 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Grabnerwg
Date: 2013-01-22 05:39
Question for the board:
All other things being even, is a mouthpiece that makes a darker sound automatically more resistant than one that makes a brighter sound?
I'll be very interested in the responses.
Walter Grabner
www.clarinetxpress.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rick77
Date: 2013-01-22 06:47
A very interesting question there. The answer for me would be "no", judging from my experience with various mouthpieces. I'm a veteran sax player but have been playing clarinet for the past two years so my take may be different from that of you veteran clarinetists.
My Van Doren B45 and two 5RV Lyres are bright but pretty darn resistant.
My Grabner K14 is very dark but can be very free blowing with #3 V12's or more resistant with with #3.5 V12's. The K14 is less resistant than my B45 or my 5RV Lyres.
My Fobes Nova is extremely bright and usually free blowing but can also be resistant with many reeds, even V12's in size 3.5 or Gonzalez 3's
The (bright) Fobes Nova is probably over all less resistant than the (dark) Grabner K14 but this is just one example or case where the bright mpc plays with less resistance.
FWIW I've been playing the Grabner K14 for months now. I love the ease of playing with the Fobes Nova and the nice response it has but I just can't deal with the overly bright tone.
I'd actually love to find a mpc that has the great response and ease of blowing of the Fobes Nova but with a darker tone of the K14.
So judging from my experience with the above mentioned mpc's (using an R13 clarinet) I would have to say that the dark sounding mpc is not automatically more resistant than a bright sounding mpc.
I'm sure many will disagree but some may agree.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2013-01-22 07:14
>> All other things being even, is a mouthpiece that makes a darker sound automatically more resistant than one that makes a brighter sound? <<
I would say no, but I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "all other things being even". Do you mean some specs of the mouthpieces, or the other things being player, clarinet, etc.?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2013-01-22 11:06
Yes, to some extent.
I notice that darker sounding mouthpieces tend to have thicker (wider) rails. Perhaps that has something to do with it.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JHowell
Date: 2013-01-22 13:53
I think dark vs. bright is a different continuum from resistance. I have a Zinner-based Johnston that is very free, and a Riffault-based Johnston that is very resistant, both being very dark. I have some very brilliant mouthpieces that are free-blowing, some resistant. It's been said often and correctly on this board that we don't actually blow air through the clarinet -- what we interpret as free-blowing is the reed vibrating easily and fully along with the air column. All you need is a well-executed baffle and bore that complements a well-executed facing matched with a well-suited reed and instrument -- the whole system depending on the player's quality of embouchure, facial resonance, and energy of airstream. : P
In his book Sound in Motion, David McGill talks about "squillo," the quality in an operatic voice that gives ring and projection. What some call "dark" I hear as deficient in overtones. Brightness in a clarinet mouthpiece is, I feel, an essential quality, although how much is enough varies from player to player, and a mouthpiece can also be free-blowing but deficient in depth of sound. Of course there are players who seem to be able to sound great on anything and make the whole search for the perfect mouthpiece look silly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2013-01-22 14:07
I'd say no. In my experience the 'darkness' vs. 'brightness' is mostly controlled by the total internal volume of the mouthpiece and by the baffle depth (especially at the tip); while the resistance is controlled by the degree of curvature of the facing, independent of its length.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Marcuin
Date: 2013-01-22 15:22
Hi. Dark sound often is result of harmonics cutting. Like in case of leather ligatures. Greetings
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2013-01-22 16:40
Walter, a lot of the answer to your question may depend on what you meant by "all other things being even." Are you considering only facing resistance or (I hate to question David, who certainly knows what he's talking about) the resistance/push-back/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that in my experience unarguably (IMO) can come from the internal design?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-01-22 18:26
Just going through my own angst over this right now.
I'd have to agree mostly with Mr. Spiegelthal with the possible exception that my experience also points to thick rails as adding to a less responsive articulation.
