Author: Clarimellonet
Date: 2018-11-20 00:29
shmuelyosef wrote:
> This is quite interesting to me...I have noted that as design
> has moved to smaller bores, so have the mouthpieces become
> smaller-bore. In general, if one plays larger bore instruments
> (I am partial to Selmer CTs and Series 9) generally obtainable
> mouthpieces have smaller bores than the input to the barrel. Do
> you know if these large-bore clarinets were purposefully
> designed to use smaller bore mouthpieces? Even period
> mouthpieces from the 40s, 50s and 60s (20th century) appear to
> be <15mm for the most part. Clark Fobes San Francisco series is
> one of the few modern pieces to be found right at 15mm exit
> bore, but even this is smaller than the barrel inputs on the
> CTs.
>
This is a bit beyond my scope of knowledge, since I don't do much with building modern clarinets except for the odd reface here or there. However, I would assume that the big bore CT (I think I remember them being around 15.00 according to the original specs) would perform ideally with a big bore mouthpiece that matched the bore exactly. The Selmer "Oval" mouthpiece in my collection clocks right in a 15.00 so I'd assume that was the original intention there. The Kaspars (Frank L, Frank Chicago, and Frank Cicero I have examples of all of them) in my collection certainly have smaller bores, but are still wider at the exit bore than the stock barrels on my Buffet R13s. I believe this is one of the reasons Hans Moennig designed specific barrels to facilitate a smooth transition between the mouthpiece and top joint, a synthesis of German and French bores and resistance. Personally, my main modern instruments are Herbert Wurlitzer 185 Reform Boehms from the 80's (made the year I was born actually), so I don't deal much with French instruments anymore.
This brings up an interesting question of resistance and velocity that is applicable to 18th century instruments. The two most famous makers at the end of the 18th century were Theodor Lotz of Vienna (most famous for the basset clarinet that Stadler used) and August Grenser of Dresden. While there are numerous differences in their designs in terms of tone hole placement, conical taper in the bell, etc, the most striking difference is in the mouthpieces and their relations to the bore. The one surviving Lotz instrument in Geneva has a bore of 15.00 and a mouthpiece bore of 15.00, and the nine surviving basset horns are similar as well, with bores and mouthpieces at 15.50. Viennese clarinets by Tauber, Griesbacher, etc have similar dimensions and the mouthpieces always match the bores. As a result, Viennese instruments have relatively long barrels to compensate, and the tone holes are relatively low on the instrument body, allowing them to be proportionally larger. In comparison, the Dresden instruments are completely different. August and Heinrich Grenser clarinets measure around 14.40 with mouthpieces coming in at 15.00 to 15.20 creating the "step" I mentioned above. As a result, the barrels are shorter, the tone holes are more spread out, and smaller, and the sound is a bit "brighter" as compared to the Viennese instruments. While the Viennese instruments have less resistance and a "darker" sound owing to the big bore and corresponding mouthpiece which itself has a straight bore, the Dresden instruments with a smaller bore and slightly conical chamber in the mouthpieces have more "projection" and can fill a larger room. However one should note that both of these designs were perfectly acceptable and produced stellar instruments that laid the groundwork for future makers. Again, there is no one right answer for mouthpiece acoustics as I'm sure makers far more knowledgeable than me would attest to.
Thomas Carroll
Historical Clarinets and Chalumeaux
http://carrollclarinet.com
lotzofgrenser@gmail.com
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
