is how the material responds to tools -- that is, a material that is relatively easy to work, holds its dimensions well, isn't so hard that it destroys one's tools, and doesn't generate nasty or toxic dust when worked -- is more likely to be made into an excellent mouthpiece by the maker or refacer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2008-11-19 14:08
Well I have to agree totally wit David on this. I've tried many Zinner based mouthpieces with similar openings(when I was trying them they were in the 1.06 and 1.08 mm opening range) and they sound and feel very different. I both tried very free blowing pieces and pieces with more resistance and some were more even than the others. I would have to try Ben Redwine's Zinner model to tell if the material of his Excellente does make much different. I'm pretty sure it's the design and craftmanship and not so much the material.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2008-11-19 14:49
Tom makes some excellent points here. He also states
"Matson didn't like refacing Zinner blanks, in his opinion when he put the popsicle sticks in, too much of the rubber was gone to make the fabricate the baffle to his liking."
I also recall Matson saying this. That is one reason he liked the old Selmers. Even though they took a lot of work, he felt they at least had enough rubber in the right places so he could do shape it to his liking.
Keep in mind too, that Zinner does make a handful of different blanks with slightly different dimensions. The E blank has a shallower baffle. Clark Fobes has a specially designed Zinner blank so that he has the internal shape and contour he likes.
Clark's recent blog http://clarkwfobes.wordpress.com/ has some good thoughts on material vs. design issues.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2008-11-19 15:10
Ed said:
"Zinner does make a handful of different blanks with slightly different dimensions. The E blank has a shallower baffle."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There has been much discussion about Zinner and the blanks he produces at his home business in Bavaria, Germany. Doing a search here will provide a plethora of information already posted about them.
Hanz Zinner makes only 2 hard rubber blanks from his two different moulds, both an "A" blank and an "E" blank. The only difference in the two is that the baffle is slightly higher in a certain part in the "E" blank.
Zinner provides the service of taking away existing material from any part of the blank (custom shaping of the sidewalls, bore, beak, baffle, etc,) provided he is instructed to do so. Otherwise he has his own standard way of finishing his blanks.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2008-11-19 18:37
It also seems to be in memory that Kaspar used Babbitt and Chedeville blanks. As far as many older makers were concerned -- the Babbitt had been the standard in the American industry for many years.
David Hite told me he found the shape of the Babbitt blank " preferable due to the ease of working "with" the shaping and finsishing process. Hite was also very careful about the finishing process and in this are lies the rub.
Most makers have very individual ways of getting a mouthpiece to the final finished point...this alone is what defines and makes a Hite a Hite and a Kaspar a Kaspar.
Materials and a maker's confidence in the material for working are part and parcel of what is the end result. No matter, the ideal of the sound concept is still in the player's hand, but the choice of mouthpiece is what helps enable the artist to create the tonal concept desire. The mouthpiece is a part of this important process...so the fact is choice is a good thing.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-11-19 18:37
Bottom line, no two mouthpieces are exactly alike. I use an old Morgan, one of his very first, and had Ralph make me a few copies as a back up, he agreed that he can come close but can't make a mirror image. I also use a Selmer C* Bass MP altered slightly by Dave McClune, he also made me several back ups, close too but no Cigar. I just don't think anyone can make an exact copy. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-11-19 21:23
Personally, I find Babbitt blanks to be great. I use them and I have never had a sound problem from them in any way. However, there is a superficial but real downside to polishing them. They do not shine up as well as some other brands but this is only a problem in the display case in a store.
Post Edited (2008-11-20 01:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
