 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2010-07-21 16:01
Hi everyone,
I've got this dilemma at the moment. I've got two Greg Smith mouthpieces, one Chicago and one Cicero models. The Cicero I bought years ago and has a low serial number, and I've used it for about 6 years now. The Chicago was a more recent one, purchased from Howarths in London.
The Cicero has quite a bit of resistance and if you've got the wrong reed or get too tense, you get a brassy sound. However, it has a wonderful, colourful depth to it that I've never experienced in any mouthpiece before. The colours and sonorities you can produce with it are seemingly endless. The Chicago is remarkably free-blowing, works with any reed, has perfect response and a lovely warm sound. However, it is the same warm sound all the time; it isn't as variable as the Cicero, and you can't make as much of a 'special' sound with it. However it plays so easily.
It may also be worth noting that upon recording both mouthpiece (using my phone, so not that reliable), there wasn't much difference is sound; I think the difference is in the feel. Staccato / articulation in general sounded considerably 'tighter' with the Cicero (but requires more work), but both have the same basic tone.
I'm not only seeking advice here on which you think is better to have and why, but generally, HOW do you choose a mouthpiece? What are we looking for? Do we keep our preconceptions about sound or try something different? Make a decision based entirely on someone else's ears? Just go by feel, remembering that you basically will always sound like yourself?
I appreciate that nobody could make a call on which mouthpiece I should be using because you've never heard me play and it is my decision in the end, but I want to understand more about what most people look for in a mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2010-07-21 16:21
In no exact order:
1.) Response throughout all the registers - including articulation in all registers. Is it too easy or do I have to work too hard?
2.) Does it work well with my preferred reed brand/cut.
3.) Pitch - will I have to change barrels?
4) Quality of tone. Tone color variences.
5.) Ease of manipulation - can I play a variety of styles on this set up.
Some other issues are impossible to figure out until you are in that situation. For example, does the MPC work well in orchestra? Well, are you playing principle or 2nd - do you need to cut through or be able to blend well. Can the MPC do both? If you also play in a community band, does it work well there? How about playing shows? You wont know these things until you are in that situation....and sometimes what feels/sounds good to you actually doesn't carry well into the audience. It helps to have a friend/teacher or recording of a performance situation to give you the full 360 picture.
I personally prefer to have a jack of all trades MPC for the type of work I currently do. However, if I primarily played in Orchestra I would have a set up that provided a bit more resistance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2010-07-21 17:15
Morrigan said:
"The Cicero has quite a bit of resistance and if you've got the wrong reed or get too tense, you get a brassy sound. However, it has a wonderful, colourful depth to it that I've never experienced in any mouthpiece before. The colours and sonorities you can produce with it are seemingly endless. The Chicago is remarkably free-blowing, works with any reed, has perfect response and a lovely warm sound. However, it is the same warm sound all the time; it isn't as variable as the Cicero, and you can't make as much of a 'special' sound with it. However it plays so easily."
----------
The mouthpieces from Kaspar's Chicago & Cicero period each have a different chamber reflecting the tonal sonorities that you describe.
Chicagos generally have a deeper swoop to the baffle especially as it enters the bore. They have narrower sidewalls generally speaking. This configuration is much along the line of the classic Chedevilles which are known for their homogeneity of sound but is perhaps a bit less colorful than the Cicero.
Ciceros generally have a higher baffle especially as it swoops down into the bore area. Many have wider sidewalls than the Chicago therefore creating more volume of air in the chamber to compensate for the higher baffle. More tonal color is available due to this chamber configuration.
But for many Cicero players, there is a cut-off point somewhere around forte and above when the sound becomes harder and less flexible due to the higher baffle. For others, it's just fine and even fortissimo still retains it's suppleness. They can be harder to control but one has to muscle them to get the most out of them - there's so much sound available to shape. They take more embouchure maintenance than a closer Chedeville style mouthpiece.
So it's the classic trade-off. Both are powerful, with more open facings than most classic Chedevilles and as a result, can produce a wider range of timbre .
In a discussion with Marcellus about the difference between Chedevilles and Kaspars of his time (the Chicago resembling the classic Chedeville more than the Cicero), he stated, "A Kaspar is a blue collar, working man's mouthpiece. The Chedevilles are a little too blue-blood for me".
