 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: atasic
Date: 2009-03-05 17:06
I just found this web site...it said that chedeville mouthpieces are back? Does somebody know something about it?
http://chedevillemp.com/index.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-03-05 17:25
atasic wrote:
> Does somebody know something about it?
Yes. Couple of months before availability.
Thank "The Doctor".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-03-05 17:41
Chedeville mouthpieces were made by a man named "Chedeville" and he's no longer with us so his "new" mouthpieces can't be back. There are several people and or companies that claim to be making an "exact" copy of his mouthpieces. This appears to be the case here too. They may be very good, possibly even play just like an original Chedeville, who knows? Only playing them and comparing them to the real McCoy will you really know. Remember though, even Chedeville and Kasper and anyone else never made two mouthpieces to play exactly alike. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2009-03-05 17:51
(Disclaimer - Chedeville Group is part of my corporation)
Ed you are right in every regard.
The name and logo are now trademarked and belong to the Chedeville Group, LBD Corporation - USPTO, CIPO, OHIM (app).
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2009-03-05 18:11
Omar:
If Mark is OK with you making your sales pitch here, maybe you can tell us what makes your formulation and sizing of the piece any different/better than the other recreation of the Cheds. The two that come to mind are Brad Behn's and Chadash/Hill. Did you do this on your own or worked with a refacer?
Or is it too early yet?
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2009-03-05 21:10
The rubber is not toxic to work with, or I wouldn't be working with it!
The ones Muncy had for around $100 were closer to 20 years old, rather than 10. I made the Glotin Chedevilles.
Chris Hill
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2009-03-05 21:49
Dr. Henderson got me all worked up at TMEA a few weeks ago, as he told me this was coming.
I hate waiting...
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: atasic
Date: 2009-03-06 19:39
lets wait and see how they will turn out.......will try them definitelly!
--
www.aleksandartasic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2009-03-06 21:30
Geez Louise.
That website shows a tab for barrels.
Imagine, Doc's PowerBarrel made outta that Ched-stuff.
We will need volume controls.
Against the windmills of my mind
The jousting pole splinters
Post Edited (2009-03-06 23:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2009-03-07 18:12
The thought keeps popping into my mind as I read this thread:
(This question can really only be answered by someone who played on them, preferably someone who still owns one or more to use as reference).
Supposing these new Cheds (or anyone else's attempt to duplicate the original ones) are exactly like the ones that were so revered when they were current. Were the originals when they were new, and would they be now, so much better than the best of the current crop of mouthpieces on the market?
Seems like the art and science of mouthpiece design and production have come a long way since Chedeville and Kaspar were the only mouthpieces of consequence among symphonic players on the American side of the Atlantic.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2009-03-07 19:21
(Disclaimer - Chedeville is part of my corporation)
No doubt there were dogs made by Chedeville and not so good mouthpieces made from Chedeville blanks by Kaspar but selecting those good examples and making exact copies is the goal.
Since WWII mouthpieces have been molded necessitating a different rubber formulation and process to vulcanize the rubber than used to produce the old rod rubber. IMO mouthpieces made of the same formulation used in the classic Chedeville rubber production (the best examples, because the process was variable) produces a material that has much more resonance and "color" than molded rubber. The dimensions of the mouthpiece through precise machining can also be more consistent and exact than any molded mouthpiece because these must undergo differential cooling which changes dimensions from the mold precursor.
I also have no doubt that the architecture of the mouthpiece plays an overwhelming role compared to the material but if there is good architecture and good rubber IMO the product can be better (however no one mouthpiece suits every player) than a molded product. When custom makers alter molded blanks the difference is in the sound qualities of the rubber since they create the architecture.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2009-03-07 19:50
"When custom makers alter molded blanks the difference is in the sound qualities of the rubber since they create the architecture."
--------------------------------------------
Would you please elaborate further Omar?
Thanks.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2009-03-07 22:31
Custom mouthpiece makers (second hand to be sure) will get blanks from various places either generic or more unique and perform their magic to create the architecture individual to their art and produce a unique mouthpiece. There are so many variables that each alters, that each maker ends up with a unique way of making a mouthpiece with parameters different from other makers but good for some group of players that are their clients. Their only source however are molded rubber blanks - to date - since there have not been machined blanks made from rod rubber available to them, or those available they may feel would require extensive alteration and time to make into their conception of mouthpiece architecture.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2009-03-08 17:45
Not all mouthpiece makers use molded blanks. I make mouthpieces from machined rod rubber. They do take me a lot of time to finish, but for me, it is worth it.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2009-03-08 21:11
French vs. Philadelphia Chedevilles
Alvin Swiney has said http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/1999/11/001043.txt that Charles Chedeville made blanks in France, but that C. Chedeville worked in Philadelphia. It's not clear from the posting whether they were the same person. At any rate, C. Chedeville customized the blanks for individual players, in cooperation with the Moennig workshop.
And there was also Henri (or H.) Chedeville in France.
Certainly not all Chedeville blanks were (or were turned into) top-grade mouthpieces. Ralph Morgan kept a Charles Chedeville (with decorative bands) on a peg at his worktable and let anyone try it (including me). It was absolutely unplayable. The baffle came up almost to the lay, about 1/4" back of the tip. And at least one person who played Iggy Genussa's legendary Chedeville wrote that it had become so badly worn that it was unplayable for anyone except Iggy. (Unfortunately, I can't find that posting.)
So who were the French Chedevilles? How many were there? Is Charles or Henri the great one? Did Charles move to Philadelphia, or were Charles and C. different people?
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2009-03-08 21:56
Charles Chedeville ran the factory in France and a brother (or cousin) Henri received the Chedeville blanks from France and worked in Philadelphia. Many believe that some of the Henri Chedeville mouthpieces were among the best mouthpieces of the era. The Chedeville factory in France made a number of different mouthpieces for many of the instrument manufacturers of the day and also produced mouthpieces under the Charles Chedeville name which are familiar to many - some good, some not so good. After WWII the Chedeville factory - or parts of it and the supply of blank mouthpieces was bought out by LeLandais who also made mouthpieces around the same time as Chedeville and used some of the Chedeville blanks under his name.
The production of rubber in the late 1920's - late 30's was sometimes variable as were the dimensions of the mouthpieces made so just the name Chedeville has no consistent guarantee of quality or playing aptitude.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2009-03-08 22:26
I've seen photo* of a small shop that existed in Phila, and it has the name H. Chedeville Woodwinds on its striped awning.
So, as I understand it, Henri moved to Phila, obtained blanks from his relative, Charles, and made them into good pieces.
It takes the masters hand to hone a great edge even on the mostly finely tempered sword.
*the photo is in the workplace of a fine clarinet technician
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