I even stumbled upon a mouthpiece with a large internal dimension that DID NOT make my high C (two ledgers above the staff) flat !!! This floored me actually since I have come to a conclusion in the last ten years that all 'flat' mouthpieces will make the twelfths too wide. Why it doesn't seem to be the case with and old Eddie Daniels I am playing on makes NO SENSE to me at all.
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2013-01-22 19:27
Gee, Walter, this is the sort of question I'd bring to YOU.
I don't think that "darkness" correlates with resistance.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2013-01-22 19:44
To follow up on my other post, I'd answer from my own experience that, while *darkness* can characterize a resistant mouthpiece, *dullness* does correlate with resistance. I can only surmise that the resistance damps the weaker partials, which tend to be the higher ones that give the sound color and character, leaving the resulting sound proportionally heavier in the fundamental and lower overtones.
But that's intuition based on listening and playing, not on any science I can defend.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-01-22 23:45
Well, a lot depends on what one considers dark and bright. I've always wondered how anyone can think it's different than what I believe is bright and dark but I have had that conversation with a few people, only a few. With that said my answer is also no, I don't think it has to have more resistance per say. Of course there will be a difference but it doesn't have to be more difficult to blow though it may require the use of more air. Sort of like having to fill a larger tube but not requiring more "push". OK, now I've confused the issue but that's what I think. My experience in my teaching years is that when a student gets a MP that plays darker for them but has added resistance they end up using a softer reed after a few months to get the comfort level back to where it used to be and end up losing the darkness they were trying to add in the first place. In a case like that one has to work at it and get used to the more resistance till it becomse comfortable if that's the case.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bethmhil
Date: 2013-01-23 02:10
Though I am not as experienced with this as most others on this BBoard, this is interesting to me at this very moment...
I have a Gennusa mouthpiece that is extremely dark & resonant. I would say it is quite resistant to loud dynamics, yet it isn't resistant in the least bit to articulation & response... it's a strange creature.
Just today in fact, I have been comparing a new Vandoren M30 to my own M13 Lyre. I am becoming charmed by the M30, because it has this warm, rounded sound, yet it is still free-blowing. My M13 Lyre is considerably brighter and thinner... and is much more resistant.
So, I guess my vote is that dark does not always equal resistant...
BMH
Illinois State University, BME and BM Performance
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2013-01-23 12:41
Well, that's been the elephant in the room since Walter started this thread. He was there on Klarinet through those battles. I suspect he hoped this train wouldn't get diverted onto that siding. 
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-01-23 12:50
I think you're right, Karl, and that's why I held off until people had a chance to give constructive answers. But nevertheless, the elephant's around here somewhere and he's raising his trunk to blow a nice dark tone ....
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2013-01-23 16:14
(Disclaimer - I sell bright and dark Chedeville(R) mouthpieces with low to high resistance)
I woud like to look back at the Klarinet battles but have no spare time and have my own set of experimentally determined frequency patterns that distinguish for most people the difference between bright and dark (if one can give any sort of universal definition).
An interesting though however is that in evolution our brains process even harmonic series frequencies better than odd so bright may be just our brain processing the sound in a greater degree than the frequency series which we associate with "Dark" sounding frequency patterns. This evolutionary trait is documented by many animals processing more easily with high pitch even frequency patterns made by their young in distress calls.
In my opinion resistance is part of the process of producing sound with a mouthpiece but not the most important.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
www.chedevillemp.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2013-01-23 17:08
The Doctor wrote:
>
> An interesting though however is that in evolution our brains
> process even harmonic series frequencies better than odd so
> bright may be just our brain processing the sound in a greater
> degree than the frequency series which we associate with "Dark"
> sounding frequency patterns.
Can you clarify this a little? Especially "our brain processing the sound in a greater degree than the frequency series which we associate with 'Dark'
sounding frequency patterns."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-01-23 17:47
I had a student many years ago that also studied with Anthony Gigiliotti and insisted that his tone was dark and my tone was bright. I think the discussion started when I told him his tone was very bright and need to be "warmed" up and made more mellow. Many years later he wrote me and told me he now feels I was right. He's a professional but I won't mention who it is, he's a very fine player.