As far as resistance is concerned, the variability that you are experiencing is typical between differing styles of Kaspars no matter what the facing is, although my experience is that there is a smaller range of variability than between two randomly selected machine-made mouthpieces.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-07-21 17:27
Everyone probably has their own criteria for choosing a mouthpiece so I'm going to give you mine.
1- First I look for tone. If I'm changing mouthpieces I want to get the tone I'm looking for more easily than the one I'm using or If I was trying to change my sound I would look for one that gave me the tone I was looking for.
2- Does it play in tune, it has to play in tune at least as the one I'm replacing assuming that one did not have any special problems in this area.
3- Can I articulate on it with no more trouble then the mouthpiece I'm replacing. If it's easier all the more better.
4- Can I find reeds for it. It doesn't do much good to change mouthpieces that is very difficult to find a good reed for. If you were able to find 5 decent reeds on average from a box of 10 the new mouthpiece should do at least the same.
5- It is true that most people changing mouthpieces will eventually sound the same way they did on there old mouthpiece unless they make a real long term effort not to. An example is that if you change to a darker sounding mouthpiece you have to make sure you don't begin to choose or adjust your reeds to feel the same as the old one did because you will soon begin sounding like you did before you changed without realizing it. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-07-22 05:27
If you have 2 mouthpieces with different qualities that you like, why not use them for different pieces? No rule that says you have to use the same mouthpiece all the time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2010-07-22 11:31
Thanks for your input everyone, especially Greg for confirming that I'm not going crazy and that these two mouthpieces are indeed actually quite different.
My colleagues couldn't hear a difference yesterday in an orchestral rehearsal of Rach 2, so with that in mind, it makes sense to go with the mouthpiece that is easy to play on. The 'blue collar' analogy is great - I've successfully used this mouthpiece in orchestral, chamber and wind band scenarios!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2010-07-22 15:47
I think that what he meant was that a working man's, blue collar style was more powerful, flexible, and colorful - if you can control them (Ciceros).
The Chicago is more homogeneous, cushioned and refined - blueblood in that sense.
He certainly had a creative way of using metahpors!
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bubalooy
Date: 2010-07-22 17:38
Tone quality, yes. In tune, yes. two big factors. I don't know if others will agree, but I made a rather large switch in my set up a couple of years ago. The big factor for me was the ease with which I could play. In finding a mouthpiece that made it easy for me to do what I was trying to do musically, I found I could concentrate more on making music and less on making the instrument work. If the mouthpiece makes it easy for you to perform with your concept (for some that changes more from piece to piece than others) it is a good one for you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2010-07-22 21:06
Bubalooy,
That is one of the best postings I've seen from anybody. Too few clarinetists remember that making music is the whole idea behind what we do.
Greg,
I love the metaphor! I wish I could have met Mr. Marcellus.
I also appreciate the detailed description of the differences between the Kaspars; you put into words what others can only sense.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-07-22 21:24
I agree with the concept that you need to feel the freedom to play musically, to me that is an assumption that goes without saying. I guess it needed to be said though. From my point of view though, I've heard players that play very musical but I really dislike their tone, to me that is a no brainer, I really can't stand listening to them. From my point of view the first thing I hear from any player is their tone, then it's everything else that makes a great, or a poor, performance.
When I'm on an audition committee, if I don't like a players tone I wont vote for them, period. Closed minded maybe, but I don't think so. Does anyone want to hear an opera singer with a poor voice? What's the first thing they look for, tone number one. Than it's what you do with it that counts. That's the same as saying the notes aren't important when you play an audition but the problem is if you can't play the notes you can't possibly win an audition. It's the whole package and the first thing you hear with any performer is their voice, or tone in our case. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2010-07-22 21:39
Thanks Chris and Morrigan.
It was a refreshing thing to be able to write it all down as I sit here and take a much-needed break between practice and mouthpiece sessions!
Gregory Smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2010-07-22 22:07
I have to say, I find it really hard to split 'tone' and 'musicality'.
In a really good player, of any instrument, the sound they make is very varied, from piece to piece, from note to note (from harmony to harmony!!!)