I've some times discribed a bright tone as a piccolo as Bob above said and a darker sound as a tuba. I can't even imagine a bright tuba sound or a dark piccolo sound. Same as the upper part of a piano keyboard and the lower portion of the key board. One is mellow while the other is "bright".
Again, I don't think one needs to have more resistance to get a darker tone but one has to change something in their tone production to accure a darker tone. A different MP as well as changing something in the way they produce their tone. Tongue position, embouchure, use of their throat, and breath support. They also have to change the type or style reed they use. Just simply changing the MP will not make a persons tone darker for the long haul.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2013-01-23 23:47
I seem to be able to change the tone from bright to dark on my 1955 full boehm R13 by simply raising or lowering the reed. The mouthpiece is a Grabner AWS PER.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-01-24 00:25
One more thought.
Back-in-the-day (before the omnipresence of Otto Link mouthpieces) jazz sax players (is there any other kind?) used to get an edgier sound by placing a wad of bubble gum onto the baffles of their mouthpieces. Clearly this wouldn't change the resistance, only the 'brightness' of the sound.
Any one can go ahead and check this out if they want. Kinda beats gauging out the baffle to your favorite mouthpiece (irreversible) to experiment with the opposite affect.
........................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-01-24 01:25
Paul Aviles wrote:
> One more thought.
>
>
> Back-in-the-day (before the omnipresence of Otto Link
> mouthpieces) jazz sax players (is there any other kind?) used
> to get an edgier sound by placing a wad of bubble gum onto the
> baffles of their mouthpieces.
Before Coleman Hawkins? or the omnipresent jazz saxophonists of the 30's?
Most of those dusty saxophonists used low-baffle/large-chambet OttoLinks, but we don't have much recorded evidence before Hawk.
And 'Trane was the most acknowledge saxophonist to use an artificial clay baffle in his 'Link piece.
but I don't see what this explicitly has to do with the clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-01-24 08:19
What you can do with your clarinet is see if a "brighter" mouthpiece with spearmint is more responsive than without. Sorta the opposite of what we were asked. I contend you CAN change the sound without affecting resistance........no problem. Many seem to be saying that a larger tip opening is what we're talking about but that seem too simplistic for me, and not to the point.
And yes, in the spirit of full disclosure I HATE the saxophone and everything it stands for.
................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2013-01-24 08:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-01-25 20:03
What does the saxophone stand for? In the nineteenth century the violin was the Devil's instrument.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-01-25 22:29
I hate to ask what you think of the electric guitar.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-01-25 23:31
Back to the question, I think Ralph Morgan thought the slim beak in the Langenus duckbill style gave a rather free blowing mouthpiece that wasn't too bright.
He also reduced the thickness of the wall between beak and inner chamber . ie where you put your teeth and the inside of the chamber to make it less resistant. It seems this approach might be right in one respect but not a lot of players gravitated to this style of mouthpiece.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2013-01-26 14:21
>>Back to the question, I think Ralph Morgan thought the slim beak in the Langenus duckbill style gave a rather free blowing mouthpiece that wasn't too bright. >>
Jane Feline here. Normally I don't like to butt in on my servants' Internet chats -- the humans need their little entertainments -- but I happened to be sitting on the computer just now while Lelia was reading this thread, and I must say, really, none of these mousepieces are very bright, no matter how they're manufactured.
You see, I decided to find out whether there was anything valid at all in the superstitions of my erstwhile ghostly mentor, Ms. Shadow Cat, who averred over and over that the clarinet was the minion of the Vacuum Cleaner Devil and that it someday it might summon the Garbage Truck Demon into the house and similar nonsense. But on the off-chance that the clarinet or the mousepiece might contain some sort of living entity, I did the experiment.