I have known many players of various instruments who don't have my ideal sound, or even have a sound that I would put in the 'bad sound' category, but make such amazing music that it's almost irrelevant what the sound is. Just in the same vein as that I have heard people who have the most beautiful sound, but then they don't do anything for my with the sound, and it falls flat.
Look at Heinz Holliger, for instance. I think almost anyone today would say that he doesn't have a beautiful oboe sound, definitely not one of the most beautiful, yet he makes his music in a way that cannot be described in such a pedestrian way as 'good tone' 'bad tone'.
In my mind, flexibility is key in a mouthpiece. The worst reed days for me, are not the ones where the sound is bad, but those where within the sound that the reed gives me, I can't create something beautiful out of that sound.
My main aim for a mouthpiece is, something that is flexible, easy (for me), reed friendly, resonant and articulates well. In the end I will always sound like me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2010-07-24 00:34
Lots of good advice here. This also has a lot to do with the type of horn setup you have, not just the mouthpiece and the horn, but other factors as well. You could have a really great mouthpiece, but it doesn't play in tune. I would try a few barrels, maybe have a really good repairman undercut a few key holes.
Sometimes a stuffy mouthpiece may simply be the facing or thick rails. Both are very simple to have fixed.
I modified a Vandoren M13. A few of the notes played out of tune. After some bore work the notes were much better. I was using an R13. I had a friend try it on his Selmer and it was perfectly in tune. He wouldn't give me the mouthpiece back! Since he is a close friend, in trade he took me out to dinner. Wives included!
I also play tested this Vandoren on an "A" clarinet from Tom Ridinour. I was actually shocked how well the horn played. Only one note was out, flat, so I adjusted the key hole. That horn may or may not be as good as Buffet, but as far as tuning and the sound quality It is as good as Buffet.
Anyway, back to the question. Eddie Palanker gave you some great advice. If you can find a mouthpiece that meets your standards, buy it. Then you can play around with facings, the baffle, the bore, assorted barrels, and even the bell. The bell on my horn was opened.
I actually feel there are better new mouthpiece designs around than the Kaspers and Chedevilles.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2010-07-26 09:25
I test a few things, staccato in all three registers, altissimo at ppp, how easy is it to play a thumb C in clarion at ppp without an undertone, how it holds while loud, I personally prefer a freer blowing mouthpiece, and how far I can bend a pitch while staying in control in it.
But the most important thing I go by is how easy it is for what I want to happen, to actually happen. Meaning, I want to make sure that I don't have to actively fight the mouthpiece for it to do anything. There are tons of mouthpieces out there, and I just want to make sure that whichever I choose, I don't have to fight it to get anything. I want to be able to put it on and just "play". Not think/wonder about if something is going to work regardless of the sound that comes out. For me, the #1 factor is control. If I can't control it effortlessly, it immediately becomes a veto. After I find I can control it, I pay attention more indepth to the other factors.
One thing I'm thinking about doing is not only playing it in the environment you want to use it, but recording yourself doing so. Playing a mouthpiece in a practice room will sound different than the sound you get when the audience is at the back of the recital hall with a WWQ. Or 100 feet out on an outdoor field. Or with a mic put directly on the horn. Figure out where you're going to be playing this instrument, and do your best to record from where your audience will be sitting, or at least have a friend sit there and give an honest opinion. Hard to do I'm sure, but from C'fest, I realized that the sound you get from 5 feet away in a closed room may not be the same from 50 feet away in a much more open space. So try to give it as close to an "on the job" trial as you can and record it so you can hear if it's giving you what you want.
Alexi
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2010-07-28 16:46
I have two of Greg's mpcies--Ched & Cicero models--and could play anything with either. Maybe it would be best to consider Daniel Bonades advice on mouthpiece selection: put all of your mouthpieces into a boat, row out to the middle, put on a blindfold, pick one, throw the rest overboard and then row back to shore and learn to play the mouthpiece you picked. I have no idea how true that story may be, but I've always thought there to be some credability to its message--that being, it's more about *you* than your equipement.
Nevertheless, if Greg would lend you a whole boat-load to choose from, you really couldn't go wrong with DB method. However, I would skip the "throw overboard" part............:>)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