I made numerous attempts to communicate with the clarinet when Lelia wasn't playing on it. I miaowed in every Cat language on the planet. I even tried speaking to the clarinet in Dog (ugh!) and, based on that word, "beak," I even tried several dialects of Bird. Nothing. Same with the mousepieces alone. Even when I severely abused them to the point of physically damaging them, I never got so much as one squeak from those beaks.
That beak has nothing to say except what a clarinet player says through it. It's a sort of recording device, I suppose. Without a clarinet player, it's an inanimate object. If it's a beak, it's the beak of nothing more than a mechanical parrot.
The mousepieces make reasonably entertaining practice prey, yes, but -- not very bright? Not bright at all. Not even sentient.
Yip!
Jane Feline
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-01-27 18:00
My dog suggested that Ralph Morgan's comments might have been euphemistic. He might have thought the duckbill mouthpieces were dumb. Whether they are sentient I have no idea. I'm not sure I'm sentient.
Arnoldstang and Dogstang
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2013-01-27 21:36
I also have opinions on the "duckbill." It seems to me that the slimmer beak (given one good spot to place your embouchure and given a certain tip opening and length of lay) would only affect how open your jaw is when playing (making it slightly less open for the duckbill).
Perhaps there may be more "resonance" since there is less material in the mouthpiece itself in the Morgan description above, but again, this wouldn't affect how free blowing a mouthpiece is. That stuff MUST be determined by dimensions that are actually encountered by the flow of air (size and shape of the rails and chamber).
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-01-28 00:04
Speaking from my own experience and not just theory I found his "duckbill" mouthpieces to be as he described. Perhaps it was my bias but it did seem to bear out what he said. I played his clarinet and sax mouthpieces for some time.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-02-03 02:08
Well it's time for Walter Grabner to chime in. What do you think on this matter?
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NotMe
Date: 2013-02-03 03:23
Dark is in the ear of the listener.
Bright is in the eye of the spectrum analysis.
Resistance is felt in the mouth of the beholder.
Walter will likely reply with a mouthpiece, not prose.
Or I am mistaken.
-Long time reader, first time writer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2013-02-03 22:15
Walter did say he would be interested in the responses. I'd be interested in his.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2013-02-04 19:52
To try to answer this question, I went to Walter’s website to see if the answer could be discovered in his ads.
From his website:
“If you want a mouthpiece that can open up and play jazz or Klezmer, you should try the CXZ_K14!” “The CXZ_K14 is a free-blowing mouthpiece with a broad, singing sound. It works great for jazz, klezmer, and other popular styles.”
I’ve listened to klezmer and its sound, to me, is full of “harmonics”. However, from Walter’s ad, I don’t necessarily interpret the K14’s “bright” sound as being less resistant because the K14 requires a softer reed for his stated “brassy sound” and his stated “free-blowing”, ‘broad, singing sound” is an indication (to me) that the throat is slightly wider. (My understanding is that widening the throat lowers or reduces the resistance while broadening or spreading the tone.)
However, Walter also states: “Put a #3 ½ on and you can play Mozart or Mendelssohn with the Symphony.” So, it appears that one can “darken” the sound by increasing the strength of the reed. (Which, I sense, many of you know from your own personal experience?) Increasing the strength of the reed will, of course, increase the resistance of the set-up.
Also from Walter’s website:
Concerning the CXZ_AW_PERS, Walter describes this mouthpiece as being “Warm, dark, and deep” and follows this with “It offers a deep, dark tone with, perhaps, less projection but much warmth”. He later reaffirms: “Less projection, but more warmth.”
Now, I have looked at Walter’s “comparison chart” and all of his mouthpieces require at least a 3.5 reed except the K14 which can use soft reeds as well as harder reeds.
However, the “Less projection…” comment, IMO, can bring about a “perceived” increased in resistance when a player tries to increase the tone output level of his “Personal” mouthpiece, which I interpret as having angled side walls, to the level of his K14. (Simply restated, I believe any mouthpiece which produces a lower output level could easily be perceived as having a higher “resistance” level.)
So, after reviewing all of the above, my response to Walter’s posted question with “all other things being equal” is simply “No”.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
